1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

He means put your wealth into physical assets like real estate, land, or gold. In other words, anything that would still be there and have value if the dollar were to collapse. The “market”, and any investments you had in it, would rapidly go to zero in such a situation.

I wouldn’t worry about it though because he is wrong. The dollar will never experience hyperinflation. We will all just become unable to afford stuff over time until enough riots break out that a monetary reform is deemed needed by the elites to save themselves from the pitchforks.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

There won’t be runaway inflation because the central banks are coordinating it together. It can happen to Zimbabwe because they are alone and will stand out, but what happens when all the major currencies are inflating at the same rate?

It looks like they aren’t moving at all, while we become progressively poorer. Imagine jumping out of a plane at 5000 feet with five other people. To each other you will appear to be floating at the same level, but to a passenger on a plane you will all be plummeting to your doom.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don’t worry about the debt, it doesn’t mean anything. When you have a debt-based currency like the dollar, you can’t “pay it off” because dollars come into existence through credit issuance. Paying off the debt actually destroys dollars.

What they do instead is devalue the debt through inflation. Until we go back to real money that is limited in quantity, the debt has to continuously increase for us to be able to do things like maintain the military.

3
krzyzowiec 3 points ago +3 / -0

Likewise, brother. Having come from it and back to God, it’s hard to imagine how far gone I was.

Satan will never get that close to me again. ✝️

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

Still cowardly. I say that as someone who has been suicidal in the past. Nothing is as serious as your imagination makes it out to be.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

Taiwan is to China what Israel is to the Middle East. I don’t even care how it happened anymore, it’s time to let it go.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

Unfortunately your brother was both schizo and also an unpleasant angry person, so it may be hard for you to separate the two tendencies as you are used to them arising in the same person congruently. Such is not always the case.

What is schizophrenia? How do you establish that someone has it? Is there an actual physical test you can use, or is it up to an “expert” opinion?

7
krzyzowiec 7 points ago +7 / -0

It’s common for women to want to provide resources for themselves or those who are less fortunate. To me, this is just a natural mothering instinct that is perfectly wonderful... when applied to children in your family.

It’s when you bring that instinct into politics that you get social programs, marxism, support for unlimited refugees, etc. People who don’t have resources are victims, and resources are seen as unlimited (because the men provide them), so anyone attempting to deny resources (restricting immigration/welfare) is just a cruel and hateful person. That’s the mindset.

And that’s why women don’t belong in politics, even the high IQ ones. There are men who think like that too, but it’s not normal for men to be that way. These are men raised without fathers or male figures in their life.

10
krzyzowiec 10 points ago +11 / -1

My brother is “mentally ill”. He is diagnosed as a schizophrenic. I know him though, grew up with him. He’s crazy, sure, but only due to his intense hatred, and refusal to face reality.

I say this because I’m not sure there is a difference between being mentally ill and wickedness. The origin is anger. These people live in fantasy worlds in their heads. If they didn’t, they would be like us. We can be sympathetic and still acknowledge that they are no good.

(No one is good really, but that is a separate topic)

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

From all that I have experienced in my life, I’ve come to realize that leftism is simply arrested development. The people who adhere to it just never grew up to face reality.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s retarded for people to be affected by words. All of them.

For some reason, nigger seems to be the most taboo, and that’s why some people have a strong desire to say it.

7
krzyzowiec 7 points ago +7 / -0

With his army of skelegates...

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

They are very emotional and prone to mood swings. I have a brother that is not liberal (more like confused), and basically everything that goes against the fantasy in his head is the end of the world. Having to do the dishes instead of having a dishwasher is a "huge waste of time". (he spends a lot of his time on the couch not really doing anything)

It's not that they are faking it. They are just overreacting because they are so weak that minor inconveniences are impossible obstacles for them.

2
krzyzowiec 2 points ago +2 / -0

Peace in the ME is a good start. But the internal strife is the issue and it aint even remotely better.

Internal strife is good because it means we are actually getting somewhere. We had peace only when evil was gaining strength in our country.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

I motion that the problem isn't so much women as it is people that are leeches and/or renters.

What is the difference? I don't think that is a bad thing, women are just naturally dependent on men. The issue is that when they vote they will assume the same tendencies and send resources towards themselves or refugees, or anyone they are manipulated into feeling bad for.

The exceptions tend to be married women who follow what their men do.

4
krzyzowiec 4 points ago +4 / -0

I agree with you, but as a Christian, this is just so weak on crime it could only come from a woman.

For the Christian, though, there are reasons to limit the measure of retribution. First, there is the belief that each person is made in the image and likeness of God. This is no less true of those who have broken the law than of those who have kept it. Recognizing this dignity "should make us unwilling to treat the lives of even those who have taken human life as expendable."'" Second, though the case of criminals is different from the unborn, the aged, and the infirm, rejecting the death penalty "removes a certain ambiguity which might otherwise affect the witness that we wish to give to the sanctity of human life in all its stages.' It makes a more convincing case against abortion and euthanasia if we can say in an unqualified way that God alone is the Lord of life. Third, and most important, rejection of the death penalty is most consistent with the example of Jesus, who taught and practiced that we should love our enemies."

This is so stupid that I can't believe that she wrote it. We should be against the death penalty because it makes the case against abortion stronger? How? It can't be any stronger than recognizing that a baby is innocent and that you are murdering it. Even comparing putting a murderer to death with abortion is so strange that I don't know why she went there. And that last sentence.... shiver Loving your enemies does not mean you cannot kill them. If a man is coming at you with an axe, intent on taking your life, it doesn't mean you hate him when you have to kill him to protect yourself. Putting a murderer to death to protect society is not different.

There is some ambiguity here about just what it is that the death penalty defends us against. There is a clear suggestion that it may sometimes be necessary to incapacitate the criminal ("defend human lives against an aggressor"), as the police may be obliged to use lethal force against attacking felons. The phrase "protect public order and the safety of persons" is more uncertain. Some say we must execute murderers to deter others from acting likewise. Standing alone, this is not an argument that Catholics can accept. The appeal to general deterrence is a claim that we should do evil for the good that may come of it, and that is an impermissible suggestion. 2 " Perhaps if there is some other justification for punishing the criminal in this way (retribution, for example), the likelihood of deterrence would be an additional reason for going to that extreme.

How is putting a murderer to death evil? And how about preventing the murderer from re-offending? I think that's a bit more important than deterring others. This is just sappy, emotional nonsense. Can we please get another Clarence Thomas on the court?

4
krzyzowiec 4 points ago +4 / -0

I have to agree. I think there is something to the idea that women place higher value on men that they see other women are attracted to, like a jealousy or competitiveness. Not man whores, but men who are seen as desirable.

These days men have no standards though. I think that's where the breakdown comes from. They are too needy and this upsets the balance because women can't be kept in line when men are desperate to do anything for one.

5
krzyzowiec 5 points ago +5 / -0

Those women are messed up even more. Having guilt is not good but losing your soul is worse.

28
krzyzowiec 28 points ago +28 / -0

I'm actually fairly sure she has been dead a while. They likely delayed the announcement to make it as close to the election as possible, just so they could pull this stunt.

The former president also nodded to Ginsburg's reported statement to her granddaughter before her death that her "most fervent wish" was that her replacement be named by the next president.

Oh give me a break. This is theater. It's all set up as a way to attack Trump and Republicans if they try to nominate someone before the election is concluded.

5
krzyzowiec 5 points ago +5 / -0

Pluck the weeds and who will they have to carry out their dirty work? No one will want to be a weed.

16
krzyzowiec 16 points ago +16 / -0

Unbelievable. And I read one story about an arsonist who was repeatedly arrested and released. I'm glad I don't live there because I would find it hard not to take matters into my own hands after something like this.

2
krzyzowiec 2 points ago +2 / -0

He tells us himself in Mein Kampf. He wanted the land for the German people, and felt it was theirs because it was partitioned by them along with Prussia and Russia at the time of WWI.

I’m sure he saw the return of the land to Poland by the allies as an affront to Germany as well.

Stalin was much worse than Hitler imo, but you are right, he mostly escaped the blame. Probably because he was on good terms with the US President at the time. I mean Poland itself was tossed to the wolves by the allies after WW2.

2
krzyzowiec 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes I am not excusing Soviets. They were worse than the Germans in many ways.

view more: Next ›