It's amazing how much of what we learned over the past 3 years is revealed in this clip.
How about the Natural Economic Order?
https://www.community-exchange.org/docs/Gesell/en/neo/
To have them in place in order to be ready for a real epidemic. Considering the severity of the flu this past few months, we may be seeing a serious flu epidemic in the fall. But, as we have learned, the medical establishment is really not prepared for such things. We don't have the equipment stockpiles, the people don't have the training needed, especially practice with dealing with a crisis.
Anons really need to understand kayfabe. Sure they may be undercover agents who have been positioned to be ready for ThePlan, like all those NEW CEO assignments in the past 3 years. But just because someone is working on Trump's team does not mean that they all fall in line and follow orders.
Trump understands the value of DRAMA. He himself does it all the time, creating suspense, getting the audience glued to their seats, watching the nail-biting climax. I can see this being set up here, plus, of course, the fact that Fauci and Birx are educating everyone about science, collecting and analysing real world data. In the real world everything is not a slam dunk decision. In the real world there are no super heroes who have the right answer and save the world.
Teamwork is the only way that can work, and a strong team has people who disagree, who discuss things, who analyze the problem based on the data that is available.
HCQ is not a miracle cure.
What we are learning is that many anti-malaria drugs also work well against viruses. But the effects vary, depending on the virus. The Japanese already have a cure for the flue. Take the meds and in 24hrs you are cured.
THe Cabal used to suppress the research of these types of drugs, or control it. So it was OK to show that people could take the drug every day for the rest of their lives to control arthritis, but you couldn't show that it cures a viral disease.
Those controls on research were removed 3 years ago and now we see a whole bunch of new discoveries.
I think Trump is setting up HCQ and that it is NOT the answer. But it probably is the best solution for black people, so all the liberals who oppose it now look like racists.
In the end something else like Remdesivir will likely become the cure for HIV and Coronavirus
I expect we will learn that HCQ works best for black people, and perhaps it has some connection to the sickle cell gene. Malaria, like sickle cell anemia, attacks red blood cells. HCQ is a malaria treatment.
The Democrat rep from Michigan who almost died, was black. And she was saved by HCQ. So how on earth can the liberals continue to be opposed to this treatment?
However, there are other drugs that work too. They should also be made available so that physicians have a choice of treatments.
Because I read the scientific papers
Especially the ones which survey several drugs and their effects on specific viruses.
The products that remain after deduction of rent and capital-interest, form the wage-fund to be shared among all workers (day-labourers, clergymen, merchants, physicians, servants, kings, craftsmen, artists). When everyone is free to choose his trade, the division is made according to the personal capacity of each, by demand and supply. If choice of occupation were completely free (it is not, but might be) everyone would actually obtain the "largest" share in the distribution. For everyone tries to obtain the largest share, and the size of the share is determined by demand and supply or, ultimately, by the choice of occupation.
Thus the relative amount of the wage depends on the choice of occupation, that is, on the individual. The absolute amount of the wage on the contrary, is quite independent of the individual, and is determined by the amount of the wage-fund. The larger the contributions of the individual workers to the wage-fund, the larger will be the share for each. The number of workers is irrelevant; if there are more workers, the absolute size of the wage-fund grows, but the number of those entitled to a share grows likewise.
We now know the amount contributed by the different categories of workers to the wage-fund:
The contribution of agricultural workers is equal to the sum of products which an equal number of agricultural workers could grow on freeland - less freight, interest and import-duties, which we have to conceive as being reckoned in produce.
The contribution of other producers of raw materials is equal to the sum of products which they could bring to market from the poorest, remotest, and therefore ownerless sources - less interest.
The contribution of industrial workers, merchants, physicians, artists, is equal to the sum of products which they could produce without the advantages of mutuality and organisation, and isolated from populous centres - less interest.
If we pool all these products and distribute them according to the present-day wage-scale, everyone gets exactly the products which he can actually procure in the shops and markets with his present wages.
The difference between this amount and the total produce of the aggregate work performed goes to make up rent and capital-interest.
What, then, can the workers (always in the broadest sense of the term) do to enlarge the wage-fund, to obtain a real all-round increase of wages, which cannot be neutralised by an increase in the cost of living ?
The answer is simple: they must keep closer watch on their wage-fund; they must protect it from parasites. The workers must defend their wage-fund as bees and marmots defend theirs. The whole product of labour, with no deduction for rent and interest, must go into the wage-fund and be distributed to the last crumb among its creators. And this can be achieved by two reforms which we have named "Free-Land" and "Free-Money".
Money is an instrument of exchange and nothing else. Its function is to facilitate the exchange of goods, to eliminate the difficulties of barter. Barter was unsafe, troublesome, expensive, and very often broke down entirely. Money, which is to replace barter, should secure, accelerate and cheapen the exchange of goods.
That is what we demand of money. The degree of security, rapidity and cheapness with which goods are exchanged is the test of the usefulness of money.
If, in addition to this, we ask that money shall cause a minimum of trouble by its physical properties, we make a claim that is valid only if the purpose for which money exists is not thereby defeated.
If security, acceleration and cheapening of the exchange of goods can be achieved by means of a form of money which cannot be harmed by moth and rust and which besides, can be conveniently hoarded, then let us, by all means, have such money. But if this form of money diminishes the security, rapidity and cheapness of the exchange of goods, we say: Away with it!
Knowing that the division of labour, the very foundation of our civilisation, is here at stake, we shall select whatever form of money is suited to its necessities, quite regardless of the wishes or prejudices of individuals.
In order to test the qualities of money we shall use no scales, crucibles or acids; neither shall we scrutinise some coin or consult some theorist. We shall consider, instead, the work done by the money. If we observe that a certain form of money seeks out goods and conveys them by the shortest route from the workshop to the consumer; if we notice that goods cease to congest the markets and warehouses, that the number of merchants diminishes, that commercial profits shrink, that no trade depressions occur, that producers are assured of a ready disposal of all they can produce while working at full capacity, we shall exclaim: This is an excellent form of money! - and we shall hold to this opinion even if, on closer examination, we find that the money in question is physically unattractive. We shall consider money as we consider, say, a machine, and form our judgement exclusively on its efficiency, not on its shape or colour.
The criterion of good money, of an efficient instrument of exchange, is: -
That it shall secure the exchange of goods - which we shall judge by the absence of trade depressions, crises and unemployment.
That it shall accelerate exchange - which we shall judge by the lessening stocks of wares, the decreasing number of merchants and shops, and the correspondingly fuller storerooms of the consumers.
That it shall cheapen exchange - which we shall judge by the small difference between the price obtained by the producer and the price paid by the consumer. (Among producers we here include all those engaged in the transport of goods).
How inefficiently the traditional form of money functions as an instrument of exchange has been demonstrated in the previous part of this book. A form of money that necessarily withdraws when there is lack of it, and floods the market when it is already in excess, can only be an instrument of fraud and usury, and must be considered unserviceable, no matter how many agreeable physical qualities it may possess.
Judged by this criterion, what a disaster was the introduction of the gold standard in Germany! At first a boom, fed by the millions taken from France, and afterwards the inevitable crash!
We introduced the gold standard because we expected an advantage from it, and what other advantage could we expect from a change of our monetary system than greater security, cheapening and acceleration of the exchange of goods ?
But if such was the purpose, what was the justification for the introduction of the gold standard to achieve it ? Gold coins, neat round shining toys, were expected to facilitate, accelerate and cheapen the exchange of straw, iron, limestone, hides, petroleum, wheat, coal, etc., but how that was to be done nobody was able to explain; it was simply a matter of faith. Everybody - even Bismarck - relied on the judgement of the so-called experts.
After the establishment of the gold standard, just as before it, the exchange of goods consumes 30, 40, and sometimes perhaps 50% of the entire output. Trade depressions are just as frequent and just as devastating as in the days of the thaler and the florin; and by the increased number of dealers we observe how slight is the mercantile power of the new money.
The reason why the mercantile power, the power of exchanging goods, of this money is so slight, lies in the fact that it has been over-improved - improved, that is, exclusively from the view-point of the holder. In fixing upon the material for mousy, only the buyer, only demand was considered. The goods, supply, the seller, the producer of the goods, were entirely overlooked. The very finest of materials, a precious metal, was chosen for the manufacture of money - just because it offered certain conveniences to the holders of money. Our experts did not pause to consider that the holders of goods in selling their products had to pay for these conveniences. By the selection of gold as money-material, the buyer has been allowed time to choose the most favourable moment for the purchase of goods, and in granting this freedom the devisers of the gold standard forgot that the seller would be forced to wait patiently in the market till the buyer chose to appear. Through the choice of the money-material, demand for goods was placed at the discretion of the owners of money and delivered up to be the sport of caprice, greed, speculation and chance. Nobody saw that the supply of goods, owing to its material nature, is at the mercy of this arbitrary will. Thus arose the power of money which, transformed into financial power, exercises a crushing pressure on all producers.
In short, our worthy experts when considering the currency question forgot the goods - for the exchange of which the currency exists. They improved money exclusively from the point of view of the holder, with the result that it became worthless as a medium of exchange. The purpose of money evidently did not concern them, and thus as Proudhon put it, they forged "a bolt instead of a key for the gates of the market". The present form of money repels goods, instead of attracting them. People do, of course, buy goods, but only when they are hungry or when it is profitable. As a consumer everyone buys the minimum. No one desires to have stores, in planning a dwelling house the architect never includes a storeroom. If every householder were today presented with a filled storeroom, by tomorrow these stores would be back on the market. Money is the thing people want to own, although everybody knows that this wish cannot be fulfilled, since the money of all mutually neutralises itself. The possession of a gold coin is incontestably more agreeable than the possession of goods. Let the "others" have the goods. But who, economically speaking, are these others ? We ourselves are these others; all of us who produce goods. So if, as buyers, we reject the products of the others, we really all reject our own products. If we did not prefer money to the products of our fellows, if instead of the desired yet unattainable reserve of money, we built a storeroom and filled it with the products of our fellows, we should not be obliged to have our own products offered for sale in expensive shops where they are, to a great extent, consumed by the cost of commerce. We should have a rapid and cheap turnover of goods.
Gold does not harmonise with the character of our goods. Gold and straw, gold and petrol, gold and guano, gold and bricks, gold and iron, gold and hides ! Only a wild fancy, a monstrous hallucination, only the doctrine of "value" can bridge the gulf. Commodities in general, straw, petrol, guano and the rest can be safely exchanged only when everyone is indifferent as to whether he possesses money or goods, and that is possible only if money is afflicted with all the defects inherent in our products. That is obvious. Our goods rot, decay, break, rust, so only if money has equally disagreeable, loss-involving properties can it effect exchange rapidly, securely and cheaply. For such money can never, on any account, be preferred by anyone to goods.
Only money that goes out of date like a newspaper, rots like potatoes, rusts like iron, evaporates like ether, is capable of standing the test as an instrument for the exchange of potatoes, newspapers, iron and ether. For such money is not preferred to goods either by the purchaser or the seller. We then part with our goods for money only because we need the money as a means of exchange, not because we expect an advantage from possession of the money.
So we must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange.
Mosheh was in fact, the Messiah
His name was formed by taking the vowels from his Egyptian name (and the name of God)
Akhen-Aten
A E A E
And putting those into the consonants of Messiah.
In semitic languages, A and O easily interchange or merge into one another
mAshEh ends up as Mosheh
Those who know Iranians know that the A in Iran is pronounced like a short O.