UBI (Universal Basic Income) Creates a Government-Dependent Nonworking Class Ponzi Scheme

its not socialism its democratic socialism

Just like taxing high earners, or the “Wealth Tax,” failed in France a few years ago, a test of “Universal Basic Income” has just been discontinued in Finland.

The result of free money?
No one tries to get a job.

Why? Because these are socialist programs of wealth redistribution to cripple the working class and force more and more people into welfare (government) dependency.

Finland to end basic income trial after two years

23 Apr 2018

Read More:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-income-trial-after-two-years

Finland’s basic-income trial did not much affect work incentives

Some UBI supporters may be disappointed that the scheme did not increase time worked. Unlike other benefits, which are withdrawn as claimants find work and so tend to discourage them from accepting a job offer, the basic income creates no such disincentive, because it is paid even after claimants take up work. But most proponents do not see employment as UBI’s primary goal. They will be cheered by the fact that the participants reported being happier.

Read More: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/02/14/finlands-basic-income-trial-did-not-much-affect-work-incentives

The Universal Basic Income Is An Idea Whose Time Has Not Come

By   20, 2017

From almost the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, people have alternatively celebrated and feared the effects of machinery on their economies and cultures. The current iteration of this fearful joy tells us that automation will make too many people unemployable and, in its darkest mood, that artificial intelligence will undertake a war to eradicate humanity.

As Nikhil Reddy of the Huffington Post puts it, “The melancholy truth is that this is a certainty – these machines will come to do our work better than we can – so we must maintain a plenary focus on protecting the financial and occupational interest of those whose jobs are up for grabs. The solution – receiving troves of support from the likes of Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Richard Branson – is universal basic income.”

The concept of universal basic income (UBI) is that the federal government would guarantee that everyone receives a minimum income regardless of circumstance to offset the horrible effects of automation and AI which represent the successful advance of technology. Under this theory, the culprit, technological success, will put people out of work and irrevocably reverse the course of business in a market economy, as we know it, if the United States does not implement UBI.

Read More: https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/20/universal-basic-income-idea-whose-time-not-come/

A History of Socialism in an Old PBS Documentary: Doubt They Would Play This Nowadays

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (Hour 1: The Rise)

2005 – In the first hour we meet Robert Owen, the 19th century industrialist who coined the term “socialism” and tried to create a utopian world in the middle of rural Indiana. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels forge a manifesto and declare a prophecy. The idea splits. One man tries to marry socialism to democracy, while another starts a revolution.

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (Hour 2: Revolutions)

From the rice fields of Mao’s China to the rise of British Labour and from the birth of the Israeli kibbutz to African independence, a new generation of leaders brings to life radically diverse visions as socialism comes to power around the globe.

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (Hour 3: The Collapse)

In the East, Communism falls – while social democracy is reinvented in the West. What shape will socialism take in the twenty-first century? Find out on the conclusion of Heaven On Earth.

 

Political Correctness Mixed w/ Government-run Healthcare and Censorship/Unpersoning

Ashton Birdie Alex Jones Deplatformed UnPersoned

Socialism and Political Correctness are a Dangerous Mix

Unfortunately instead of working to depoliticize tech, it’s far more likely that we will see increased politicization of other vital parts of American life – and perhaps none is more dangerous than that applied to healthcare.

While it is easy to mock the economic illiteracy of politicians like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, there is no question that her brand of democratic socialism is growing in popularity – and not just on the left. It’s worth remembering that only a few years ago candidate Donald Trump gave his own endorsement to a healthcare vision similar to that held by AOC and Bernie Sanders.

Consider the troubling potential of a progressive government that drops all pretense of valuing free speech, and then giving that government complete control of the healthcare system.

While this perhaps sounds like the makings of an outlandish dystopian novel, imagine the sort of policies we’ve already seen come from the executive branch. Under the Obama Administration, we saw the use of the IRSDepartment of Homeland Security, and even intelligence agencies to target and punish political opponents. Meanwhile, the progressive left has increasingly identified those who believe the “wrong ideas” – such as skeptics of anthropogenic climate change – as dangerous threats guilty of the crimes equivalent to murder.

In an age where a new generation of doctors increasingly rejects the Hippocratic oath, a government take over of medical care – as the honest advocates of “Medicare for All” propose – could inevitably lead to politicized regulators making life and death decisions for Americans.

Now does this mean I think it’s likely that a President Ocasio-Cortez would instruct a “political death panel” to not provide Alex Jones with life saving treatment? Not necessarily. The issue, however, is that the greater control the state has on medicine, the more decisions are influenced by the concerns of government, rather than the needs of patients. In such a dark timeline, if socialized healthcare forced America to face the sort of medical rationing that Britain’s prized National Health Service has been reduced to, it would be fair to wonder if Gavin McInnes would receive the same sort of treatment as an Ezra Klein.

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/state-influencing-big-techs-unpersoning-imagine-if-it-take-overs-healthcare-0?utm_source=samizdat&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=free

The State Is Influencing Big Tech’s “Unpersoning” — Now Imagine If It Takes Over Healthcare


12/11/2018

let’s consider some of the overlooked causes behind the increased censorship from Silicon Valley.

While Republican politicians relish in collecting cheap soundbites railing against the censorship practices of widely despised tech executives, few are willing to point out the obvious influence of government in Big Tech’s growing hostility to free speech.

For example, just recently Facebook announced it was following the lead of Tumblr by cracking down on “sexualized content” on its platform. While both decisions were widely ridiculed by users and pundits alike, largely ignored was the role that recent Congressional laws aimed at cracking down on sex trafficking played in sparking the new policy. Similarly, “anti-hate speech” laws from Europe had very real consequences for American social media users as mechanisms designed to police speech oversees are inevitably used to manage content throughout their global communities.

While tech censorship began with isolated bans on individual social media platforms, it has evolved over time into a far more sinister crackdown of modern-day thought criminals. Alex Jones, for example, saw multiple social media accounts closed in a coordinated campaign earlier this year in what’s been likened to a modern version of Orwell’s “unpersoning.” Increasingly we are seeing financial services platforms, such as PayPal and Patreon, become another particularly effective form of censorship for those found guilty of violating the norms of political correctness.

First let’s consider some of the overlooked causes behind the increased censorship from Silicon Valley.

While Republican politicians relish in collecting cheap soundbites railing against the censorship practices of widely despised tech executives, few are willing to point out the obvious influence of government in Big Tech’s growing hostility to free speech.

For example, just recently Facebook announced it was following the lead of Tumblr by cracking down on “sexualized content” on its platform. While both decisions were widely ridiculed by users and pundits alike, largely ignored was the role that recent Congressional laws aimed at cracking down on sex trafficking played in sparking the new policy. Similarly, “anti-hate speech” laws from Europe had very real consequences for American social media users as mechanisms designed to police speech oversees are inevitably used to manage content throughout their global communities.

While tech censorship began with isolated bans on individual social media platforms, it has evolved over time into a far more sinister crackdown of modern-day thought criminals. Alex Jones, for example, saw multiple social media accounts closed in a coordinated campaign earlier this year in what’s been likened to a modern version of Orwell’s “unpersoning.” Increasingly we are seeing financial services platforms, such as PayPal and Patreon, become another particularly effective form of censorship for those found guilty of violating the norms of political correctness.

The traditional libertarian response to these issues is to simply build another platform, but that seems increasingly impotent in the face of the union between Big Tech and state.

Gab, for example, is a product that arose in direct response to increased censorship on Twitter. The app has found itself deplatformed from both major phone app stores, even before user Robert Barnes killed 11 people at a Pennsylvania synagogue earlier this year and heightened law enforcement’s attention to the site. It’s worth noting that Facebook, a prolific donor to America’s political class, did not receive similar treatment when it was used to broadcast torture and murder. Similarly, cryptocurrency exchanges have faced backlash from government officialstraditional financial services companies, and tech companies in their effort to build alternatives to state-controlled financial networks.

Of course the answer to this new era of Big Brother (Sister?) isn’t government regulation, as many on the populist right advocate. The history of government involvement in communication platforms has been one of increased censorship. Instead, the best way to confront the Silicon Valley’s censorship is to recognize the inherently perverse influence of government and pursue a separation of tech and state. For example, attack all forms of state privileges enjoyed by companies that don’t recognize freedom of speech: such as government contracts, and liability waivers. Additionally, allow private citizens to sue when companies violate their terms of service or mislabel themselves as “open platforms.”

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/state-influencing-big-techs-unpersoning-imagine-if-it-take-overs-healthcare-0

Toxic Femininity Unleashed onto Society by 3rd/4th Wave Feminist Dogma of Hatred and Division

some women are not decorations

Feminism Is A Disease – And Masculinity Is The Cure

Brandon Smith 25 January 2019
…As I’ve noted in past articles on the psychology not only of globalists, but the useful idiots on the political left they like to exploit, these kinds of people often exhibit many of the traits of narcissistic sociopaths. It has been my observation that narcissistic sociopaths tend to come to the aid of other narcissistic sociopaths when they are facing discovery or prosecution.  They are not as isolated from each other as many assume.  They do in fact “organize”, and act to help each other as long as there is mutual benefit.  If one vampire is hunted down by the villagers with their pitchforks, they know that ALL vampires might eventually be hunted down.

There is nothing particularly special about The Atlantic’s analysis of men; it merely regurgitates all the typical feminist misconceptions and fallacies, but more subtly and in a way that might appear “rational” to the unschooled.

I do ask readers to study the article, because it is a perfect all around example of the kind of advanced propaganda men are facing: The dangerous mixture of pseudoscience and cultism.  It presents itself as scientific while lacking any scientific foundation.  It presents itself as fair while being ideologically biased in the extreme.  It acts as if it wants to “help” men while treating men as if we are suffering from a mental illness called “traditional masculinity”.

The fact is, feminism itself is so disjointed from observable reality that nearly every viewpoint the floundering movement adopts is the exact opposite of the truth. Often this is by design – these people are not interested in being scientifically or morally correct in an argument, they only want to “win” the argument by any means necessary. Leftist Gatekeeper Saul Alinsky’s method of debate and revolution has always been about removing all morals and principles when pushing an ideology. The goal is to slander your opponent in the manner most effective, even if the slander is entirely fraudulent, while avoiding the facts at all costs if the facts are not in your favor.

That said, I also think that social justice warriors have so immersed themselves in cultism and zealotry they have truly lost sight of the real world and concrete evidence. In many cases they may not even understand that the lies they promote are actually repelling the public rather than indoctrinating them.  This works to our advantage; their delusions are our gain, for now.  But delusions can be powerful, and they can sometimes take on a life of their own.  What if one day soon the lies about men and masculinity become so entrenched that our society is enraptured by the anti-man religion?

Well, we can already see some of the damage done today.  So, what are these lies about masculinity? Why not start with the Atlantic article’s suggestive title and manipulative content…

Read More: http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3639-feminism-is-a-disease-and-masculinty-is-the-cure

The Old New Deal Introduced the Fascist American Government The New “Green New Deal” will Seal the Deal

Let’s face the fact that the FDR’s New Deal was nothing but a power and money grab by the government that had nothing to do with recovering from the Great Depression. 

Let’s also fact the fact that the science behind man-made climate change is  weaponized, politicized science that is paid for and promoted by billionaires who run foundations, corporations and control most governments. 

The “New Green Deal” won’t just be paid for by the richest Americans, prices would dramatically go up for all Americans. 

This is just another targeted weapon of mass economic destruction aimed at the middle classes. 

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez it is more important to be morally right than facutally correct

Flaws With a “Green New Deal,” Part 1 of 2

BY ROBERT P. MURPHY

DECEMBER 20, 2018

There’s a growing buzz around a “Green New Deal,” spearheaded by newly-elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Although the details are in flux, currently the draft text calls for the creation of a 15-member “Select Committee for a Green New Deal” that would “have authority to develop a detailed national, industrial, economic mobilization plan” to make the U.S. economy “greenhouse gas emissions neutral.” As if that weren’t ambitious enough, the Select Committee’s detailed national plan would also have the goal “to promote economic and environmental justice and equality.” The draft specifically mentions spending $1 trillion over ten years, in addition to extensive taxes and regulations to steer the economy and society as the 15 committee members see fit. (To be clear, the draft text currently calls for the creation of the select committee, which in turn is then tasked with drafting legislation forming the “Green New Deal” itself.)

In this two-part series I will strongly critique both the spirit and substance of a proposed “Green New Deal.” In the second article, I will focus on the specific proposals in the draft legislation. But in this first piece I will give the historical context and explain why the very notion of a Green New Deal is misguided, because it relies on faulty history and bad economics.

Read More: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/regulation/flaws-with-a-green-new-deal-part-1-of-2/