Everything Wrong With Every Nationalism


With all said and done, nationalism of any kind is terrible. Why? Well, let us look at one of the universal dictionary definitions of nationalism in general:

An extreme form of xenophobia, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries or peoples.

Motive for post

So that when I start to speak of various Nationalisms, people will refer to this post to know what I speak of.

1. Collectivist Thinking

The biggest and most blaring problem all nationalisms have in common is collectivism. Islamic Nationalism, for example, currently wants to collectively unify all muslims into a planet wherein all Non-muslims are either dead or slaves. Hence the nations who espouse it created militias like ISIS and Al-Qaeda without any part of it [other than us doing trade with some of them] being the fault of us Americans. Other nationalisms have similar collectivist stories to them, like… Imperial Japan during WWII wanted to kill or enslave all Non-Japanese.

2. Authoritarian Regime

The other big blaring problem with nationalisms in general is they tend to want to control every aspect of every life on Earth. Whether you want to exemplify Germanic Nationalism during World War II, or Islamic Nationalism during current events like the War On Terror, either one has a certain people that it wants to make the only people on Earth who are treated like people. Authoritarian governance is very frequently, throughout history, motivated by one kind of nationalism or another. Medieval Mongols were not motivated by their genomes to make 90% of Asia an empire run exclusively by them, instead the Medieval Mongol Empire was motivated to exist by Mongolian Nationalism. The Arab League of today was not formed back in the 1940’s on behalf of any kind of post-modernizing of Arabian understandings of science, but rather it was founded on Arab Nationalism, the notion that Earth should be a world of only Arab humans.

3. Empire of NOT Liberty.

Something Thomas Jefferson wanted Americans to free the world of is Empires of Tyranny, but suspected doing so effectively would require unilateral principles like avoiding military alliances. Hence his theme from Christmas of 1780, “Empire of Liberty”. Which leads us right into something that makes nationalism a big enemy of humanism: All nationalisms have in common an obsession for making Earth into some kind of Empire of Tyranny. Islamic Nationalism has its World Caliphate aims, in Medieval times Christian Nationalism wanted to create a planet of Biblical theocracy. Germanic Nationalism in the 1930’s and 1940’s wanted to make all of Earth exclusively healthy to Germans only. General Tojo’s Japanese Nationalism wanted Earth for Japanese people only.

4. Bigotry and Pessimism

I will just claim these two problems are one problem, because these issues tend to fuel each other. Nationalism motivates bigotry against and pessimism about peoples outside of the brand of nationalism. For example, Islamic Nationalism motivates hardcore bigotry against Non-muslims and pessimism about not just us [as I am non-Muslim in the sense of rejecting all religions as all equally fiction] but also about Muslims who reject & condemn Islamic Nationalism. And yes, many Muslims on Earth condemn and reject Islamic Nationalism, I cannot thank Anti-nationalist Muslims enough for rejecting Islamic Nationalism! But this is not the only nationalism that does this, many nationalisms have existed across history. My ethnicity [94% Irish], for example, has suffered for thousands of years from British Nationalism, until eventually a rouge sector of my ethnicity formulated Irish Nationalism and the Irish Republican Army [known in Europe as simply IRA].


Now that I have educated everyone about how truly evil nationalisms all are, did you know nationalism can be ethnic, religious, or just plainly based on a pre-existing nation? Regardless, thank you for reading,



7th Republican Debate Marco vs Rand


I must say… before we begin to decide which one of these two won between just the two of them, I can prove with other peoples’ behavior that I need to parent the planet about what my exact political views are until I pass away: I am a neolibertarian Independent, meaning

  1. culturally that I desire a permissive society wherein the only legislated social norms are classically liberal objections against doing malum in se behaviors against real people & real things in real life,
  2. economically that I desire a laissez-faire economy of capitalism wherein the only labor laws and business restrictions are once again against malum in se behavior against real entities in real life,
  3. the foreign policy I desire is one that uses a carrot or stick style diplomacy to spread Thomas Jefferson’s “The Empire of Liberty” globally while still doing Free Trade and honest friendships with like-minded nations and not entangling military alliances, and lastly
  4. the defense policy I desire is one that uses overwhelming, non-regulated military force as used in the Civil War by General Sherman and in World War II by General Parson against State Sponsors of Jihad, but only in retaliation for menacing a national interest of ours like American Independence and/or Foreign Trade with the friends we have through OECD.

And believe me I can name more national interests we have, i.e. as someone who likes to travel a lot and make new friends a lot I can guarantee Americans’ right to travel in a balance of massive liberty and massive security is a US national interest.

But now that this is out of the way, let me talk about why I post this today:

Maybe Rand was Right about being the only hopeful defending the entire Bill of Rights

When I read the 7th GOP debate transcript, from a printed magazine source so to me it is more likely to be honest than it is to be dishonest, what struck me as unsettling is that Marco Rubio claimed to want to close down mosques, restaurants, and any other civilian property where Salafi ideology could be preached.

Plus this was after he rightfully condemned the just-war-theory ethics that prohibit our military from winning. I am honestly baffled that he would support my kind of defense policy and then oppose my kind of cultural policy – given he’s the one who e-mailed me about support for his campaign!

These policies are damaging to the kind of economic policy I favor as well. It’s estimated that nearly $2 billion every day is pumped in our economy and 14 million employees work for restaurants. My best friends who are very similar to each other in nature we both among these 14 million until one of them had to be laid off for these reasons I have absolutely nothing against:

  1. he’d prefer a job where interacting with people is optional instead of mandatory
  2. his restaurant could not afford to pay for him due to government restrictions beyond his control and also beyond his ex-employer’s control

To close all restaurants collectively would violate not just the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, it would also violate permissive society and laissez-faire.

This means basically I have now been swayed back to supporting Rand Paul instead of Marco Rubio, even if I may disagree with Rand on certain methods for spreading the Empire of Liberty. Yes, he is not a Non-interventionist like his father, in fact in one interview he identified in foreign policy as a Realist.


I am very sad to see that same guy who declared that my fellow Nonreligious and I have a right to exist under religious liberty despite his loyalty to his faith is now claiming that we need to murder 14 million American jobs to be safe from Saudi Arabia’s Islamic-Nationalist empire. Thank you all,


Rubio’s College Fuel Plan Beats Sanders’s


Before and after learning that Marco Rubio recognizes Religious Liberty to include the right to be Nonreligious like I am, and therefore has regained my support for him for 45th president, I read this marvelous article.

So marvelous and informative is this article it inspired me to do something similar here on my WordPress.

I recently looked into the “College for All Act” from Bernie Sanders, and this… thing… imposes yet more “Robin Hood Tax” garbage on our economy without addressing ANY of the following REAL issues with American Education:

  1. Sanders fails to address the fact that it is the Federal Reserve’s obsession for Fiat Money and neither Wall Street corporations nor Main Street businesses that keeps raising prices on basically everything, educational or not.
  2. Sanders fails to address the fact that the good people of OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment have been revealing to the world for the first 12 years of this century that government spending on education typically worsens student performance instead of bettering it.
  3. Sanders fails to address the fact that Reason discovered just two years ago that more millennials WANT merit-driven funding of individuals [57%] than want anything to do with his egalitarian crusade [40%].
  4. Sanders fails to address the fact that for majorities of millennials like me, business is not the enemy, and that 55% of us believe corporate taxes should either be changed for the lower or not at all, while 54% of us believe corporate taxes should be allowed to change for the larger, if change at all.

Marco Rubio adapts to this 2010’s decade. Bernie Sanders is stuck in the 1930’s decade.

A Rubio presidency would not ruin America for millennials in regard to college, in fact…

  1. Rubio has sponsored the Student Right to Know Before You Go Act, which would practically invent transparency about college by publicly showcasing the facts about college graduation rates and potential annual salaries basically everywhere in the US, so that millennials like me can make informed decisions about college.
  2. Rubio also sponsored the Investing In Student Success Act, which creates legal framework for investment NGOs [Non Government Organizations] to finally be allowed to finance a millennial’s education [i.e. my education] and be rewarded for this investment with a minority percentage of the annual income a millennial makes off the job he gets, or she gets, as payoff for graduating college. That way investors want students to pursue high-value degrees because they know the same small percentage will translate to a larger share every year if the student’s college performance earns one a higher salary.
  3. Rubio even came up with something called Dynamic Student Loan Repayment Act, which would make payments begin when students get their first job, and adapt to how much or little a college goer makes in a year. For example, given that I only make a four-digit sum of money per year, this law would require investors to adapt to that.
  4. Lastly Rubio is a major player in supporting the Alternative Qualifications for Federal Employment Act, which uses a five-year federal pilot program to hire people who have received university-quality training outside of universities to encourage use of online college ed, among other non-traditional learning styles.

Marco Rubio is going to modernize American education, and improve student performances without involving himself in the education of any students but his own offspring, and even then as their parent and not as a politician. But he will only do so if he gets voted into the White House.


Well, to end this post, I will go ahead and say that I will be voting for Rubio in the primaries and hopefully also in the general election. Because as far as I have researched, Marco Rubio is so far the only Republican candidate with a widely known college fueling plan. And if you are wondering what Paleontology will make me, then the Georgetown University study in the link I provided in the start of this post has the salaries for the required majors [Environmental Studies, Biology, Geology, and Geography] which average out to $60,000 per year, but it does not give an official Paleontology Salary. I am aware this is an inconvenience, but I say it is a trivial one. Thank you for learning,


Alternative Federal Register Book of Limits


You know how I have learned that the book of legislated equalities and legislated moralities is called the “Federal Register”? Well, whether you do or not, I am going to tell you about the crimes against the Constitution that are the Federal Register regulations.

My Case

Source material linked here. Rounding done for simplification.

88,000 restrictions on what We The People are allowed to do in our personal time and/or on our jobs. And there is no clear indication of whether they have anything to do with the Non-aggression Axiom.

Based on the enforcement budgets government has, 82% of these Unconstitutional laws are restrictions of economy [on-duty life], the other 18% are restrictions of culture [off-duty life].

If we look into the Non-aggression axiom, its only restrictions are prohibitions of behaviors that are Malum in se, or “evil in itself”. If we look at what these Federal Register bans and limitations address, they address things so trivial the phrase for them is Malum prohibitum, or “evil because prohibited”.

That means while I was right to assume there are 16,000 Malum prohibitum laws, that is only government limits to social freedom. The other 72,000 Malum prohibitum laws of the US are limits to economic freedom.

What Am I Suggesting?

I am suggesting we rid reality of every copy in America of the Federal Register and write a new “Federal Register” whose limits to We The People are nothing but “Malum in se” sorts of limits. No thicker than about 16 laws worth of pages [10 against the 10 violent crimes known to civic law, 5 against the 5 property crimes, and one against fraud], which I suspect will make this new Federal Register about… 20, or 40, maybe 60 pages long depending on how many words are voted into each law on average by us… the voters.


I honestly have nothing else to type into this post. Thank you for learning,


Truly Logical fellow Nonreligious Do and Will Support Israel


After some extensive research into how my fellow Nonreligious think, especially in my nation of America in particular, I have arrived at a Hypothesis I will carefully paste evidence of: Logical fellow Nonreligious are also fellow Pro-Israel people.


Logical fellow Nonreligious oppose Israel’s enemies

Map of persecution of atheists. The following Greater Middle East nations all have the death penalty for declaring one’s individual religious affiliation to be “Unaffiliated” in any sense at all [atheist, deist, etc.]:

  1. Mauritania
  2. Sudan
  3. Egypt
  4. Jordan
  5. Syria
  6. Iran
  7. Afghanistan
  8. Pakistan
  9. Qatar
  10. United Arab Emirates
  11. Yemen
  12. Iran
  13. Sudan
  14. Somalia
  15. Saudi Arabia
  16. the ISIS region
  17. Maybe also Gaza & West Bank

All of the above nations are enemies of America. All of the above nations are enemies of Israel. All of the above nations establish themselves as “Islamic States“.

What public policy do US Nonreligious support?

So, referring to Nonreligious as “my people”, what kinds of social and/or cultural policies do my people support? Well…

  • 73% of my people support letting LGBT people marry legally, and 42% of us want a small government that’s limited to upholding the Non-Aggression Axiom.
  • 76% of my people like to live in a nation that appreciates LGBT people exactly as it appreciates heterosexuals like me and asexual people.

Guess what, my people? Here is related reason to this section for ALL OF YOU to support Israel:

Apparently, my fellow Nonreligious support cannabis legalization by an average of 78%. Well, my people including me will be happy to know that…

  • According to this map, Israel has cannabis medicinally and recreationally decriminalized
  • Practically every Arabian country there’s info on the map about has cannabis highly criminal and laws against it are, no doubt, extremely violently enforced.


Well, I conclude that any atheist, deist, or other fellow Nonreligious who still opposes Israel after reading this is officially betraying my people and I, mentally and morally. I also conclude that a majority of fellow Nonreligious will very happily support Israel after reading this WordPress article. Thank you,


How Government Can Only Harm Education


Many people will see this post and assert without evidence that I should just believe that government having good intentions always and infallibly leads to good outcomes. Before I dig into this, let me quote fellow Nonreligious atheist Christopher Hitchens [may he rest in peace and in honor forever, I am very sad to have never met him] on something he said about every debate on every topic possible:

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Now, on to the analysis of how government involvement in education is typically, not always, but typically a bad thing, starting with Education Spending.

Education funding by government

My nation, the US, has a national government who spends currently $119 billion in education. Regrettably, the OECD, who makes the data for PISA that I will be using to see if there is any correlation to prove any point, has no data for the current year of 2016. However, it is possible to get data for the years of 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, and lastly 2012.

Fiscal Year 2000

As the PISA tests many different nations’ teen populations on math, reading, and the subject I will factor in as an aspiring paleontologist, this third subject being science; I can say this: American teens were in their scientific prime in year 2000 with the 15th highest science score on Earth. This is when government funding of education was nearly $70 billion for the fiscal year.

Fiscal Year 2003

The government education spending went up by $17 billion, in the same year American scores on science dropped down to 491, putting our nation down to rank 22 out of the same 40 who were tested in 2000.

Fiscal Year 2006

$98 billion to education from US federal government treasury. America 29th on Earth out of 57, this time, but still a lesser score than the above two years at 489.

Fiscal Year 2009

Education funding climbed to basically $100 billion, while PISA score in science for the US went to 502 for that year of 2009. If you are seeing a pattern you now know why earlier I asserted “typically” while denying “always”.

Fiscal Year 2012

Lastly $21 billion was added to education, resulting in a $121 billion education funding, while American science score on the PISA dropped to 497, putting us down to 28 out of 65.

Patterns I hope I’m not alone in seeing

  • The pattern that OECD does these tests every three years
  • The pattern that OECD includes new countries, may of whom are not OECD members, every re-run
  • The pattern that most increases of government involvement in education lead to decreases in scientific literacy

To give out a percentage online, 80% of government hikes in education spending lead to drops on scientific literacy.


Apparently our Founding Fathers knew it would be mostly sensible to keep government out of education, I can tell because I have a PDF of the actual US Constitution and I tried all of the following education-related terms, and none of them appear even once:

  • teacher
  • student
  • academic
  • education
  • school
  • college
  • university
  • voucher
  • community college
  • professor
  • diploma
  • tuition
  • academia
  • reading
  • mathematics
  • social studies
  • literature
  • principle
  • superintendent
  • department of education
  • no child left behind
  • common core standards initiative

This secondary point being government not only has no place in education logically, but it is also Unconstitutional [aka AGAINST THE LAW] for government to involve itself in education by any means, financial or otherwise.

Well, thank you all for learning something today,


My Economic Policy Outlook


As you may know, I am a maximum freedom guy both culturally and economically.

Which is why I am doing this post as a sort of “sequel” if you will to my “Cultural Policy outlook”.

I am a Capitalist in these ways…

  • As an alternative to all of current Taxation in the US, from the payroll tax to the IRS, I favor replacing all of current Taxation in the US with a Flat Tax system called Negative Income Tax.
  • I am opposed to Fiat Money and support precious element standards like the Gold standard and the Silver standard
  • Should there be any need for government-imposed labor standards, then I support legal codes that permit better outcomes for smarter workers.
  • When given a choice between either Equal Opportunity versus Equal Outcome, I will always choose Equal Opportunity
  • Minimum Wage laws, at least in my point of view, should be replaced with a law requiring employers to give a small share of NET profits [profit after taxes and after asset attainment cost] to employees, giving larger portions of the share to the more useful, more competitive workers.
  • Economic Regulation is bombastically out of control at 80,000 pages of restrictions, and from what I can gather each restriction is covered by five pages. Ideally, I would like there to be no economic regulations outside of the Non-aggression axiom, but there are some exceptions that lead me to believe that the Federal Register [book of economic restrictions] should be roughly as thick as a JRR Tolkien Middle-earth book [his thickest Middle-earth book being 1200 pages long]. This would make the regulatory burden 1.5% of current amount: potentially 240 different laws, vs currently 16,000 different laws.
  • Patients and their doctors, not politicians, should be the people in control of medical policy – meaning each medicinal policy should only be a case between doctor and patient, the government should not be in your medical life
  • Students and their teachers, not politicians, should be the people in control of educational policy – meaning each academic policy should only be a case between teacher and student, the government should not be in your educational life.
  • Unrestricted Free Trade should flow naturally, and can only flow naturally if we get rid of all tariffs, legal barriers, treaties, and any other protectionist elements.
  • As an aspiring Paleontologist, and as Paleontology is a science, I believe that science should be allowed to be simultaneously a free market institution and a government institution, and I believe the overwhelming majority, if not all, of domestic civilian funding by government should be to scientist salaries.
  • Both walled-border immigration policy and open-border immigration policy are unhealthy collectivist laws. I believe it is only individualist, and therefore proper, to implement a middle-ground law that allows immigrants with skills to get low-wage jobs as rewards for passing extensive security tests [i.e. psych-evals] and therefore proving themselves to have no terroristic intentions.
  • Environmental protections are best done by letting ecologists provide scientific, market-based incentives for alternative energy.
  • The best way government can make women equally as successful as men is by simply letting women as individuals work out what jobs they want and what lifestyles they want individually without intervening on behalf of one gender collectively over the other.


Now everyone who reads this WordPress knows my regards to economy. Thank you all for learning something new about me today,


My Cultural Policy Outlook


I thought I would commit two political posts to being a break from foreign policy: This one about Cultural policy, next one about economy.

Freedoms of Choice I am Pro-choice on

Despite me not being “pro-choice” on abortion, I have a very long list of things I am pro-choice on, culturally and economically. I am vastly pro-choice and staunchly pro-liberty in the following senses:

  1. Freedom of Public Speech [especially freedom to build one’s own vocabulary without restrictions]
  2. Freedom of the Media [for TV, Radio, film, gaming, comics, novels etc]
  3. Freedom of Religious identity
  4. Freedom of Political identity
  5. Freedom of Food [as in choice of foods]
  6. Freedom of Association [i.e. what my taste in friends can be and what my taste in women can be]
  7. Freedom of Clothing [as in choice of clothing]
  8. Freedom of Movement
  9. Freedom to Security
  10. Freedom to Privacy
  11. Freedom of Education [i.e. school choice]
  12. Freedom of Healthcare [i.e. medicine choice]
  13. Freedom of Sexuality [in one’s adulthood]
  14. Freedom of Marriage [in one’s adulthood]
  15. Freedom of Self-Defense [i.e. whether to rely on weapons to protect one’s self or not]
  16. Freedom of Assembly
  17. Freedom to Petition
  18. Freedom to Due Process
  19. Freedom to Humane Imprisonment [upon being proven guilty of a crime]
  20. Freedom to Bodily Integrity [i.e. whether to do drugs or not, whether to get drunk on weekends or not]

All of the above are the very most important cultural liberalisms to me, in order from most important. Unfortunately, the top seven are not very carefully considered by most Republicans and not considered at all by most Democrats. Instead most Republicans care only about the number 14 thing and most Democrats care only about the number 13 and number 20 things.


Next post I will talk about what I advocate for by advocating Economic Freedom. Thank you all,


How Unaffiliated has the Best Morals of any Religious Affiliation


What am I using the word “Unaffiliated” to refer to? Well, that would be the mindset of Irreligion. And no, this article is NOT the end of my support for Freedom of Religion. I will still very readily defend Freedom of Religion and endorse any candidates for US president who defend freedom of religion, no matter how religious they are on personal levels!

Wikipedia description of Irreligion.

The point of this post is really to demonstrate the morality of organized religion, including variants of atheistic religions like the communism variants, vs the morality of free-thinking irreligion. In fact, how about starting with Non-aggression Axiom violations [specifically slaughters] for Marxism by variant of marxism! I will be mostly using University of Hawaii accounts by Rudolph J Rummel to cite my info. And then I will cover Theistic religions, giving each religion its own category. At some point in this post I will use “NDM” as in “Non Defensive Murders”. One more thing keep in mind: Crimes committed for religions typically only happen from those who take literalist and puritanical approaches to their faiths. Followers of the same faiths who adore and cherish Freedom are not being accused of anything vile by this post.

Slaughters for Marxist-Leninism by Variant

  • 20th Century Chinese Maoism = 77 million defenseless murdered, well OUTSIDE of Non-aggression principles.
  • 20th Century Russian Stalinism = 62 million defenseless murdered
  • Current North Korean Juche = 51,000 per year every year since 1948
  • Pol Pot’s variant in Cambodia = 2 million in only 4 years
  • Iraqi Ba’athism of Saddam Hussein = 2 million in roughly 24 years, ending in 2003
  • Syrian Ba’athism of Bashar al-Assad = Between 10,000 per year and 55,000 per year since 1982.
  • Vietnam’s variant of Marxist-Leninism = 2 million Non-defensive murders

Slaughters for Christianity by variant

  • Pre-WWII Catholicism = 16 million between roughly the 470’s AD to the 1930’s AD
  • WWII-era Catholicism in Germany = 21 million Non-defensive murders
  • Protestantism before 1901 AD = 363,000 NDM

Slaughters for Far-Eastern faith by variant

  • Dynastic Chinese Taoism = 34 million NDM between 220 BC and 1898 AD
  • Genghis Khan’s native Mongolian religion = 30 million in just one full century of rule

Slaughters for Islam by variant

  • Both variants so far = 270 million NDM since this faith’s conception in 632 AD
  • Sunni variant in Sudan = 2 million NDM from 1989 to 2003, 1 million from 2003 to now
  • Shia variant in Iran = 100,000 during Ahmadinejad’s rein, Rouhani’s toll not yet known
  • Saudi Arabia’s Salafi idea of Sunni variant = 50 NDM per day since Saudi Arabia’s creation, and that’s just executions within Saudi borders. Terror sponsored by Saudi Arabia includes the 2001 attacks on NYC that caused 3,000 NDM in just a minute.

Stories you never get, how and why

And now I am done analyzing select religions. How about I start to give some examples of the kinda stories you never get about Free-Thinking Irreligion variants? After the samples list I will explain what makes all of these samples purely ones of pure fiction:

  • “30,000 Atheists and 50,000 Agnostics executed in mere minutes by a Deist mayor of a metropolis for rejecting Deism as fiction!”
  • “Unduly terror begins in Nordic lands as their Materialist populations declare on their Naturalist populations!”
  • “Crazed fury and suicidal mass-murder by Ignostic demographic against Agnostic demographic for ‘answering a meaningless question’ and for ‘considering Ignostic a variant of Agnostic’ resulting in 255,000 deaths.”
  • Pastafarian leader of a nation decided to make Non-pastafarian variants of Irreligion punishable in his nation by death by Acid.”

So how or why exactly are these stories pure fiction? Because us Nonreligious get our morals from something I notice almost no puritanical approach to any Organized Religion allows for: Empathy. Plus, there can’t exactly be a puritanical approach to being religiously Unaffiliated as I am. Instead we opt to get morals from empathy, get our smarts from science, and get our logic from independent, conventional… well, logic.

Thank you all for learning today,


The Science of a Gold And Silver Standard


Correct me if I am being less US Constitution literalist than any American should be, but… doesn’t the Tenth section of Article One of the Constitution establish Gold and Silver as the only legit form of US Dollars? Is that national or only for states? In any case, I wish to make a mostly science based and basic math based case for replacing the Federal Reserve with a simultaneous Gold Standard and Silver Standard.

Making the Case

$48 million. That is how much one metric ton of gold is worth. $670,000 is how much one metric ton of silver is worth [$19 per ounce times 35,270].

America has the most gold reserves of any nation on Earth – with 8000 metric tons! That means a Gold Standard would allow the US economy to be $384 billion. The Silver Standard would go like this:

Given that the US has 25,000 metric tons of silver reserves, the math would be 670,000 times 25,000 is almost $17 billion.

In combination, this would make our economy’s size back to the way it is Constitutionally meant to be: $401 billion.

How is this a good pairing?

A Gold and Silver Standard is a good pairing because given the $18 trillion size of our current economy, it will annihilate inflation by cutting current wages AND current prices on basically everything by roughly 97%. Everything will be 3% of the price it currently is if this particular Clause of the US Constitution is restored to US legal coding.

For example:

If buying ground beef at the grocery store I work for is normally $3.99 per pound, I will instead be charged 12 cents per pound for it.

But keep in mind the only legal paper money under such a financial regulation would be Gold Certificates and Silver Certificates.


Thank you all for learning, and I look forward to seeing my nation’s policymakers recognize the value of Gold and Silver put into a financial regulation system put together,