[Debt Slavery] Credit card debt now secured by government.

[CoinCube]

The rules are changing. Once upon a time people could walk away from debt and start over if they got into trouble. It would be very unwise to assume this will be possible in the future.

Credit card debt is no longer unsecured debt. It is now secured by a 25% lien on all your future earnings. Protect yourself and your family accordingly.

http://knba.org/post/when-consumer-debts-go-unpaid-paychecks-can-take-big-hit

One in 10 working Americans between the ages of 35 and 44 are getting their wages garnished

Back in 2009, Kevin Evans was one of millions of Americans blindsided by the recession. He had a 25-year career selling office furniture, but suddenly, companies stopped buying furniture. For the next several years he worked a string of low-wage jobs: at a lumber yard, at a 24-hour fitness center. He rented a room from a friend. He never collected unemployment. But with a daughter in college and basic living expenses, he ended up with a $7,000 credit card debt that he says he couldn't pay.

Late last year, he found a better-paying, full-time customer service job in Springfield, Mo. Things were finally getting better, until early this year, when he opened his paycheck and found a quarter of it missing. His credit card lender, Capital One, had garnished his wages.

Evans had the misfortune to live in Missouri, which not only allows creditors to seize 25 percent, but also allows them to continue to charge a high interest rate even after a judgment. By early 2010, Evans had fallen so far behind that Capital One suspended his card. For months, he made monthly $200 payments toward his $7,000 debt, according to statements reviewed by NPR and ProPublica. But by this time, the payments barely kept pace with the interest piling on at 26 percent

Missouri law also allowed Capital One to tack on a $1,200 attorney fee. Evans has involuntarily paid over $6,000 this year on his old debt, an average of about $480 each paycheck, but he still owes more than $10,000. In Missouri, creditors can continue to add the contractual rate of interest for the life of the debt

[TECSHARE]

https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/debtors-prisons
https://news.vice.com/article/debtors-prisons-are-taking-the-us-back-to-the-19th-century
http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons

[Foxpup]

As it should be. Borrowing something and not giving it back isn't debt, it's theft.

[TECSHARE]

As it should be. Borrowing something and not giving it back isn't debt, it's theft.

You mean like every time they create a loan out of thin air and rob every USD holder world wide in the process? Also, why is this not the responsibility of the lender to assure that someone they loan to is not a risk to lend to? They are extracting a profit, any time this happens there is a corresponding risk or obligation. This is an immutable law of commerce.

[Foxpup]

You mean like every time they create a loan out of thin air and rob every USD holder world wide in the process?

Loans aren't created out of thin air. They are created out of deposits. Depositors are expected to know exactly what they're putting they're putting their money into. Whether that's a reasonable expectation is another matter entirely.

Also, why is this not the responsibility of the lender to assure that someone they loan to is not a risk to lend to? They are extracting a profit, any time this happens there is a corresponding risk or obligation. This is an immutable law of commerce.

You have a strange idea about responsibility. A lender has no responsibility or obligation to the debtor other than to actually provide the loan itself. The lender will of course be annoyed if the loan is never repaid, which is why they don't make loans to those who are bad credit risks, but that's not the lender's responsibility. Repaying the loan is the sole responsibility and obligation of the debtor.

[TECSHARE]

You mean like every time they create a loan out of thin air and rob every USD holder world wide in the process?

Loans aren't created out of thin air. They are created out of deposits. Depositors are expected to know exactly what they're putting they're putting their money into. Whether that's a reasonable expectation is another matter entirely.

Technically 90% of the loans ARE created out of thin air. So for every dollar in deposit, they can loan out $9 more. You are woefully uninformed about he banking system.

"As we're going to see, money in our modern banking system has the ability to multiply through bank lending. Each time a loan is made, money is created. Out of where, you may ask? Out of thin air. Most people would attribute this feat only to the Federal Reserve, but in actuality, every bank does it with every loan they make."
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/matthew-kerkhoff/fractional-reserve-banking-how-to-create-destroy-money

Also, why is this not the responsibility of the lender to assure that someone they loan to is not a risk to lend to? They are extracting a profit, any time this happens there is a corresponding risk or obligation. This is an immutable law of commerce.

You have a strange idea about responsibility. A lender has no responsibility or obligation to the debtor other than to actually provide the loan itself. The lender will of course be annoyed if the loan is never repaid, which is why they don't make loans to those who are bad credit risks, but that's not the lender's responsibility. Repaying the loan is the sole responsibility and obligation of the debtor.

The banking system is RIFE with stories about banks giving loans to people with no credit, bad credit, hobos, even criminals during the housing market boom. There are even reports of bank employees FALSIFYING LOAN PAPERWORK without the knowledge of customers! The consequence is disconnected from the choice of who to lend to, because if a loan goes bad the TAX PAYERS, HOME OWNERS, and USD holders pay the price, not the loaning bank. If I pick up an random hobo off the street and pay him to remodel my house instead of a qualified bonded contractor, is it the hobos fault or my fault for making that investment when it goes wrong? It is the primary responsibility of the investing party to due due diligence upon the borrowing party.
It boils down to this...
If I file for a loan that I shouldn't be approved for, and my bank falsifies my paperwork and gets me the loan anyway, how is that even an enforceable contract let alone something one should be imprisoned for? Being poor should never mean a loss of your human rights. The bankers are playing a rigged game, now they want to get their pound of flesh after they have entrapped the nation with fraud.

[Foxpup]

Technically 90% of the loans ARE created out of thin air. So for every dollar in deposit, they can loan out $9 more. You are woefully uninformed about he banking system.

I know how fractional reserve banking works. You clearly don't. For every dollar in reserve, they loan out $9 more, from a total of $10 in deposit.

If I pick up an random hobo off the street and pay him to remodel my house instead of a qualified bonded contractor, is it the hobos fault or my fault for making that investment when it goes wrong?

It is your fault for making the investment, but the hobo's fault for it going wrong, and you can sue him for that. Of course, you likely won't get much, which, more than anything else, is what makes it a bad idea.

It is the primary responsibility of the investing party to due due diligence upon the borrowing party.

That responsibility is to the investor himself. He has a responsibility to make a profit, and that means not making loans that are likely to go bad and lose him money. The fate of the borrower is not his responsibility at all.

If I file for a loan that I shouldn't be approved for, and my bank falsifies my paperwork and gets me the loan anyway, how is that even an enforceable contract let alone something one should be imprisoned for?

Because even if a contract is invalid, it is invalid for both parties. If the borrower was never supposed to receive the loan, then the lender was never supposed to give it, which means the money loaned is the lender's property and must be returned. Keeping property that doesn't belong to you is theft.

Being poor should never mean a loss of your human rights.

You cannot lose a right you never had in the first place. Nobody, poor or not, has a right to borrow money without paying it back.

[CoinCube]

As it should be. Borrowing something and not giving it back isn't debt, it's theft.

Wrong wrong wrong it's not theft it is default. Most of the time these people intended to repay but later cannot.

Default is a natural risk of lending. It's why lenders charge a huge interest rate especially for unsecured debt.
When did credit cards morph from unsecured debt to debt secured by every penny you will ever make in the future?

Why are you cheering the morphing of our government into the debt collection agency of big business?
If this trend continues all credit card companies need to do is make it just a little bit harder for people to file for bankruptcy and then give collage students tons of 0% interest credit cards.

 "Don't worry about that credit card debt college kid it's a great deal at 0%. We wont even require you to make payments until you are done with collage and get a job. What you missed your first payment sorry that 50k now has an interest rate of 26%. We get to take 25% of all your earnings forever. What you did not know what you were doing when you signed up for this at age 18? Sorry that's you problem after all not paying your debt is theft."

Is this the future you want a society of slaves? I know we are well on our way already but to cheer it on and is nauseating. Default is a natural risk of lending. Cheering for wage garnishments is cheering for corporate bailouts and big government.

[TECSHARE]

Technically 90% of the loans ARE created out of thin air. So for every dollar in deposit, they can loan out $9 more. You are woefully uninformed about he banking system.

I know how fractional reserve banking works. You clearly don't. For every dollar in reserve, they loan out $9 more, from a total of $10 in deposit.

You are just flat out incorrect about this and you lack a basic understanding about how the money supply works. I am willing to bet you didn't even bother to look at the documentation I provided, not that reality or facts are important to you.

If I pick up an random hobo off the street and pay him to remodel my house instead of a qualified bonded contractor, is it the hobos fault or my fault for making that investment when it goes wrong?

It is your fault for making the investment, but the hobo's fault for it going wrong, and you can sue him for that. Of course, you likely won't get much, which, more than anything else, is what makes it a bad idea.

So how is my improper choice of investment any different than a bank making a loan to an unfit party? Banks can sue debtors who default on their loans, why do banks get to imprison people as well ON TOP of the lawsuit?

It is the primary responsibility of the investing party to due due diligence upon the borrowing party.

That responsibility is to the investor himself. He has a responsibility to make a profit, and that means not making loans that are likely to go bad and lose him money. The fate of the borrower is not his responsibility at all.

Here you are contradicting yourself, as well as responding to a premise I did not make. I never said the borrowers FATE was the banks responsibility, I did however state that banks have knowingly, and on an industrialized scale made loans to VERY CLEARLY unfit borrowers, such as homeless and unemployed people. This is in the realm of negligence, theft, and fraud, especially when you consider they pay no costs if the loan is in default.

If I file for a loan that I shouldn't be approved for, and my bank falsifies my paperwork and gets me the loan anyway, how is that even an enforceable contract let alone something one should be imprisoned for?

Because even if a contract is invalid, it is invalid for both parties. If the borrower was never supposed to receive the loan, then the lender was never supposed to give it, which means the money loaned is the lender's property and must be returned. Keeping property that doesn't belong to you is theft.

What should happen and what happens in reality are much different. You are correct in pointing out that it would be an invalid contract, but do you really think the bank cares? Do you think the average person in debt has the means to argue this in court against a multinational bank? If keeping property that doesn't belong to you is theft then the lending parties are guilty of theft from each and every USD holder, tax payer, and home owner in the US.

Being poor should never mean a loss of your human rights.

You cannot lose a right you never had in the first place. Nobody, poor or not, has a right to borrow money without paying it back.

So putting someone in a cage is not loss of their rights? At what point did civil matters become criminal matters? You don't at all see the dangerous precedent this sets? Last time I checked companies and even individuals are legally allowed to be free regardless of gigantic civil settlements made against them. You are basically supporting a world where anyone can be sued for anything, and if you can afford it you can take anyone's freedom away via a civil suit process. This is moving away from rule of law (ie separation of criminal and civil law), and into fascism where the state is nothing but a tool for corporate entities.

[TECSHARE]

As it should be. Borrowing something and not giving it back isn't debt, it's theft.

Wrong wrong wrong it's not theft it is default. Most of the time these people intended to repay but later cannot.

Default is a natural risk of lending. It's why lenders charge a huge interest rate especially for unsecured debt.
When did credit cards morph from unsecured debt to debt secured by every penny you will ever make in the future?

Why are you cheering the morphing of our government into the debt collection agency of big business?
If this trend continues all credit card companies need to do is make it just a little bit harder for people to file for bankruptcy and then give collage students tons of 0% interest credit cards.

 "Don't worry about that credit card debt college kid it's a great deal at 0%. We wont even require you to make payments until you are done with collage and get a job. What you missed your first payment sorry that 50k now has an interest rate of 26%. We get to take 25% of all your earnings forever. What you did not know what you were doing when you signed up for this at age 18? Sorry that's you problem after all not paying your debt is theft."

Is this the future you want a society of slaves? I know we are well on our way already but to cheer it on and is nauseating. Default is a natural risk of lending. Cheering for wage garnishments is cheering for corporate bailouts and big government.

The problem is he is going even a step further past wage garnishments, and saying it is right for people to be imprisoned for bad debt. As you mentioned there is a risk vs reward analysis for every act of commerce. Demanding that commerce some how be risk free for the lender is asinine and against the very fundamental principals of commerce.

[Foxpup]

Default is a natural risk of lending. It's why lenders charge a huge interest rate especially for unsecured debt.

And shoplifting is a natural risk of retail. It's why retailers put magnetic anti-theft devices on their merchandise. That doesn't mean they shouldn't use the full force of the law to punish shoplifters.

Why are you cheering the morphing of our government into the debt collection agency of big business?

I'm not. I'm merely cheering debt collection. It hardly matters whether that's done by the government or a private company.

"Don't worry about that credit card debt college kid it's a great deal at 0%. We wont even require you to make payments until you are done with collage and get a job. What you missed your first payment sorry that 50k now has an interest rate of 26%. We get to take 25% of all your earnings forever. What you did not know what you were doing when you signed up for this at age 18? Sorry that's you problem after all not paying your debt is theft."

Ignorance is no defence.

Is this the future you want a society of slaves?

I see you don't know the meaning of that word. A slave is someone who is forced to work against their will. But nothing about debt is against the debtor's will. When they signed they contract, they willingly agreed to repay the loan. They accepted the responsibility completely voluntarily.

So how is my improper choice of investment any different than a bank making a loan to an unfit party? Banks can sue debtors who default on their loans, why do banks get to imprison people as well ON TOP of the lawsuit?

I never said anything about imprisoning people.

So putting someone in a cage is not loss of their rights?

With freedom comes responsibility. In particular, I expect any free person to be responsible enough to not harm or steal from other people. I see no problem with denying freedom to people who deny their responsibilities. Most civilised justice systems function on this concept. There are worse alternatives.

At what point did civil matters become criminal matters?

Not sure if rhetorical question, but if not, all actions against a person or property have both a civil and criminal component.

You are basically supporting a world where anyone can be sued for anything, and if you can afford it you can take anyone's freedom away via a civil suit process.

I support no such thing.

The problem is he is going even a step further past wage garnishments, and saying it is right for people to be imprisoned for bad debt. As you mentioned there is a risk vs reward analysis for every act of commerce. Demanding that commerce some how be risk free for the lender is asinine and against the very fundamental principals of commerce.

I made no such demand, either. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to demand that lenders can reduce the risk by suing or prosecuting those who don't pay their debts.

[TECSHARE]

You didn't bother to address my point about fractional reserve lending. I take it you did further research and realized you were mistaken.

So how is my improper choice of investment any different than a bank making a loan to an unfit party? Banks can sue debtors who default on their loans, why do banks get to imprison people as well ON TOP of the lawsuit?

I never said anything about imprisoning people.

Really? So whats this below VVV

So putting someone in a cage is not loss of their rights?

With freedom comes responsibility. In particular, I expect any free person to be responsible enough to not harm or steal from other people. I see no problem with denying freedom to people who deny their responsibilities. Most civilised justice systems function on this concept. There are worse alternatives.

Default on debt is not equivalent to theft. I will provide a very simple example. If a person takes out a loan, then a few years later their house burns down and they lose their job, and as a result they are unable to pay their debt, is this an act of theft? There are many perfectly innocent reasons someone might default on a loan, even without intent of "theft".

At what point did civil matters become criminal matters?

Not sure if rhetorical question, but if not, all actions against a person or property have both a civil and criminal component.

See now here you show your ignorance of the system of law as well. There is a VERY important distinction between civil and criminal law for a very good reason. Criminal law is part of the public process and is put into place only after publicly elected officials pass legislation and it is approved by the local, state, or federal governments. Plaintiffs also have a right to a TRIAL BY JURY as well as several other protections to ensure a fair hearing under criminal law. Civil law can be invoked by ANYONE for ANY REASON. While you can often sue someone who is also guilty of violations of criminal law, you CAN NOT prosecute people under criminal law for a debt that is NOT A CRIMINAL ACT. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Criminal law does, and should have a much higher standard because it is not just a matter of property rights, it is a matter of human rights, and additionally there are no standards limiting who can sue whom in court and for what reason. What you are asking for as a result is a system where people can be judged against under civil law, and then have criminal penalties applied to them WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

You are basically supporting a world where anyone can be sued for anything, and if you can afford it you can take anyone's freedom away via a civil suit process.

I support no such thing.

This is exactly what you support in effect, regardless of your ignorance on the matter.

The problem is he is going even a step further past wage garnishments, and saying it is right for people to be imprisoned for bad debt. As you mentioned there is a risk vs reward analysis for every act of commerce. Demanding that commerce some how be risk free for the lender is asinine and against the very fundamental principals of commerce.

I made no such demand, either. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to demand that lenders can reduce the risk by suing or prosecuting those who don't pay their debts.

Lawsuits are acceptable for property and contract disputes. Criminal law does not, and should not have the jurisdiction to prosecute civil cases. This is why DEBT COLLECTION COMPLETELY REMAINS IN THE JURISDICTION OF CIVIL LAW, at least in a society that has rule of law anyway. Obviously fascists such as your self would like to see that changed. Also before you accuse me of making a personal attack, those who advocate for the merger of the corporation and the state are by definition fascists.

[CoinCube]

Loans aren't created out of thin air. They are created out of deposits

Your statement above is grossly and provably false.

Finance Part I: Understanding the Parasite

Banks create money by making loans, but this process is not in any way constrained by reserves, deposits or a money multiplier. Banks do not need deposits to make loans. The idea that banks somehow lend out grandma’s savings is propaganda. Instead banks simply create money via accounting wizardry. When a bank approves a loan they simultaneously create a deposit in the borrower’s bank account and voilà new money is created. Banks do not function by lending out deposits. Instead the act of lending creates more deposits. This is the reverse of the sequence taught in almost all economic textbooks.  Banks create deposits at will.

Economic texts often state that banks are constrained by reserve requirements. This is a lie. There does exist a number called reserve requirements. However, if a bank needs more reserves these reserves are simply supplied to meet this demand. Depending on the country this is done either directly by the central bank or via interbank lending at interest rates that are suppressed by the central bank. The theory of the money multiplier is false. In reality there is a reserve multiplier. Central bank reserves are increased by a percentage of the amount money banks choose to create.

In no way does the aggregate quantity of reserves directly constrain the amount of bank lending or deposit creation.

[bf4btc]

The rules are changing. Once upon a time people could walk away from debt and start over if they got into trouble. It would be very unwise to assume this will be possible in the future.

This was never the case. All an "unsecured" debt is, something that is not secured by specific property that can be seized in the event of a default. A creditor can still get a judgement against someone and have the court seize any unencumbered assets in order to pay off what is owed to them.

Credit card debt is no longer unsecured debt. It is now secured by a 25% lien on all your future earnings. Protect yourself and your family accordingly.

This is also not a change. If you do not have enough assets to pay off your unsecured debt then the court can order that future payments to you be seized to pay off your debt overtime.

If you don't want to risk having your paycheck garnished in the future then I would suggest not be a deadbeat

[Foxpup]

I will provide a very simple example. If a person takes out a loan, then a few years later their house burns down and they lose their job, and as a result they are unable to pay their debt, is this an act of theft? There are many perfectly innocent reasons someone might default on a loan, even without intent of "theft".

There's nothing innocent about that, as there is a very simple solution: insurance. It is grossly negligent to get into debt without insuring your income and assets. If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford debt. It's that simple.

What you are asking for as a result is a system where people can be judged against under civil law, and then have criminal penalties applied to them WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

No, I'm not. Learn to read.

Obviously fascists such as your self would like to see that changed. Also before you accuse me of making a personal attack, those who advocate for the merger of the corporation and the state are by definition fascists.

And learn the definition of fascism, while you're at it.

[spazzdla]

You mean like every time they create a loan out of thin air and rob every USD holder world wide in the process?

Loans aren't created out of thin air. They are created out of deposits. Depositors are expected to know exactly what they're putting they're putting their money into. Whether that's a reasonable expectation is another matter entirely.

Also, why is this not the responsibility of the lender to assure that someone they loan to is not a risk to lend to? They are extracting a profit, any time this happens there is a corresponding risk or obligation. This is an immutable law of commerce.

You have a strange idea about responsibility. A lender has no responsibility or obligation to the debtor other than to actually provide the loan itself. The lender will of course be annoyed if the loan is never repaid, which is why they don't make loans to those who are bad credit risks, but that's not the lender's responsibility. Repaying the loan is the sole responsibility and obligation of the debtor.

LMAO no just no.. nooo.  Fractional banking owns your argument.

[drmundo]

fuk

You mean like every time they create a loan out of thin air and rob every USD holder world wide in the process?

Loans aren't created out of thin air. They are created out of deposits. Depositors are expected to know exactly what they're putting they're putting their money into. Whether that's a reasonable expectation is another matter entirely.

Also, why is this not the responsibility of the lender to assure that someone they loan to is not a risk to lend to? They are extracting a profit, any time this happens there is a corresponding risk or obligation. This is an immutable law of commerce.

You have a strange idea about responsibility. A lender has no responsibility or obligation to the debtor other than to actually provide the loan itself. The lender will of course be annoyed if the loan is never repaid, which is why they don't make loans to those who are bad credit risks, but that's not the lender's responsibility. Repaying the loan is the sole responsibility and obligation of the debtor.

LMAO no just no.. nooo.  Fractional banking owns your argument.

seriously fuk fractional banking that screws us all.

[CoinCube]

This was never the case. All an "unsecured" debt is, something that is not secured by specific property that can be seized in the event of a default. A creditor can still get a judgement against someone and have the court seize any unencumbered assets in order to pay off what is owed to them.

Until recently this was limited almost exclusively to existing hard assets and typically reserved for gross abusers of the system ie a deadbeats who maxed out his credit cards but had lots of money in the bank and just did not want to pay.

What you are seeing today is an oppression of the middle class using the state to enforce unsecured debt to grab future earnings in perpetuity and this is very new. Here are a few things that have facilitated this change:

1) Chapter 7 bankruptcy is now much harder to file. These garnishments would have been rare in the past as it was much easier for people in trouble to file bankruptcy and start over.

2) Lenders are using sophisticated methods to track the employment and income of those in debt. Capital One and the like leave the debt in limbo accumulating high interest and don't engage in an aggressive attempts to collect until the debtor starts to get back on his feet. That is when they apply the thumbscrews.

3) Courts are shifting the entire cost of the debt collection to the debtor. These cost used to be born by the lender.

4) Courts are allowing high interest debts to continue to accumulate after a judgement is made. In the past courts would set a repayment plan the freeze or cap the interest on the debt.

Together these morph credit card debt from a high risk bet on the part of the bank to an almost guaranteed low risk proposition. Seizing all future earning in perpetuity is very problematic policy and essentially a form government sanctioned slavery. It should only be used in the most extreme situations if ever. Certainly not for unsecured debt.  

In ancient times they had similar rules. Fall behind on your debt and you were required to sell yourself into slavery to pay them. Some cultures justified this by requiring the slave owner to pay the slave a pitiful salary so the slave had some hypothetical method of freeing himself after several decades.

Nothing wrong with that policy right? After all not paying your debts is theft. Bring out the chains.

[TECSHARE]

I will provide a very simple example. If a person takes out a loan, then a few years later their house burns down and they lose their job, and as a result they are unable to pay their debt, is this an act of theft? There are many perfectly innocent reasons someone might default on a loan, even without intent of "theft".

There's nothing innocent about that, as there is a very simple solution: insurance. It is grossly negligent to get into debt without insuring your income and assets. If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford debt. It's that simple.

Way to completely avoid the point. There are lots of perfectly innocent reasons one might be left destitute regardless of you willful ignorance and deconstruction of an example rather than the premise itself.

What you are asking for as a result is a system where people can be judged against under civil law, and then have criminal penalties applied to them WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

No, I'm not. Learn to read.

Just because you don't understand the results of the policies you support, doesn't mean you don't support those results.

Obviously fascists such as your self would like to see that changed. Also before you accuse me of making a personal attack, those who advocate for the merger of the corporation and the state are by definition fascists.

And learn the definition of fascism, while you're at it.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

-Benito Mussolini

You know the definition of fascism better than Mussolini?

[Foxpup]

Way to completely avoid the point. There are lots of perfectly innocent reasons one might be left destitute regardless of you willful ignorance and deconstruction of an example rather than the premise itself.

Well, that's what bankruptcy's for.

Just because you don't understand the results of the policies you support, doesn't mean you don't support those results.

Which policies would those be, again? I never said anything about applying criminal penalties for civil judgements. In fact, I explicitly stated that I don't support that, and will not repeat it again.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

-Benito Mussolini

You know the definition of fascism better than Mussolini?

I know there's no citation for that quote earlier than 2002, 57 years after Mussolini's death, and that it is inconsistent with his actual ideology. Do you have any evidence that he actually said or believed that?