Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ โ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐โ โ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ John Stossel asked a simple question: do you want America to be like Sweden? The Left keeps saying yes. A Swedish-born economist says you have no idea what youโre asking for. Fifteen... show more
13,772 Aufrufe โข vor 3 Monaten โขvia X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfรผgbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
![๐๐๐ '๐๐๐๐๐๐๐' ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐. A new working paper out of UCLA by political psychologist Samuel Pratt has just measured something American conservatives have been claiming for ten years and pretending was anecdotal. It is not anecdotal. It is now data. Pratt and his team built what they call the ๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ซ๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ โ a survey instrument asking respondents how strongly they agree with statements like "๐ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ด๐ค๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ." Three findings. ๐๐ง๐: the belief is stable over time. People who say it this week say it next week. ๐๐ฐ๐จ: the demographic profile of high-scorers is precise. They are ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ , ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐, ๐ง๐จ๐ง-๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ญ๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ. They self-rate as higher in intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and โ the key variable โ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฌ. ๐๐ก๐ซ๐๐: they report lower emotional stability, higher anxiety, higher depression, and a stronger tendency to see themselves as ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฌ in everyday conflicts. In one sentence, the psychometric profile of the modern American "empathy advocate" is: ๐๐ง๐ฑ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ, ๐๐๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐, ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ-๐๐จ๐๐๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ-๐๐๐ง๐ฌ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ. ๐๐จ๐ฐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ข๐ง ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ Watch California Congresswoman Katie Porter at last week's gubernatorial debate, in real time, demonstrating how the empathy mechanism produces atrocious policy. "๐๐ง ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฎ๐บ ๐ค๐ญ๐ข๐ด๐ด [...] ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฏ๐ช๐ข ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ถ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ." Empathetic. Reassuring. Compassionate. Also flatly false. Per CBS News' 2020 Los Angeles survey, only ๐๐% of homeless individuals had done any work in the calendar quarter they became homeless. A 2017 San Francisco survey found ๐๐% working part-time or full-time. The reason is no mystery โ a substantial majority of street-homeless Americans are managing untreated severe mental illness, active substance abuse, or both. The "empathetic" policy that emerges from Porter's framing is to leave them on the street. The actually humane policy involves involuntary commitment, mandated treatment, and structured housing โ every one of which the empathy-coded liberal reflexively rejects as cruel. Pratt's data and the on-the-ground reality converge on the same uncomfortable conclusion: ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ, ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฌ, because empathy at scale stops asking ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ด and starts asking ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ ๐ค๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฅ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ง๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ How does a fringe view โ communist Twitch streamers, candidates openly excusing full-scale mโrder, congressmen calling themselves democratic socialists โ capture an entire major American political party? Nassim Taleb has the cleanest explanation. He calls it ๐ซ๐๐ง๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. A family of four. One daughter โ ๐๐% of the household โ only eats organic. Mom faces a nightly choice: cook two meals or cook one all-organic meal. The all-organic meal is easier. The household renormalizes to the daughter's preference. The family then attends a barbecue with three other families. The host has the same choice: two menus, or one all-organic. The all-organic menu is easier. ๐๐% renormalizes ๐๐๐% of dinner. Now imagine the daughter's "preference" is not organic food. It is the belief that bank robbery is righteous, that Israel is a colonial regime which must be dismantled, that your health insurance executive should be eliminated by force, and that anyone who objects is a fascist. The mechanism is identical. The intransigent minority creates an asymmetric cost on resistance. The majority renormalizes for convenience. French physicist ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ has modeled the threshold formally. In his work on opinion dynamics, an extreme view captures a population at roughly ๐๐% activated support โ provided the activists do three things consistently. They activate latent prejudices already present in the population. They impose a binary choice: "๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ." And they refuse, ever, to compromise on their core position. Pseudo-moderates then join โ not because they have been persuaded by the full activist position, but because the binary has been imposed and the alternative ("siding with the oppressor") has been made socially intolerable. ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐ค๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐๐๐ญ This is the most important paragraph in this post. Read it twice. Hasan Piker โ the Twitch streamer who endorses bank robberies, defends H-m-s, and lives in a $3 million Brentwood mansion โ is ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐. He represents maybe 5-7% of the country. He does not move the needle by himself. The threat is the ๐ฉ๐ฌ๐๐ฎ๐๐จ-๐ฆ๐จ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ โ the ๐๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ด reporter who profiles him sympathetically, the Democratic congressman who appears on his stream, the Hollywood actor who shares his clips, the Brooklyn schoolteacher who attends his rallies, the empathetic college freshman who decides he is "๐ข ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ, ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ช๐ด ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต." That coalition โ Galam's ๐๐% โ is what flips the country. Hasan is just the visible 5%. This is also why Pratt's UCLA paper matters. The trait that creates the pseudo-moderate flank is the same trait the activists exploit: ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ, ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฌ. That is the recruitable population. That is the lever Hasan and his industry operate. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐
๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ Empathy is not a virtue. It is a ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ. Like physical sensitivity to heat, it can produce wisdom or it can produce hysteria, depending entirely on what is paired with it. What converts empathy into wisdom is ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ โ the willingness to evaluate consequences, to insist on results, to ask whether the policy that "feels compassionate" actually produces outcomes you would call humane in a year, a decade, or a lifetime. What converts empathy into tyranny is the ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ง๐๐ of judgment โ pure feeling, with no constraint, in service of a binary moral choice imposed by an activated 20%. That is the Democratic Party of 2026. The Pratt scale measures it. The Galam threshold predicts it. Katie Porter demonstrates it. Hasan Piker exploits it. ๐
๐ข๐ฑ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2050939575993069948/amplify_video_thumb/2050938608597737472/img/59L68TDVsmWi6NJz.jpg)
![This is beyond insane: Keith Kellog, Trumpโs special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, confirms that Europe will NOT have a seat at the table in the negotiations to end the war. When asked at the Munich Security Conference โCan you assure this audience that Ukrainians will be at the table and Europeans will be at the table?โ, his response was: โthe answer to that last question is no.โ By โlast questionโ, he meant whether Europeans will be at the table. Later on in the conversation, he was asked to confirm this: โSo the Europeans [...] you don't think should be at the table directly?โ. His answer again was โIโm from the school of realism, I think thatโs not going to happenโ, and that he understood hearing this might be โlike fingers on a chalkboard, may grate a little bit but I'm telling you something that's really quite honest.โ He was very clear though that he still expected Europeans to provide security guarantees and abide by the deal: โyou have to understand, when you sign up for these security guarantees, that is an obligation and the reason I say that and I challenge many people that are out there, right now, 2014 Wales declaration, all the NATO allies, 2% of GDP, 20% of that was modernization, there are still 8 nations who've not even gotten to that number, okay? So when we get to it make sure you check your 6 as they say that the obligation is upon YOU when WE make these commitments.โ So to sum up, the US position is that Europe should stay out of negotiations that will fundamentally affect their security architecture - yet bear the primary responsibility and cost for the negotiations' outcome. And on top of that, itโs quite clear from previous Trump declarations (like here: that the U.S. will be looking in the deal to take control of Ukraineโs rare earth minerals as payment for the military aid it has provided, leaving presumably nothing to Europe. Iโve repeatedly warned that Europe was fast walking towards its own century of humiliation if it continued on its current path. I think itโs now pretty damn clear that weโre very much there already. If this goes through, this would possibly be unprecedented in European history - never before, to my knowledge, has Europe's security architecture been redrawn without any European power at the table. Even during Europe's darkest moments - including the Mongol invasions, the Ottoman expansions, or the Yalta Conference - European powers always had some voice in negotiations affecting their future. To be clear, the primary culprit here isnโt the U.S. or Trump: any student of history knows that we live in a deeply unfair world where, as ancient Greek historian Thucydides wrote 2,500 years ago, โthe strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." As such the blame lies almost entirely on us Europeans, or more precisely on our immensely incompetent leaders. And I want to stress this last point: they are literally incompetent on a millennia scale, given that they've managed to reduce Europe to a position that lacks any historical parallel, where it's expected to simply accept and implement whatever security arrangements others decide for it. Trump himself does whatโs best for the U.S. - โAmerica firstโ, remember? - and to be fair to him the Biden administration left him with a pretty bad hand. Itโs crystal clear that Russia won in Ukraine, despite all of NATOโs efforts, and as such the U.S. very much risked coming out of it looking like the loser that it objectively is. Faced with this, Trumpโs strategy clearly is to reframe this defeat into an โart of the dealโ victory by securing U.S. access to Ukraine's natural resources while offloading the costs and responsibilities of the post-war security arrangement onto Europe. Meanwhile Europe, which has failed to develop any meaningful strategic autonomy over the past decades (in fact itโs moved in the opposite direction), finds itself with little leverage to prevent this. In fact, European โleadersโ, in their treasonous meekness, are already signaling that theyโll resign themselves to their fate. Mark Rutte, NATOโs Secretary General, for instance enticed Europeans not to complain about the situation ("to my European friends, I would say, get into the debate, not by complaining that you might, yes or no, be at the table, but by coming up with concrete proposals, ideas, ramp up (defense) spending", And Keir Starmer, invited by Macron at a โcrisis summitโ in Paris to discuss the situation, said that his primary goal in the meeting would be โto ensure we keep the US and Europe together. We cannot allow any divisions in the alliance to distract from the external enemies we face.โ ( I let you appreciate the perfect illustration this provides of the very mindset that has led Europe to this unprecedented position of weakness - responding to diplomatic humiliation with calls for even more subservience. So what could Europe do? After all, it is true that they have very little leverage, mainly due to the fact that they are โprotectedโ by the very power that decided to put them on the menu instead of at the table. One idea could be to out-Trump Trump, and to angle for a deal where the U.S., not Europe, ends up the loser. They could for instance finally tell the truth about what led to the war in the first place, namely NATO expansion pushed by the U.S., as well as the U.S.-led coup in Ukraine in 2014, and dissociate themselves from this, just the way Trump is very conveniently trying to dissociate himself from his own countryโs previous policies. They could make it clear that they reject any deal that gives the U.S. access to any of Ukraine's resources, and signal to Russia that they're open to a different kind of security architecture in Europe - one that doesn't rely on U.S. leadership or NATO. After all, if Trump can say he'll make deals with Putin, why couldn't Europe do the same? They could also reach out to China, which has already made it very clear that it opposed a deal in Ukraine without Europe at the table ( and which is anyhow much better positioned to negotiate with Russia than Trump is. We could end up with a Europe freed from American tutelage for the first time since 1945, establishing a new multipolar equilibrium with China and Russia - turning Trump's attempt to exclude Europe into the very catalyst that finally enables European strategic autonomy. But this would require a level of strategic thinking that current European leaders have consistently shown themselves incapable of. Instead Iโm afraid they'll continue their current path of attempting to maintain the faรงade of transatlantic unity even as they're being openly humiliated.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1891022001177088425/ext_tw_video_thumb/1891020538526720000/pu/img/cV0YPbXkYSFNBaZm.jpg)
![The Economics of Europeโs Descent into Warmongering โ and our duty now! My speech at the European Parliament on the theme of โThe Economic Conditions of Peaceโ, Tuesday 10th June 2025 [INTRODUCTION] A year ago, I would have started this speech with a lament about the hitherto unimaginable conversion of the European Union from a Peace to a War Project. Not so today. Over the past year, warmongering has seeped into the very fabric of the Union, it has trickled into every policy, it has soaked every one of the thinktanks that generate Europeโs dominant narratives and creeds. Today, therefore, it makes no sense to lament what is now a fact: The EU is now a fully-fledged War Project โ a project that will either land us in permanent war, or it will bankrupt us further, or probably both! Europeโs military Keynesianism, I shall be arguing, is guaranteed to make Europe less safe, more unequal, weaker. Only two interesting questions remain: Why has Europe taken this road? And, now that Europe is on this war path, what is ourduty to our people, to Europeans, to Peace? Let me begin at the very beginning. [THE EU WAS DESIGNED TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE UNITED STATES] At the risk of irking Europeanists who believe in their own creation myth, let me be clear: The European Union (from its beginnings as the European Communities of Coal & Steel) was an American Construction โ a part of a US Global Plan that also comprised the Bretton Woods System, the Truman Doctrine and, of course, NATO. Yes, most Europeans hankered for no more war and no more totalitarianism. But the EU was designed in Washington DC. And it was designed specifically not as a competitive market but as a Big Business Cartel run by a democracy-free bureaucracy (also known as the European Commission) not coincidentally located a stoneโs throw from NATOโs headquarters. From 1950 on, the EU was nurtured by and in tune with the interests of the United States โ an inconvenient fact both for Europeโs self-important rulers and for Donald Trump. Looking back, a common thread runs through the entire history of the EU: its total economic dependence on the United States. Initially, the EU was deeply dependent on being part of the Dollar Zone. Then, from 1971 onwards, it was deeply dependent on the American trade deficit. So, one way or another, Europeโs deep dependence on the US was ingrained into its architecture. It will thus take much more than mere pronouncements - or a few hundred billion borrowed euros spent on weaponry - to shed Europeโs in-built dependence on the United States. The fact that the EU was, from the beginning, fashioned as a Big Business Cartel is the reason why the EU needed fixed exchange rates: Currency fluctuations destabilise any cartel, making it hard to maintain the necessary levels of collusion between its participating producers. From 1950 to 1971, the US took care of this problem on Europeโs behalf. As long as it was running a trade deficit with the United States, Europeโs cartel was embedded in the dollar zone โ its currencies tied to the dollar But, when around 1969 Europe (and Japan) started running a trade surplus with the United States, it was game over. On 15th August 1971, the Donald Trump of that era, President Richard Nixon, jettisoned Europe from the dollar zone, his Treasury Secretary cynically telling the dumbfounded Europeans: โFrom today the dollar is our currency but it is your problem!โ Two things happened next. First, to save their Big Business Cartel the Europeans scrambled to create their own fixed exchange rate regime. They tried everything: The Snake. The European Monetary System. The European Exchange Rate Mechanism. They all proved flimsy designs that speculators had no trouble crushing. So, in desperation, they created the most noxious currency the human spirit could fashion - the euro. The second development was that, as America expanded its budget and trade deficits, the Eurozone morphed into a German-led net exporting machine whose aggregate demand was subcontracted to the United States. In effect, Americaโs twin deficits operated like a huge vacuum cleaner that sucked into America Europeโs net exports as well as the European exportersโ profits which were thus invested in US Treasuries, US shares and US real estate. Thatโs how, once it was expelled from the dollar zone, Europe became addicted to the US deficits. That was what the Nixon Shock did: It converted Europeโs utter reliance on living within the dollar zone into an even greater dependence on the US deficits. [NEVER MISSING A CHANCE TO MISS AN OPPORTUNITY] Here in Brussels they love the expression that Europe progresses from crisis to crisis. Thatโs another delusion. The crisis of 2008 was our greatest opportunity to render the European Union viable, and to end its deep dependence on the United States. ยท The French and German banks went bankrupt. ยท The Eurozoneโs impossible rules were in tatters. ยท A domino effect, beginning with Greece, was bankrupting our governments. It was the perfect opportunity to transform the EU from a Big Business Cartel, inherently reliant on the US for its aggregate demand, into a functional, internally balanced federation. Instead, Europeโs radical centre (both the centre right and the centre left) decided that they would change everything so as to ensure that nothingchanges. In this vein, they did their worst: Universal austerity for the many. And frantic money printing for the financiers and Big Business. What happens when you crush the incomes of the many and hand over trillions to the very few? Since the many are too poor to buy high value added goods, business stops investing in productive capital โโ while the rich use the free cash to push through the roof house prices, share prices, Bitcoin prices, art, asset prices in general. The natural result is soul-crushing levels of inequality and deep popular discontent. The people got desperate. They even voted for radical progressives like me to enter the Eurogroup! Then, in horror, Brussels and Frankfurt overthrew us, or made Mr Tsipras overthrow his own government, using not the tanks, as they did in Greece in 1967, but the banks โ not that much of a difference really! A coup dโ รฉtat is a coup dโ รฉtat. [TWO SYMBIOTIC AUTHORITARIANISMS] Guess what happened next: Just as in the mid-war period, xenophobic ultra-rightists rose up from the woodwork. They proved a godsent for the shockingly unpopular radical centre whose politicians could now say to voters: It is us or them! But it was equally a godsent for the ultra-right who needed the radical centre to impose the austerity policies which created the discontent which fuelled the anger that delivered the ultra-right votes. To put it differently, if Macron and Le Pen had any sense, they would each keep a framed picture of the other on their bedside tables, saying a little prayer in their hated opponentโs name every night before going to sleep. [SMOKE AND MIRRORS] Liberal Totalitarianism and Ultra-Right-Xenophobic Totalitarianism are accomplices, they feed off each other. Meanwhile, austerity for the many and money printing for the few depletes Europeโs productive foundations, its social fabric, its sense of purpose. Thatโs how the European Union lost any legitimacy it had in the eyes of the public. Sensing this, the Liberal Totalitarians in charge came up with one failed Grand Initiative after another. Who can forget the eminently forgettable Juncker investment plan, the Banking Union, the Green Deal, or the Draghi Report that has now joined them in Historyโs Dustbin? Impressive numbers were announced that, alas, dependably failed to materialise. It was inevitable. As long as our rulers said NO to the political union that could sustain a proper, macroeconomically significant, eurobond, the money to fund the necessary investment could never materialise. Even when they โ finally โ during the pandemic โ did issue common debt, they ended up with common liabilities but no common purpose. Every Grand Initiative ever announced was a dance with failure, smoke and mirrors by which they disguised Europeโs nakedness. The result? After fifteen years of ZERO NET PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENT, ยท Germany is deindustrialising fast, and along with it Eastern and Central Europe, Austria, Northern Italy ยท Political paralysis grows on the back of fiscal pressures ยท Neofascism and xenophobia are rising up everywhere ยท Europeโs dependence on the United States grows stronger at the time Donald Trump is cutting Europe loose ยท The Rest of the World looks at Europe as a sad case of what could have been, an irritating irrelevance. In this sad context, our great and good leaders had another woeful idea for a Grand Initiative: Now that the Green Deal is dead-in-the-water and the Recovery Fund is spent, why not try Military Keynesianism? [THE FOLLY OF MILITARY KEYNESIANISM] Ladies and Gentlemen, Military Keynesianism works in the United States because America has the federal institutions, the monetary sovereignty, the fiscal power, the technostructure, and the common procurement process that are essential in implementing Military Keynesianism. Europe has none of that, nor does it have leaders interested in acquiring any of that. This is why Military Keynesianism cannot work in Europe. Thank goodness it canโt work, I say! For if it could work, Europe would have to emulate the United States in starting a war every year so that the stocks of ammunition, missiles et al could be depleted sufficiently to justify the new colossal orders necessary to maintain Military Keynesianism. Nevertheless, while Europeโs Military Keynesianism cannot and should not work, it serves a purpose โ it is a kind of a solution for, say, Volkswagen: Now that Volkswagen can no longer sell its cars, it hands over whole production lines to Rheinmetall to produce Leopard tanks which von der Leyen makes Greece and Italy buy even though we neither want nor need them. Yes, Military Keynesianism will fail Europe badly, but not before it further bankrupts our states and throws more fuel onto the fire burning down lives and dreams in Ukraineโs killing fields. So, let me be frank: ยท No really-existing enemy of Europe shakes in his boots watching a stagnating, heavily indebted Europe, invest billions in weaponry. Quite the opposite! ยท Military Keynesianism will end up as Europeโs New Austerity for the many and a new money spinner for the few. ยท It will make Europe weaker while prolonging the Ukraine War in a manner that is detrimental to the stated aim of supporting Ukraine. [EUROPEโS SURRENDER TO NATO, ITS ROLE IN UKRAINE] It is at this point that angry yelps will rise up from the press gallery. Canโt you hear them ask: "โIs Russia not ante portas?โ โIs Europe not in danger?โ โShould Europe remain defenceless, especially now that Trump is abandoning Europe?โ My answer is clear: Weakening ourselves economically through a Military Keynesianism that constitutes the New Austerity which will, with mathematical precision, diminish Europe further is no way to make Europe stronger! And lest we forget, Europe already has 1.5m men and women in uniform while, over the past decade, we spent โฌ2.7 trillion on defence โ a period during which our net productive investment was zero! Now, NATO demands that we spend three times as much - which is totally insane, given how wastefully that โฌ2.7 trillion was spent. In this light, surrendering our foreign and defence policies to NATO, and sinking further in unsustainable debt just to satisfy President Trumpโs demands for more military spending, is the surest way of making Europe more dependent, less secure, uglier and sadder. In this context, the powers-that-be here in Brussels are anxiously trying to keep their jobs and boost their budgets by spreading the lie that NATO had to expand in order to deter Russian aggression โ when it is exactly the other way round: Like the Mafia, NATO expanded to create insecurity in order to sell us protection! Does this mean that Putin was right to invade the Ukraine? Of course not. What it means is that NATO and Putin are accomplices โ that they needed one another in their joint bid for a confrontation that strengthened both โ at Europeโs expense. It also means that anyone truly interested in Europeโs security and prosperity 1. must dispel the lie that Russia is about to invade us โ it canโt even if it wants to 2. must work tirelessly to kill Europeโs Military Keynesianism, and 3. must work toward a European Peace Process which uses Russiaโs confiscated monies not as a piggybank for more useless Leopard tanks and Leonardo missiles but as a bargaining chip to end the Ukraine War in the context of a comprehensive EU-Russia Peace Treaty. As for the politicians in this town who will not rest until they see Russia on its knees, I have this to say to them: If you really wanted to weaken Russia, to bring Russia to its knees, you should have worked hard to admit Russia into theโฆ Eurozone. In one fell swoop the euro would have wrecked Russiaโs productive basis, it would have indebted its people and its state, it would have made its leaders rush to Brussels and to Frankfurt with begging bowl in hand! You think I am joking. But there is too much truth in this joke for comfort! To sum up my argument so far, Europeโs economic stagnation was the product of its total dependence on the American deficits. This dependence yielded Europeโs complicity with the decade-long American project of inciting a war in Ukraine. And now that the US is decoupling, our rulers โ resembling decapitated chickens โ are running around without their heads screwed on, struggling to find ways of continuing to impede Peace in Ukraine so as to use military funds to prop up Europeโs faltering Big Business Cartel. [WHATโS BEHIND EUROPEโS ETHICAL DECAY: GAZA, TOTALITARIANISM] Ladies and Gentlemen, as we speak here today, Europe is falling headlong into another ethical void: complicity in the Palestinian genocide. It is not just the embarrassment, also known as Mrs Ursula von der Leyen, posing like a cheerleader of Israelโs genocidal army in front of its tanks hours before they stormed Gaza. No, the European Union is not merely complicit due to our subservience to the United States. No, the European Union is also enabling, it is in fact funding, the war criminals of its own accord. Directly. Cynically. With no compunction. ยท BNP PARIBAS and ALLIANZ underwrite the issues of the Israeli government bonds that fund the Israeli meatgrinder in the Palestinian Occupied Territories ยท MAERSK is the prime transporter of the military machine at work in Gaza ยท Since 2007, the European Union has channelled โฌ2 billion of research funding to Israeli entities producing the means by which Palestinians are ethnically cleansed, targeted, murdered and maimed. But there is something even scarier going on: Some of our top institutions depend financially on backing Israelโs genocide. If Europe were to do its duty and sanction Israel, the Technical University of Munich stands to lose โฌ195.4 million from the EUโs HORIZON program which funds the University to carry out joint research with Israeli institutions. Ladies and Gentlemen, Europe carries an enormous guilt. The pogroms against the Jews started here, in Europe. Europeans carried out genocides across Africa, in the Americas, in Australia. By forming the EU as a Peace Project, we claimed a chance to make amends for Europeโs past genocides. However, our dependence on the US and our ruling classโs penchant to profit from imperialism have made this impossible โ and so Europeโs hands are, again, covered in the blood of innocents, in Gaza, in Ukraine, in the Sudan, in Libya, in Yemen, in Syria. It has also brought totalitarianism back into our midst, here in Europe. When the German authorities banned me from entering Germany for the crime of co-organising with German Jews a conference on the theme of โA Just Peace in the Middle Eastโ, they were making a point: To them, letting the rivers of Palestinian blood flow unimpeded represented their chance of washing off their hands the guilt over the Holocaust, over the other German genocide in Namibia, of Belgiumโs crimes against humanity in the Congoโฆ It is, therefore, a clear warning to us: Economic stagnation begets warmongering which begets a revived European white settler mentality. This Europe has fallen so far into a moral crevice that it cannot easily climb out of it. Europeโs Liberal Totalitarianism, which we in Greece experienced in all its horror ten years ago, is now everywhere โ and it is throwing wide open the gates through which Xenophobic Ultra-Right Totalitarianism arrives to darken our doorstep. The time to rise up against both forms of totalitarianism is now. On behalf of the peoples of Europe. [WHAT MUST WE DO?] So, what must we do? Let us begin by grasping that: ยท The economic condition for Peace is to de-couple Europe's economy from America's wars! ยท But for that we must end, once and for all, Europeโs dependence on the United States. ยท This entails ending Europeโs dependence on net exports to America. ยท Which means rebalancing Europeโs internal economy through o new productive green investments, o an end to structural austerity o an end to the madness of cartel-infested electricity โmarketsโ o a new monetary commons by which to end the bankersโ monopoly over payments and to institute a personal dividend for all o a new EU-China deal that liberates us from Americaโs agenda of intensifying a pointless New Cold War at our expense. Only by transforming Europeโs political economy can we end the never-ending fragmentation which breeds war, totalitarianism and the embarrassment of being led by cheerleaders of genocide and permanent war with Russia, like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. How can we accomplish that? In two ways. First, we need a Credible Plan for a Europe worth fighting for. Second, we must organise a campaign of civil and governmental disobedience in our countries and, potentially, in the European Council until our Plan for Europe gets a chance. We, DiEM25, have worked for a decade on this Plan โ our Green New Deal for Europe โ and are happy to share it with you, so that you can refine, revise, adapt it. You, the 5S Movement and other parties eager to partake across Europe, have the organisation that we lack so that, together with our MERA25 transnational parties, we can together help organise the campaign of civil and governmental disobedience without which nothing will change, nothing will impede Europeโs, Italyโs, Greeceโs, indeed Germanyโs secular decline. [CONCLUSION] So, to conclude, seventy-five years of this European Union teach us that we face a stark choice. A choice between a Dependent-on-the-United States, Warmongering, Stagnating Europe. Or an Independent, Non-Aligned, Prosperous, Green Europe. A choice between a von der Leyen-type Commission that greenlights genocide, impedes Peace, illegally deletes her Pfizer chat history, lobbies for Lockheed Martin, and borrows money we canโt repay to buy weaponry we do not need - while condemning People and Planet to impecunity. Or European Institutions optimised against raw power and in favour of common prosperity. A choice between being at the beck and call of the boardrooms of Rheinmetall, Leonardo and Pfizer, blind to the tax havens where war profits and tax fraud hide, while our coastguards turn refugees into corpses. Or a Europe of rational, that is a radical, humanism. To even have this choice, our immediate task must be to end war, to end genocide and to terminate before it is too late the New Austerity going by the name of Military Keynesianism.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1933459747866316884/amplify_video_thumb/1933456380167364608/img/Up__hbhEoJPhHmsi.jpg)
![EU gave โฌ225 million to projects in #Gaza between 2021-2023, a place that was under the full control of #Hamas since 2006. How much of the EU money given to projects in Gaza ended up in the hands and pockets of this terrorist organisation? I asked Commissioner Olivรฉr Vรกrhelyi this and other questions in the Budgetary Control committee on October 26, 2023. Watch and share this video along with the transcript. MEP Cristian Terheศ: "Thank you so much. Before I go into my questions I just want to make a note that this committee has on paper 55, 54 MEPs, and we are in this room, right now, only five [MEPs] and two over there. I think it is outrageous that, for an important topic like this, that is discussing about how the Commission is spending or wasting people's money, apparently the Left is not interested in see[ing] what exactly and how exactly people's money was spent. Going back to the questions, I have six specific questions. The first one is related to the books printed under the supervision or under the authority of the Palestinian Authority. And I saw, I carefully read the answer from the European Commission, which pretty much acknowledged that there was a problem, and I restate that, that there was, in the past, a problem with these books. And the answer says that "EU has stepped up its engagement with the Palestinian Authority to ensure that further curriculum reform addresses problematic issues identified in the shortest possible timeframe". So the "further curriculum" will address this issue. Well, here's an example of a book. This is a literature book for the fifth grade that is used in the UNRWA schools. In this book, this is what the Arab kids are learning. If you're not aware of who this person is, her name is Dalal Mughrabi. On March the 11th, 1978, along with other terrorists, [she] hijacked two busses. And when the Israeli authorities tried to free those people, they blew themselves up and killed 38 Israelis, including 13 children, and over 70 people were wounded. So how is it possible that now, in 2023, and I'm not talking about past booksโฆ This is 2023. These kids are still learning that this is a role model for them. And now, out of the blue, we are surprised that people are blowing themselves up and killing innocent people. I'm not interested what are you going to do in the future. I hope that you will do something and we will make sure that you will do something. But what have you done so far to make sure that these Arab kids, these Palestinian kids are not indoctrinated with this kind of evil figures? The second question is about the "Pay for Slay". #PayForSlay According to the Palestinian law if a Palestinian person is killing a Jew, his or her family is getting a pension. So we are rewarding terrorist activities. And this was done for years. A few years ago, when Trump was president, a U.S. military guy was killed in one of these terror attacks. And U.S. Congress passed a law called "Taylor Force Act", which is conditioning any U.S. money for the Palestinian Authority to make sure that these families of the terrorists are not getting reimbursed for life after these terror activities. Why arenโt we imposing exactly the same rules? Because, according to the answer from the Commission, we are paying pension and pensions to these people. Third question, the issue of Gaza. According to your official answer, you're stating, and I quote: "Between 2021 and [20]23, EU funded โฌ681 million for the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA. A third of this money went to Gaza." A third means โฌ225 million from 2021 to 2023. But we know for a fact that in 2005, when Israel withdrew from Gaza, after 2006 or [200]7, Gaza is under the control of Hamas. You said here that you will run a survey or whatever, an analysis to see how the money was spent. What have you done already? Hamas was called, and recognized and acknowledged as a terrorist organisation. How was it possible to pour โฌ225 million in a place that is fully controlled by a terrorist organisation and nobody did anything or said anything? It is absolutely absurd! Forth question. Following reports about stealing of pipelines for rocket production and fuel for hospitals, to what extent can the European Commission or the Court of Auditors verify or assess the damage caused to EU and European funded projects in Gaza? Fifth question. Following news that Hamas is directing money for social allowances to members of this terrorist organisation, how do you verify that such money gets to those really in need? Nevertheless, following reports about control of Hamas of the teacher unions and UNRWA workers union, what are the steps you are taking to verify that EU money for UNRWA is not used to serve Hamas agenda? Thank you." Commissioner Olivรฉr Vรกrhelyi: "Madam Chair. I want to assure all the participating members of this committee that I very much appreciate their presence and their engagement with us. And I think that this is very important that we have this discussion, no matter how many members of the committee are here. Now, first of all, on the Gaza project. Let me make it very clear what has been done in Gaza since 2006 when the IDF and Israel has left the Gaza Strip. I fully agree with you. The control and the governance of that strip has been de facto exercised by the Hamas. Unfortunately! And it was for that reason that all institution financing activity has been stopped and it is for that reason that only projects of public interest have been continued in the Gaza Strip. Now, with the emergence of the horror that we have seen instigated by Hamas, the review also has a very clear message to those projects that we have tried for many, many years to create for the benefit of the people in Gaza, like the Gas for Gaza project or the desalination plant creating fresh water for the people in the Gaza Strip or building a new hospital in the Gaza Strip, that are on hold. And it is not possible even physically to continue on those projects. And we will have to wait until the end of this war to see what engagement would still be considered in the in the Gaza area, if feasible. Now, in relation to the broader question of the review, what is the timeline? The timeline is that we are already doing it. We have a methodology established and our review is carried out by the whole House, mainly the DG Near, but also other parts of the Commission, DG Budget and also the other external family members of the Commission. The result of the review is going to be presented to the College [of Commissioners]. So the College is going to take the conclusions of these findings and they will be, I very much hope, endorsed by the College. In terms of its cost, we do not foresee any additional cost for this, and we want to act rapidly because, as I said, given the very fragile security situation, we have to act immediately to filter out all those who have, even indirectly, participated or contributed to the violence that we have seen emerge. Now, when it comes to the textbooks, to be honest with you, it's very difficult to answer your question because this is the question I have been putting since the very beginning of my mandate. How is it possible to embed hatred and nurture hatred in textbooks? How is it possible to teach kids to hate? How is it possible? And we have been sitting down several times with the Palestinian Authority. We have run a study that came to the same conclusion as you have. And we have had difficult discussions also in this House. But now I see that there is a change in the position of this House, which is, I think, very important. And it is not only very important, but we took very, very careful note of a request from the Parliament, because there is also a request adopted by the plenary, to look into this issue. And this is what we are going to do and this issue will have to be addressed. The result that we have achieved was that we have raised the issue with the Palestinian Authority, and I don't think there's disagreement between us and them that this is an issue. Second, we are working very closely with our partners in UNRWA. I'm very sad to see that this is a training material or education material that you have shown today, which is used by UNRWA, because UNRWA was the one who not only was able to talk about this problem, but undertook commitments with us to eradicate any material, any views expressed, including on social media or in the territories of the schools of this kind, glorification of terrorists, glorification of hatred, anti-Semitism. And this is why we have concluded a three year financing contract with UNRWA. This was a very important element for us that UNRWA started to cooperate and we have seen results coming in. But, of course, I agree with you. We cannot rest until the very last of these materials disappear. And I'm fully committed to deliver on that, including in the discussions for next year. On the "Pay for Slay". We have a list to check that direct beneficiaries do not appear on any of the terrorist list. But, if there is one, I wouldn't like to draw any conclusions of the review, but, if there is one issue to look at is, of course, that we do not create the possibility of indirect benefit for those who are involved in terrorist activities or for those who have been even convicted for such acts. And this is what we are addressing also in our review. Now, on the on the damage to our projects in Gaza, I cannot tell you now. What we see is that there is clearly devastation in the northern part, serious level of damage in the south, but it will be only after that the war will stop that we can go back and take a look at that. Now, on the humanitarian aspect and how to guarantee that our humanitarian aid is not going to be misused. If you look back at the statement the European Council has adopted just last weekend, you see also a very clear call for them to make sure. And this is why our decision has been to channel our humanitarian aid through our own institutions; DG Echo is delivering on the ground and in-kind. So we are providing help, in-kind, not providing financing. We're not providing other items that could be used for other purposes. And we are coordinating our work with international organisations only, so to ensure that it doesn't get to the wrong hands. So there was one more question about the breakdown of the โฌ103 million, and I think I can confirm what you said that we have composed the โฌ103 million by โฌ50 million that were allocated in support of payments of salaries and pensions. These are going directly as direct budget support into the budget of the Palestinian Authority. However, we want to check the final beneficiaries and we have a list. And now we're looking at indirect beneficiaries as well as part of the review. The 40 millionโฆ The other element is the โฌ40 million support for the most vulnerable families. Again, this is this is paid in the form of direct budgetary contribution. And the third and lastly, the โฌ13 million, this is the remaining part of 103 [million], is financing the East Jerusalem hospitals that we have paid already in April 2023 to keep the health care system running in East Jerusalem. I hope with this I have answered all the questions that have been raised. Thank you."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1717824785722245152/amplify_video_thumb/1717823597983457280/img/aF2fHefkQMWxdyFW.jpg)
![A TRUST FUND FOR EVERYONE: How to create a Monetary Commons that socialises money and funds a basic dividend without new taxes or debt [At a time Donald Trump, Big Tech and Wall Street deploy stablecoins to privatise the dollar, usurping the decentralising power of blockchain to enrich themselves at everyone elseโs expense, here is an alternative use of blockchain that harnesses its decentralising powers to benefit everyone equally โ to pay everyone a substantial, non-inflationary, basic dividend โ without the need to tax or borrow. Read on and/or watch the video] Here is an idea that can make a real, urgently needed, difference to our awfully divided, exploitative societies. Imagine a trust fund for everyone paying a personal dividend to each. Now imagine a common, a public digital platform, letโs call it a Monetary Commons, that harnesses our collective capacity to create the money needed to fund this personal dividend for all. The idea of a personal or basic income is not new, of course. People have sung its praises for decades. But they were stifled. The majority doesnโt want to pay higher taxes, or the higher interest rates more public debt would bring, to deliver a personal payment to others, including to the already stinking rich. But what if it is now possible to pay a decent personal dividend without new taxes or new public debt. How? Not by magic or hocus pocus economics but by reclaiming from private bankers our societyโs power to create money. Today, we have the digital tools to take back the power to create money, use that power to create a common trust fund, and pay each a personal dividend. These tools are here already. And if we do not use them for benefitting everyone, the bankers and Big Tech will use them to print more money for themselves. So, letโs get cracking! Letโs build a new Monetary Commons to pay a personal dividend to each! How would it work? Technically, it is ever so simple. You download an app, letโs call it Monetary Commons Pay (or MCPay). MCPay is provided by your central bank (the Fed in the US, the ECB in Europe, the Bank of England in Britain etc.). Essentially, the central bank has opened a digital account for you which you can use to receive and pay money, the way you use your normal bank account app. How is this MCPay app helpful? In three fabulous ways, which I shall present in ascending order of importance. First, because with MCPay you can send and receive money for free, avoiding the terrible, inexcusable, fees charged by private banks โ even the โfuel feesโ of crypto. The second, even greater, benefit is that the money you keep in your MCPay grows at the central bank interest rate โ which is always higher than the measly rate private banks pay for your savings. Free transactions and higher interest on your savings would be good enough reasons to have the MCPay app. But, the truly mesmerising, hugely exciting benefit is the third one: The new app makes it possible for the Central Bank to pay you, and everyone else, a substantial personal dividend. Pay attention to see where this money will come from, why it is not inflationary, why it requires no new taxes, no new debt and no magic: You have heard of how private banks create loans from thin air, right? How they can turn, on average, $3 of new deposits into a new $100 loan? [Yes, lest we forget, only 3% of the money in our advanced economies come from the central bank โ the rest is conjured up by private banks.] But this works in reverse as well! If bankers turn $3 into $100, were you to transfer $3 from your normal bank to your MCPay, to take advantage of free transactions and the higher interest rate, you will have annulled your bankerโs opportunity to create $100. In other words, as you transfer $3 from your bank to your new MCPay account, the total quantity of money in the economy would fall by, $100 minus $3, $97. Would this not be bad for the economy? It sure would be if nothing was done about it. But wait. Suppose the central bank were to create $97 for every $3 transferred to someoneโs MCPay and credit that extra $97, equally, to everyoneโs MCPay account. Bingo! Do you see now how a personal dividend was made possible without new taxes, new debt or potentially inflationary increases in the quantity of money? Now, please do not think that this a theoretical discussion. Yes, our governments, in the pockets of financiers as they are, are not interested in giving you the option of an MCPay app. But, with Donald Trump at the helm and his GENIUS Act on the statutes, they are busily handing over this incredible power to create money not to society, not to a Monetary Commons, but to Big Tech and Wall Street. How? By shunning the MCPay app that would benefit you, everyone, equally, and pushing instead for so-called stablecoins issued by privateers, mainly Big Tech and Wall Street, for their benefit. But how much money could we expect to receive as a personal dividend if we were to create a monetary commons? The answer is: a lot! The US Treasury recently predicted that around worth $6.6 trillion of US bank deposits will be transferred to stablecoins - the private version of MCPay from which you will benefit not at all. Yes, $6.6 trillion, that is more than six thousand billion dollars. If such a sum were to be transferred to the monetary commons, to our MCPay accounts, keeping the quantity of money in the US constant would require that the Fed credits $213 trillion to everyoneโs MCPay accounts. Thatโs considerably more than $600 thousand for each woman, man and child resident in the US! And similarly in Britain, Europe, Japan etc. A sizeable trust fund for everyone. This is a remarkable opportunity for making a difference to our awfully divided societies. We must seize it. For the benefit of the many, not the few. Of course, the few โ beginning with the bankers โ will scream blue murder. They will do their utmost to stop this from happening. They will fearmonger like crazy, eager as they are to usurp the lionโs share of the money that society generates collectively. They will try to terrorise you with tales of calamities that will befall you if this Monetary Commons were to be created. They will prognosticate cataclysmic inflation โ even though the whole point of the personal dividend is to keep the money supply constant. They will terrorise you with the prospect of new taxation and new public debt โ even though they understand that there is no need for new taxes or new public debt to pay you a substantial personal dividend. To appeal to your social conscience, they will tell you that a Monetary Commons is Elon Muskโs and the libertariansโ way to dismantle social security โ even though there is no reason to cut social security in any way to fund everyoneโs personal dividend. They will bombard you with the spectre of Big Brother, likening the Monetary Commons to a Chinese Communist Party ploy to have the central bank follow your every transaction โ even though they know that MCPay can easily be built on distributed ledger technology that guarantees privacy to each while preventing the authorities from manipulating the money supply without the public noticing. As they scream and shout and terrorise you, you will know: Bankers just hate the idea of going back to the role of intermediaries, of borrowing from Jack to lend to Jill. They are only interested in maintaining their monopoly over the money system โ and to extend it now that digital money enhances societyโs capacity to create even more new money, a capacity that they want to privatise when we should want to share equally. So, let us ignore the shrieks of the moneymen and let us use new tech to share better the benefits from our collective capacity to create money. Letโs make building a Monetary Commons our common goal. It wonโt cure all of our deeply exploitative societyโs ills. But it will go a long way to cure many and, perhaps more importantly, it will give the many a sense of their power. FOR MORE ON THE MONETARY COMMONS, VISIT Raphael Arar Hirad Sab DiEM25](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1976538948781400403/amplify_video_thumb/1976530183273254912/img/gV3pzVf2scFTSo_3.jpg)
