Right wingers, "conservative" ideas you reject?

[ChicagoFire]

That's fair Sherman but I think Reagan's mind was his weak point at best. At worst he was another globalist. Hence his joke of a legacy. Did they ever punish the appropriate military personnel for not following his orders on striking Iran (nope).

Now that I think of it some things that would make me not want to support President Trump are: war with Russia, institute the draft, hold hands with the EU, and bail the banks out again. I probably would bide off time in another country until the government hunts me down for whatever bullshit they make up. Nationalism or death at this point.

 

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I don't know if this qualifies as a "conservative idea" per se, but I can't stand the whole obsessive daddy/daughter culture that's sprung up with suburban fathers in the past ten years.

First it was "Daddy Daughter Dances," a somewhat creepy idea, but one that was benign enough since it allowed fathers and girls to bond.

But then this gave way to the "Rules for Dating My Daughter" memes and viral Facebook rants, in which dads basically threatened any guy who dared look at their precious girls. Hell, there's even a Pinterest page about this.

This is one area where I agree with feminists (HuffPost cache link here). This does come off as dysfunctional. But my reasons are different for disliking this. I don't think it sets up girls to be "controlled" by men. I believe it accomplishes these three things:

1). It feeds the egos of these girls (most of whom seem to have healthy self-images to begin with).

2). It scares away all the decent guys who like to avoid drama and assures only gangsters not afraid of "daddy" will get near these girls.

3). It sets up the idea that no man is good enough, and thereby fuels the dysfunctional dating scene we're dealing with now.

Since when the hell did fathers feel the need to get involved with the personal lives of their daughters to this extent? This isn't conservatism, as they'd have you believe.

No, this is a holdover from the touchy-feely 1970s family/school psychology "sharing" culture, where everyone was up everyone else's butts and no one got their personal space. The old-line dads of the 1950s basically said "Be home by eleven, dear. You and Richie have a good time."

 

[godfather dust]

When I was a teenager a girl's father showed me his gun collection.

Being a teenage asshole I did the last thing he wanted... Pretend I didn't understand the implied threat.

"Whoa these are AWESOME! I'm so glad showed me these!" Etc

Could see the steam coming out his ears. Fucking cuck.

 

[Sherman]

That's fair Sherman but I think Reagan's mind was his weak point at best. At worst he was another globalist. Hence his joke of a legacy. Did they ever punish the appropriate military personnel for not following his orders on striking Iran (nope).

Now that I think of it some things that would make me not want to support President Trump are: war with Russia, institute the draft, hold hands with the EU, and bail the banks out again. I probably would bide off time in another country until the government hunts me down for whatever bullshit they make up. Nationalism or death at this point.

People don't have any idea what they are talking about. If there wasn't a Reagan, there wouldn't be a Trump. Reagan put a temporary end to the 1960s radicalism and if Jimmy Carter's legacy had continued thing would be even worse. I don't agree with comparisons because they were different times. Reagan was a charmer and used it to great advantage. However today Trump is more relevant because he is a street fighter which is what is needed to fight the thugs. Different personalities for different times.

 

[Trumpian]

Actually if there hadn't been a Reagan, there would have been a Trump much sooner.

It was neo-conservatives like Reagan who fooled the country into thinking we had a party that was at least trying to look out for native born Americans while their policies were no different than the Left, at least on the issues that matter (immigration, free trade, interventionism,etc)

 

[Simeon_Strangelight]

[Draft post removed by moderator.]

 

[ChicagoFire]

Nice ad hominem Sherman you still didn't address Reagan's "legacy" that we have to deal with now. Amnesty has changed California for the worst. Even if it was a changing of the guard and a shift from Jimmy Carter's ineffective domestic policy and dismissiveness of the threat of the Soviet Union we see what Reagan left behind. Reagan simply wasn't this great President he was made out to be. There's no concrete proof that Reagan ushered in Trump. I could claim Reagan ushered in George H Bush and that's baseless. Only a group of cuckservative boomer Never Trumpers would want to support something like "Reagan Battallion."

President Trump is a step in the right direction, which is changing the judicial system for generations to come. Unless of course he does things like grant mass amnesty like Reagan or get into 2 wars like that moron George Bush.

 

[infowarrior1]

< Because Western countries are owned by globalist masters who already consider themselves as the Owners of the Planet. What they are doing right now is just consolidating their control. To them it's just a money transfer from their province UK to their province in Pakistan and India.

The underlying machinations are what matters to them to attain their final goal of a Brave New One World Government that they can ultimately steer from afar. The West is just a piggy bank plus on the demographic extermination list since they might rebel against them some day, so they better make sure to make Whites all minorities in their homecountries while preaching compassion, Christian values of inclusion, open borders, individualism, more classical liberalism etc.

Problem is of course that the other side as well as the other Muslim and shitizen groups are not going to be ever classical liberalists.

There is enough money to pay for basic health care in the West - heck - if you allowed more for prevention, then there would be much more, but this is not about money. There is always money for refugees. Remember the stink that Germany made over the billions it had to pay for Greek debt? Literally one year later it all did not matter since Germany happily took in shitizens that cost them 100 bio. $/year easily (40 bio. $ that they admit to). So Germany took in obligations that will cost them more than the ENTIRE GREEK DEBT within 4-5 years! Suddenly money was no issue. So essentially Germany could have easily paid the entire principal payments and interest rate payments for Greeks and it would still be cheaper than accepting half the inbred terrorist rapists!

Plus a lot of money that does go into Military spending seem to be siphoned off into various things:

According to a recent report from Federal News Radio, the Pentagon spent $21 billion on 148 OTAs between 2015 and 2017. This number, obtained via the Pentagon’s public affairs office, is at odds with the $4.2 billion logged by the Federal Procurement Data System. So why does the DoD give two different numbers on OTA spending? Because OTAs are not subject to the regulatory and disclosure guidelines required for most contracts, the Pentagon can get away with not reporting them as procurements—in other words, as part of the grand total.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-little-known-black-hole-in-the-pentagon-budget/

The Pentagon has buried an internal study that exposed $125 billion in administrative waste in its business operations amid fears Congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget, according to interviews and confidential memos obtained by The Washington Post.

Pentagon leaders had requested the study to help make their enormous back-office bureaucracy more efficient and reinvest any savings in combat power. But after the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results.

The report, issued in January 2015, identified “a clear path” for the Defense Department to save $125 billion over five years. The plan would not have required layoffs of civil servants or reductions in military personnel. Instead, it would have streamlined the bureaucracy through attrition and early retirements, curtailed high-priced contractors and made better use of information technology.

The study was produced last year by the Defense Business Board, a federal advisory panel of corporate executives, and consultants from McKinsey and Company. Based on reams of personnel and cost data, their report revealed for the first time that the Pentagon was spending almost a quarter of its $580 billion budget on overhead and core business operations such as accounting, human resources, logistics and property management.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...b0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.00351eed67bc



Conservatives really want to be fiscally conservative but seems that they leave the waste in the military out of the accounting. Likewise waging a far less effective campaign in Syria than Russia with much higher costs.

 

[Days of Broken Arrows]

< Because Western countries are owned by globalist masters who already consider themselves as the Owners of the Planet. What they are doing right now is just consolidating their control. To them it's just a money transfer from their province UK to their province in Pakistan and India.

The underlying machinations are what matters to them to attain their final goal of a Brave New One World Government that they can ultimately steer from afar. The West is just a piggy bank plus on the demographic extermination list since they might rebel against them some day, so they better make sure to make Whites all minorities in their homecountries while preaching compassion, Christian values of inclusion, open borders, individualism, more classical liberalism etc.

Problem is of course that the other side as well as the other Muslim and shitizen groups are not going to be ever classical liberalists.

There is enough money to pay for basic health care in the West - heck - if you allowed more for prevention, then there would be much more, but this is not about money. There is always money for refugees. Remember the stink that Germany made over the billions it had to pay for Greek debt? Literally one year later it all did not matter since Germany happily took in shitizens that cost them 100 bio. $/year easily (40 bio. $ that they admit to). So Germany took in obligations that will cost them more than the ENTIRE GREEK DEBT within 4-5 years! Suddenly money was no issue. So essentially Germany could have easily paid the entire principal payments and interest rate payments for Greeks and it would still be cheaper than accepting half the inbred terrorist rapists!

Plus a lot of money that does go into Military spending seem to be siphoned off into various things:

According to a recent report from Federal News Radio, the Pentagon spent $21 billion on 148 OTAs between 2015 and 2017. This number, obtained via the Pentagon’s public affairs office, is at odds with the $4.2 billion logged by the Federal Procurement Data System. So why does the DoD give two different numbers on OTA spending? Because OTAs are not subject to the regulatory and disclosure guidelines required for most contracts, the Pentagon can get away with not reporting them as procurements—in other words, as part of the grand total.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-little-known-black-hole-in-the-pentagon-budget/

The Pentagon has buried an internal study that exposed $125 billion in administrative waste in its business operations amid fears Congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget, according to interviews and confidential memos obtained by The Washington Post.

Pentagon leaders had requested the study to help make their enormous back-office bureaucracy more efficient and reinvest any savings in combat power. But after the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results.

The report, issued in January 2015, identified “a clear path” for the Defense Department to save $125 billion over five years. The plan would not have required layoffs of civil servants or reductions in military personnel. Instead, it would have streamlined the bureaucracy through attrition and early retirements, curtailed high-priced contractors and made better use of information technology.

The study was produced last year by the Defense Business Board, a federal advisory panel of corporate executives, and consultants from McKinsey and Company. Based on reams of personnel and cost data, their report revealed for the first time that the Pentagon was spending almost a quarter of its $580 billion budget on overhead and core business operations such as accounting, human resources, logistics and property management.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...b0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.00351eed67bc



Conservatives really want to be fiscally conservative but seems that they leave the waste in the military out of the accounting. Likewise waging a far less effective campaign in Syria than Russia with much higher costs.

That's because they're too busy genuflecting to anything in a U.S. uniform and saying that stupid cliche "Thank you for your service."

I respect the military. I respect the police. But what I DON'T do is fetishize and idealize both these institutions and behave like they can do no wrong.

I see too many conservatives do this. Not the people here (who have good critical thinking skills), but the fat, bloated, middle-aged cuckservative types with high-pitched geeky voices. They're the type you hear on talk radio that call everyone "Gentleman," even cold-blooded killers. Actual example: "Yes, I'd like to address the issue of the gentleman who shot the child in broad daylight in Baltimore City."

Yes, I'm sure he was a real fucking "gentleman." Why don't we think him for his service too?

 

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< The shadow accounting in the US goes into the trillions. Even during 9/11 they claimed that they lost some 2 trillion $ and no one asked later, because of the big tragedy.

There are entire groups that go into the finances of the US and the numbers don't add up. In addition you have the hundreds of billions of additional income due to the Cocaine Import Agency and their effective control over some cartels. The guarding of the Afghani poppy fields was also not a pro-bono work. What the US does with hundreds of billions or a trillion extra per year?

We don't know for sure, but everyone has guesses of what can be funded by this kind of money - you could have colonies on Mars with that cash by now.

 

[Trumpian]

Lol Cocaine Import Agency..

Not to mention the hundreds of billions if not trillions the DEA seizes in drug busts each year.

If any alien were observing this, he would conclude that the US government is a parasite in the narcotics industry

 

[nek]

I'm a bit of an environmentalist, not because I think dogs are cute and trees smell good, but I think there's some harsh realities to how we've impacted the environment and the impact it's going to have on us via pollution and resource depletion. To be honest, if there was one issue where I see both sides burying their head in the sand the most, it is probably this one. The conservatives flat-out deny impacts of the various pollutants in the environment, whereas the liberals think there will be some miracle technologies that will save us; the idea of consuming our way to sustainability is laughable. People don't realize the difficulty and thought that goes into bringing clean, pressure adjustable, temperature-adjustable water their faucets. We produce and use new chemicals all time that we have no idea what the long-term impacts will be on the environment we rely on, not much different then pharmaceuticals that come out promising to heal restless leg syndrome and end up giving you the bubonic plague. Clean-up of pollution is far more difficult, expensive, and time consuming then people realize. It's much easier and less strain on resources to simply not pollute in the first place. Disinfectant by-products in drinking water are an example of the difficulty of trying to clean water for instance. The removal of pharmaceuticals is another. Not only do you have to constantly worry about new chemicals we're introducing, but how those chemicals interact with other chemicals and equipment, as well as the chemicals those interactions may produce. There are no quick and easy answers to these problems.

People get distracted from the environmental issue because in world affairs there's always more immediate and pressing matters. However, quickly occuring problems also have quickly occurring solutions. The environment is one of those areas where it will take time before it's impacts are more immediate in people's lives, but by the time these impacts are recognized, the solution will be far more difficult if even possible at all.

 

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< The global warming scam is nothing but a con.

And nature has an immense ability to regenerate itself especially when aided by us even slightly. Research the rejuvenation of the bay of Tokyo as well as Tokyo air quality changes form the 1970s onwards.

Air qualiy has actually been improving in the US - the entire West actually. Sure - most chemicals used in food production and many even in pharmaceuticals should be banned, some products for packaging should be also forbidden, but most of it is based on the desire of the elite to give us cancer, not pay pensions until we are 100.

Plus - there is a ton of suppressed technology out there - most of it giving us clean, super-cheap technology or propulsion system. A cancer cure would certainly be banned vehemently as there have been reports about that as well.



Being right-wing, conservative and an environmentalist is no contradiction - only has become so recently due to the Neocon agenda, all this Big Corpo push. And yes - technology can save and actually has saved a lot - filters, better technology in manufacturing utterly changed even the look and feel of entire cities.

 

[Fortis]

The idea that returning to some mythical past will somehow resolve the issues of the present.

The idea that the market will sort itself out.

The idea that the police are always on our side and trustworthy.

 

[El Pistolero]

The autistic libertarian view that all humans are interchangeable and GDP growth is the highest goal in policy also irks me. Nations and institutions come from the people if you replace the the people it is no longer the same nation.

Libertarianism was never supposed to be cucked. The movement was co-opted by classic liberals (egalitarians) who stripped the cultural and sociological aspects of it. In an article titled The Idea of Liberty is Western, Mises says:

Western society was a community of individuals who could compete for the highest prizes. Eastern society was an agglomeration of subjects entirely depending on the good graces of the sovereigns. The alert youth of the West looks upon the world as a field of action in which he can win fame, eminence, honors, and wealth; nothing appears too difficult for his ambition. The meek progeny of Eastern parents know of nothing else than to follow the routine of their environment. The noble self-reliance of Western man found triumphant expression in such dithyrambs as Sophocles's choric Antigone hymn upon man and his enterprising effort and Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Nothing of the kind has ever been heard in the Orient.

Here's Hans Hermann Hoppe trashing what he calls left-libertarians:

 

[Trumpian]

Yeah forgot about that one. U.S conservatives actually brag about their 10mpg trucks and cutting down trees.

I'm pretty far right. But I like liberals more conservatives. They're really the worse of the lot.

 

[Trumpian]

The autistic libertarian view that all humans are interchangeable and GDP growth is the highest goal in policy also irks me. Nations and institutions come from the people if you replace the the people it is no longer the same nation.

Libertarianism was never supposed to be cucked. The movement was co-opted by classic liberals (egalitarians) who stripped the cultural and sociological aspects of it. In an article titled The Idea of Liberty is Western, Mises says:

Western society was a community of individuals who could compete for the highest prizes. Eastern society was an agglomeration of subjects entirely depending on the good graces of the sovereigns. The alert youth of the West looks upon the world as a field of action in which he can win fame, eminence, honors, and wealth; nothing appears too difficult for his ambition. The meek progeny of Eastern parents know of nothing else than to follow the routine of their environment. The noble self-reliance of Western man found triumphant expression in such dithyrambs as Sophocles's choric Antigone hymn upon man and his enterprising effort and Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Nothing of the kind has ever been heard in the Orient.

Here's Hans Hermann Hoppe trashing what he calls left-libertarians:

Hoppe is what libertarians should be. Instead, 95% are potheads who think supporting trans people makes them edgy.

The only edge those tards have is on the cheez-it box they're always digging into.

 

[infowarrior1]

< The global warming scam is nothing but a con.

And nature has an immense ability to regenerate itself especially when aided by us even slightly. Research the rejuvenation of the bay of Tokyo as well as Tokyo air quality changes form the 1970s onwards.

Air qualiy has actually been improving in the US - the entire West actually. Sure - most chemicals used in food production and many even in pharmaceuticals should be banned, some products for packaging should be also forbidden, but most of it is based on the desire of the elite to give us cancer, not pay pensions until we are 100.

Plus - there is a ton of suppressed technology out there - most of it giving us clean, super-cheap technology or propulsion system. A cancer cure would certainly be banned vehemently as there have been reports about that as well.



Being right-wing, conservative and an environmentalist is no contradiction - only has become so recently due to the Neocon agenda, all this Big Corpo push. And yes - technology can save and actually has saved a lot - filters, better technology in manufacturing utterly changed even the look and feel of entire cities.

There is some pollution like I remember from one of my lectures on Environmental Remediation that talked about a particular chemical compounds that cannot be broken down by any of natures creatures from non-stick pans and builds up through bioaccumulation before finally ending up in our livers.

All is not well. And I think that at least in regards to underground water that we are going to be leaving a permanent pollution legacy that will be very difficult to clean up. The chemicals they use in the fracking and other oil processes is also something to watch as such pollution would also end up in underground water sources.

 

[ChicagoFire]

I like your point and there's nuance to it. I can agree that the environment is important but I don't believe in the whole climate change scare that the media and its mouthpieces (looking at you Al Gore) is hyping up. Being able to escape technology and social media is a form of status today.

To add to your points, I'm an ex Whole Foods employee and while every location and region varies I know about 2 years ago they cut out the compost bin program at my store which costs an exorbitant amount of money. Having good intentions are great but at the end of the day the dollar prevails. There truly isn't some magic wand to save the earth in any way shape or form that's available today, or if there is it's a suppressed technology. Liberal lala land is what it is: liberal lala land.

In other words, items that don't save the earth:
* Di Caprio's gas guzzling activities such as his private jet trips to Europe.
* Al Gore's McMansion
* How everyone on this forum almost certainly uses gasoline in one way or another. We might as well all show solidarity by inventing a Flinstone's vehicle and go to work that way.
* Solyndra going bankrupt after running off with taxpayer funds.
* If you don't believe in climate change you're a Trump supporting hick.

I think we should learn from the liberal fantasy approach that if you are to propose something it better demonstratively work with established deadlines and goals in mind. I personally think we should establish space colonies if our earth is truly in trouble and not focus on alternative energy which isn't practical as far as I know.

I'm a bit of an environmentalist, not because I think dogs are cute and trees smell good, but I think there's some harsh realities to how we've impacted the environment and the impact it's going to have on us via pollution and resource depletion. To be honest, if there was one issue where I see both sides burying their head in the sand the most, it is probably this one. The conservatives flat-out deny impacts of the various pollutants in the environment, whereas the liberals think there will be some miracle technologies that will save us; the idea of consuming our way to sustainability is laughable. People don't realize the difficulty and thought that goes into bringing clean, pressure adjustable, temperature-adjustable water their faucets. We produce and use new chemicals all time that we have no idea what the long-term impacts will be on the environment we rely on, not much different then pharmaceuticals that come out promising to heal restless leg syndrome and end up giving you the bubonic plague. Clean-up of pollution is far more difficult, expensive, and time consuming then people realize. It's much easier and less strain on resources to simply not pollute in the first place. Disinfectant by-products in drinking water are an example of the difficulty of trying to clean water for instance. The removal of pharmaceuticals is another. Not only do you have to constantly worry about new chemicals we're introducing, but how those chemicals interact with other chemicals and equipment, as well as the chemicals those interactions may produce. There are no quick and easy answers to these problems.

People get distracted from the environmental issue because in world affairs there's always more immediate and pressing matters. However, quickly occuring problems also have quickly occurring solutions. The environment is one of those areas where it will take time before it's impacts are more immediate in people's lives, but by the time these impacts are recognized, the solution will be far more difficult if even possible at all.

 

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< Actually advanced enough technology is a magic wand:

+ geo-magnetic energy creators could be in every house supplying virtually free energy for everyone
+ the same generators could be installed in cars - there were even some movies having the hero install such a generator in his car and have infinite mileage
+ super-powerful batteries that could charge a car for thousands of miles - when you start looking into it, then it gets worse
+ water-powered car - heck there is even a small company in India making it, various inventors have slight adjustments to their combustion engines and run mostly on water
+ and don't let me get started on sound-propulsion machines that could replace current avionics - never mind anti-grav - they would suppress it all since it would make not only the oil scam impossible but Agenda 21
+ even if you disbelieve that, then how about Thorium nuclear generators which are much less dangerous and what about coal liquification and plastic-re-liquification - you can turn plastic back to petrol and you can turn coal to petrol for 60$/barrell - the Nazis did that in the fucking 1930s with US technology - we have coal in many countries for thousands of years!

+ other suppressed technologies and medical implementations are orthomolecular medicine, preventative nutritional medicine, various cancer treatments - go into RIFE technology, RIFE spectral microscope that got 40% of electro-microscope accuracy, but in movement, reason for suppression of the microscope?, because pleomorophism is real in a flux of virus to bacteria - the basis is everything and not the virus (essentially health of the underlying tissue), never mind suppression of the workings of our immune system which anti-bodies are a tiny part (there were studies done on people who had zero anti-bodies and they fought off everything almost at the same rate as someone with massive anti-bodies) etc. Did you know that Rockefeller funded only the patentable colleges going back in the early 20th century while attacking all the alternatives like herbalists heavily - later the extension of it the orthomolecular doctors? And on top of it Rockefeller had a homeopathic doctor on standby himself (there is some basis to that connected with water and human body being made out of water, but I consider that part of alternative medicine weak compared to the powerful stuff I saw with orthomolecular medicine.) There is nothing wrong with surgery except that you can for example regenerate a liver instead of waiting for a transplant just by giving a patient 20.000-30.000mg vitamin C daily. There are surgeons who reported finding out about it only after having lost multiple patients - those doctors gnashed their teeth at the establishment that suppresses the knowledge and belittles it calling it "expensive urine". Meanwhile patients are dying uselessly. There is a ton more in medicine regarding chemicals that should be banned instantly - pesticides, preservatives, additives - many seemingly only to serve the function of shortening our lifespan.

The Foster Gamble created documentary Thrive goes into a lot of that speaking with inventors.

+ how about usury free banking? Go research Woergl. Every fucking country could print it's budget into existence interest-free. Not only that - you could issue money interest-free with a negative interest (demurrage) into circulation that would make the economic system far more democratic and the average Joe prosperous. The more able guy would still come up on top, but at least you would not have this usurous inter-generational useless genocidal elite ruling.

So no - technology and science is absolutely the answer, just not the crap they give us with batteries being barely better than the ones we had in the fucking 1920s with the first electric cars.

Just as the magic wand of proper nutrition all year long, refrigeration, proper hygiene, running water, proper heating and insulation in winter - just as all of that decreased child-mortality by 98% long before any vaccine, the same can happen with further applied knowledge.

The only positive I would say about that is that this suppression can never last forever.

As for "irreversible" poisoning of chemicals like Teflon etc. - nothing is really irreversible. There are studies out there where application of mega-dose vitamins increases detoxification by 10.000% - in terms of speed - for example lead toxicity. And that is a low-tech medical procedure more akin to extreme food application - never mind if you go into machines that supposedly exist that use vibration into certain body parts and focus on certain elements, also those that hyper-charge the immune system. Because RIFE machine and orthomolecular med is 1940s, 1950s tech.

[img=640x480]http://vitamind.hu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/large-rife.jpg[/img]

There are even pictures of Dr. Rife with the Royal doctor of the British king as well as 20 others including leading Stanford MDs - they were all witnessing his preliminary cancer test on 12 patients who were all cured withing 4-6 weeks.

You can find plenty of documentaries on Youtube.

There are scientific solutions to many issues that are plaguing us - but most of the suppressed ones simply run counter to the global plans of our world rulers - and we already have those. Even North Korea or Iran are not independent - not really. They would be Tungsten-bombed if they truly started rolling out even half of what I mentioned - both countries have scientists who could go into those directions, but both would not survive this. The same if they went into real monetary reform. They would declare war on them immediately.