Thursday, May 31, 2012

Perception and Genius

If I were to ask you how many things you could have perceived yesterday but didn't, how would you go about answering that question?  In my view, you can't.  I certainly can't tell you, and by definition you did not perceive what you did not perceive, so you can't either.  But can we both agree it was significantly more than what you did perceive?  If you don't think so, let me widen the parameters a bit:

What could you have realized about an enemy or friend or associate or family member that you didn't?

What innovation at work could have occurred to you but didn't?

What color was the sky, exactly, when you drove home, and how much satisfaction could you have realized as a result?

What spontaneous, positive emotions were possible for you, but unrecognized?  How can you know?

What you can do, is try to do better.

General Relativity did not come about just as a result of Einstein's IQ.  There are people, even today, who are his superior in that regard.  He himself attributed his fecundity to imagination and persistence.

I would submit that the first imaginative act necessary for paradigmatic thinking is the idea that the paradigm may be wrong.  I do not think Einstein was fully original--others, too, knew or suspected that Newtonian mechanics were not quite right--but he was certainly not surrounded by admirers when doing his most seminal work at the opening of the 20th century.  He worked in a patent office and smoked cheap cigars with a small group of like-minded, but nowhere near as bright men.

Talent, the ability to imagine that what you know is wrong, and persistence: in my view, this is the full list of traits necessary for what is called genius.

Socialism and Banking

It occurs to me that banks enjoy a special exemption from the detriments of socialism to private enterprise.  The money they create, which acts to siphon wealth from the private sector as a whole, is not taxable.  They are only taxed on the money they make on the money they create.  For example, if a bank creates $10 billion, and loans it at 5% interest, they are only taxed on the interest, despite the fact that the $10 billion is far more important.  This $10 billion, being inflationary, also creates wealth for them, but virtually no one sees this.  Not one man in a million, as I recall Keynes putting it, although of course he had in mind wealth reallocation via government money printing.  The principle is the same.

This is how to explain the apparently paradox of bankers supporting socialism: it is beneficial to them.  They get to loan money to governments, and corporations--having more of their money taken in taxation--are in greater need of the loans that they make.

As I have said often--scratch that, this may be the first time I've said it just this way--my motto is "Every citizen a Capitalist".  Everyone, top to bottom, should be self employed.  They should capitalize their own businesses with money they save.  All this would be possible, if our system were not constantly leaking wealth to the banking elites.

Why would Wall Street--which heavily funded Obama's campaign--insist on supposed "reform" (which seems largely to consist in a preprepared slush fund for them to pull from when they get in trouble)?  Why reform themselves?  Public Relations.  Since they benefit disproportionately the Socialism of people like Obama, it was no doubt thought prudent to create the illusion that he was socking it to them.  These people do not become billionaires through complacency or stupidity.  I would suspect they continue to prefer Obama over Romney for this reason, although of course they can work out a modus vivendi with him as well--hence the contributions to him.  If  you have a lot of money, no sense being niggardly (Hey, one could make a news story out of someone using that word; if one were stupid and ignorant): spread the wealth.  It comes back.  It always does.

Or look at the IMF: teeming with Socialists.  Why?  Again, socialism should not be understood primarily as a system of helping people.  It needs to be seem as a TOOL for the most cynical to increase their political power, which is best accomplished by increasing the number of things the government directly controls, which necessarily implies greatly increased burdens on the private sector.

China, currently, embodies ALL the critiques that Marx made of 19th century England.  The workers have no rights, they work long hours in unsafe conditions, and a few--very few--are using their control over this de facto slave system to become ENORMOUSLY wealthy.  Those few, necessarily, are in or close to the supposed Communist Party, which is far more abusive than the class of Capitalists EVER has been in any Western nation.

If you learn to see the world as it is, you see how many of the words floating in the air are pure cow manure.  On a deeper level, you see how few people understand how to cultivate useful, lasting, true happiness, and how many pursue power for lack of a perceived alternative.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Cognitive Frequencies

In my view, the notion that final truths are possible about "human nature" or even reality is pernicious.  It is not intrinsically pernicious, but rather leads, in the way 4 legged chairs with a leg missing tend to tilt, towards the use of power to compel others to a certain way of thinking.

Take nutrition.  Our nation only became fat when it adopted a nutritional prescription intended to prevent obesity, the notion that fat makes people fat. Once this "lesson" was learned, obesity skyrocketed.  We are still dealing with it today.

Nutrition often acts as a sort of ersatz religion.  Health is inextricably tied in with our mortality, so in some ways nutrition gets at the fundamental strangeness of human life: being here, but knowing this will not last forever, and that we will inevitably lose some large measure of our vitality before the end comes.

As I see it, many people, confronted with mortality, become vastly concerned with shaping out some area of CONSISTENCY, in the face of the randomness of death.  They find a little corner, and hide there, hoping death will find them last.  The need for this corner, this security blanket, this solace: this all leads inevitably to cognitive error.  But the point to be made here is that the error is SHARED.  That is the point of the corner: you are not alone there.  In fact, you have gathered around you in close proximity any number of kindred souls who have found the same hiding place.  This not only offers the comfort of "home", but also family.

This does in fact serve many useful purposes, and I would propose that to the extent we have a diversity of corners, of opinions, we zig zag our collective way in the approximately correct direction.  This is the point of freedom, of genuine Liberalism.

Yet there exist those who want to impose their corner on the world, who cannot believe themselves that they are right until they have compelled everyone else to adopt the same world view; who in fact think it is there destiny, privilege, burden to share the "truth" with everyone out there.  This is the root of totalitarian thinking.

Academics are most dangerous for a simple reason: they have been taught--by test-taking, by obeisance to authority, by virtue of having substantial intellectual capabilities--that "right" answers exist in the world, and that THEY ARE THE ONES MOST LIKELY TO FIND THEM.

Practically, morality gets DONE every day, all over the world, by people making necessary decisions.  Academics don't generally get to DO morality, so much as talk about it, about what a better world would look like, what "justice" looks like.

Thus, you have a confluence of people who DO something close to nothing, but who believe in absolute truth, and that they KNOW IT.

Why was the Russian nation--and virtually every nation bordering it--plunged into a nightmare?  Because of this dynamic.

Few thoughts on Woden's Day.


It's no use:
putting square pegs into the

ocean.  It's not that it is round, but
that it swallows

As long as you swim, you swim

Death is life, you see, and life death.

Monday, May 28, 2012

The Old Liberators

Nice poem for Memorial Day, my last post notwithstanding, and without failing to note and offer gratitude to all the veterans of all our wars, known and covert.

Of all the people in the mornings at the mall,
It's the old liberators I like best,
Those veterans of the Bulge, Anzio, or Monte Cassino
I see lost in Automotive or back in Home Repair,
Bored among the paints and power tools.
Or the really old ones, the ones who are going fast,
Who keep dozing off in the little orchards
Of shade under the distant skylights.
All around, from one bright rack to another,
Their wives stride big as generals,
Their handbags bulging like ripe fruit.
They are almost all gone now,
And with them they are taking the flak
And fire storms, the names of the old bombing runs.
Each day a little more of their memory goes out,
Darkens the way a house darkens,
Its rooms quietly filling with evening,
Until nothing but the wind lifts the lace curtains,
The wind bearing through the empty rooms
The rich far off scent of gardens
Where just now, this morning,
Light is falling on the wild philodendrons. 

Robert Hedin

Memorial Day

I will be blunt: not every life given by a soldier serving our nation serves the cause of liberty.  We use the word to rationalize, and make palatable horrific outcomes: children without fathers, wives without husbands.  Death comes to us all, but to some sooner.

As I look back at the vast devastations of the last century, several things stand out.  First, that World War One was really unnecessary, at least for us.  We did not need to participate.  Multiple genuinely Imperial powers duked it out for 3 long years (I think it was) without us, none of them saints.  We lost some 120,000 dead, and presumably a multiple of that wounded (eyes, legs, arms, ability to be happy, gone).

A credible case can be made that we participated in that war to protect business investments made by JP Morgan.  I will not go into that at length now, but if you think back to your history, you get the Lusitania, but other than that, no credible threat to the US.

Arguably, World War Two came about as a result of the way World War One ended, and it only ended the way it did because WE WERE THERE.  Quite literally, EVERYTHING became worse as a result of our participation, for Americans.  It was better for Europe, of course, at least in the short term, but do we really owe other nations our blood for their foolishness, vanity, greed and ambition?

Both World Wars: unnecessary, for us.  Actually, to be clear, of course World War Two was necessary.  Sooner or later, Hitler would have developed a nuke and dropped it on us, repeatedly.  The Japanese attacked us, so obviously our national sovereignty was put at risk by their actions.  What I mean is that had World War One not happened, World War Two would not have happened, at least in Europe.  I will leave aside considerations of the war with Japan for the time being, not least because I don't know the history well enough.

Actually, though, China would not have become Communist had the Japanese not invaded.  This is a history I need to learn at some point.

I actually believe that both Korea and Vietnam were more necessary than World War One.  Our interests were at stake, since we faced a global power genuinely intent on conquering--one nation at a time--the world, and the Cold War was a war of public opinion, of military credibility, and of alliances.  We won this war.  Frankly, we also could have won the Korean War outright--China had no nukes at that time--and we DID win in Vietnam, only to to abandon our victory due to the influence of Communists in our government.

Which brings me to our two most recent wars.  As I keep saying, the importance of realizing a larger conspiracy was in place on 9/11 cannot be overestimated.  Given the logistical challenges inherent in planting enough explosives in the right places in three large office towers, undetected, one must assume formidable organizational prowess, planning capacity, covert operational ability, and malice.

Many assume this must have been the CIA.  Certainly, the CIA likely has those capabilities, but do people really want to argue that at the top levels everyone in the CIA wants America to become a totalitarian state?  I don't think so.  Nor was Iraq such a present threat that any significant number of Americans could have been persuaded that the best means of dealing with it was the mass murder of Americans.  That is why I choose the Russians as the likeliest candidate to have been working with American and other bankers, who would have benefited both by increasing the loans they could make, and in terms of apparently long term objectives of ruling the world.

I alluded to this video earlier.  Here it is, ten minutes of the Aaron Russo video:

Now, Russo himself was a Republican, then a Libertarian.  You can read his biography here:

One of the themes that dominates debates about wars is pacifism versus what I would term realism.  Some people say all wars are bad.  This would seem to imply that all political regimes are equal, since if you fail to wage war at times, you will lose your political sovereignty at some point, and live by someone else's rules.  Would you rather have a regular person with common sense morality as a boss, or a violent psychopath?  Only if you view the two as equal can you say all violence is wrong, and war never necessary.

But there is this subtle trick that happens here. Ron Paul gets called a pacifist all the time.  He is not a pacifist: he is simply unwilling to risk and lose American lives for causes that do not genuinely support our way of life and the interests of the American people.

What happens is that those who understand war is sometimes necessary get angry with those who call our troops baby-killers, who call all American use of power overseas necessarily imperialistic, and who want to sugar coat and sanctify the often horrible people running other nations.  These people, those who truly support our troops, in defending our troops and the abstract necessity of fighting wars, will often find themselves defending wars that, if they looked at them analytically, and solely in terms of protecting American lives in the actual United States, they might not agree with.

The war in Afghanistan should have been wound down  back in 2009, not escalated.  We sent troops in to retake areas from the Taliban that they will take back the moment we draw down. There is no point in taking something that you know you will eventually have to give back anyway.  It does seem clear to me that there were in fact terror training camps there, but--and here is the important point--it is IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate what the objective danger of those camps was, until we understand who all was involved on 9/11.

Iraq is the same thing.  I do believe that the nuke program was transported to fellow Baathist (which I think might accurately be called Fascist) nation Syria in the lead up to our war.  How much danger it represented to AMERICA, I don't know.  I can say that clearly part of our goal was stability in the region for the OPEC nations, and that it would not have mattered strategically to us if we were energy independent, which would be greatly expedited with a LOT more drilling.

In the end, of course I value the sacrifices of our troops.  I have spent years defending them.  It just bothers me that they were better in many cases than the causes for which they gave their lives.  We do not respect and remember them properly if we fail to see this out of convenience or cowardice.  Effective soldiers do not have the luxury of illusion on the battlefield, and neither do we, on the battlefield of ideas.

Short version: our troops are the tip of the spear, but who is at the other end?

Sunday, May 27, 2012


I believe I have admitted this, but will again: I do not always know why I write what I write.  Sometimes only later, sometimes much later, do I realize what I myself meant.

Whatever name we give it, there is a place in all of us which understands everything, which operates upon principles and tendencies that became a part of the "real" us at some point, usually in ways we cannot recall.  We mimic our parents, of course.  We mimic movie characters, teachers.  We choose our behavior fully only rarely, and only if we can identify and account for all the latent patterns within us which force us one way or another.

We need to recognize this.  I was listening to a book on CD on "Why we make mistakes", and one point they made is that when people change their minds about some fundamental issue, they often change their MEMORY of their PAST opinions, such that they were ALWAYS adherents of whatever belief with which they now identify.

Likewise, experiments have been done with hypnotic suggestions that are very mild, such as "scratch your chin whenever you hear the word 'elf'".  What they find is that when asked why they did such and such, they believe that it was their intention.

For this reason, I think it is important to have this category "don't know".  I don't know why I said that.  You must be OK with this ambiguity, if you really don't know, as the alternative is abusing the truth.  You are not just not telling the truth: you are creating a real, nearly ineradicable false reality when you insist on clarity and consistency that is NOT THERE.

A metaphor I have often used for myself is from traditional Japanese kenjutsu, which is the art of the sword, specifically (normally) the katana.  When you swing, it is nothing like the motion of a baseball bat.  With a bat, you need power.  With a razor sharp blade, you need the right sort of motion, which needs power, but far more importantly a quality of motion of the blade.  When you swing, therefore--and strike or attack may both be better words--you swing through the target, but only barely.  If you were trying to cut someone's torso, you swing perhaps 6" at most--and that's likely too much-- past where the opposite side of their body would have been if you had hit.  This prevents you from falling off balance, and from creating an opening for an attacker by foolishly offering up a weaponless, undefended target.

The point here is that you move, then you stop, all while retaining a clear sense of balance and rhythm. Perception is like this.  I was thinking about this yesterday, and I think for me a perhaps accurate metaphor for my engagement with perception--with the pursuit of truth--is that of a hunter, or a swordsmen chasing down endless opponents.  Musashi taught that the essence of his teaching was to always think of cutting.  For someone cultivating the process of perception you must always be looking for the essence, the detail or generalization that will grant greater understanding; and you must always be learning to ignore the trivial and/or misdirections with which the universe and the people around us perennially confront us.

Done properly, this is a daily battle that makes life interesting.  That's my view, at any rate.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Psychological Serial Killers

As I have often remarked, it is interesting that serial killers have become heroes.  I wonder to what extent modern culture has made all of us wear masks of passive niceness covering deeply seated aggressions we don't know how to express or even share publicly.  I read once where settlers in the West, perhaps Utah, executed a murderer, skinned him, and made boots out of his skin.  Violence is nothing new, and has often been expressed publicly in the past, by the group.

Leaving that aside, I wanted to focus on an aspect of this.  I think we have all felt the urge for the great to fail; for the "hero" to falter.  That hero represents both an ideal and a challenge.  If the hero fails, then we can rest more comfortably in who we are.

More deeply, though, I think when we are unhappy we want others to share in it.  This is the essence of Schadenfreude.  There is this motion towards tearing down.

Here is the point I want to make, though: that tearing down applies to us, too.  It is possible in this life to very happy, to have frequent, nearly continuous moments of contentedness, of satisfaction.  But only if we attach ourselves to them.  When we cut down others, we sever the connections we otherwise might have had in the direction of our own happiness.  We pull out knives that work in hidden ways on our own psyche and potential.  We are psychological serial killers: every moment of joy is killed in its infancy, by something angry.

This certainly true of me, and I may be projecting on others.  I have reached a point where I can see with reasonably clarity who I REALLY am, ugliness and all--my shadow, if you want to use Jungian terms.

You cannot kill ugliness.  You cannot will it out of existence.  As I see it, it is dissolved with progressively greater doses of light, of which truth telling is the principle or at least first manifestation.

The compulsion to repeat

We all find, to some greater or lesser extent, comfort in repetition, in doing the same thing repeatedly, perhaps even in redundancy and repetition?  What is repetition, but creating a pattern in chaos.  Squirrels come hard-wired to climb trees, copulate, and store nuts.  People are nearly entirely "user defined".  One function of culture, of course, is to provide a behavioral template.

But even though the apparently order of repetition--say going to a bar every Saturday and church every Sunday--is illusory, isn't it?  It could be some other way.  This is what it feels to me like the Existentialists--none of whom seem to have been very clever--thought an original insight.

I don't even think you can say that what comforts us, we repeat, unless we define comfort as ANY form of anxiety and confusion release. Quite often what we repeat is bad for us, but it worked once, so we continue.  This order is preferable to an unstable peace.

Friday, May 25, 2012

RFID Chips

I am increasingly persuaded that I have been insufficiently paranoid.  If you read prominent, mainstream academics and public officials, they are skeptical of democracy, of the "people"--most of whom are not decreed and pedigreed like they are--and of the possibility of a positive future unless they run everything.

If you doubt this, read this article, which was very eye opening for me:

Some of the most prominent "ethical" thinkers--including some of Obama's Czars--seem only able to justify the very existence of the human race with difficulty.  This is not paranoia: this is the content of their thinking, and these people hold the highest posts in the best universities, and HAVE INFLUENCE.  Certainly, granted the existence of the human race, they want it tightly controlled, since we are supposedly using all the resources of the planet.  This argument, of course, is as old as Malthus, and amounts to the argument that increasing wealth will cause decreasing wealth.  It ignores the role of price in resource allocation (this is a common, perhaps definitive, failing of socialists).

Anyway, some years ago Aaron Russo, who was quite active in the entertainment business, claimed that he had been told by his then-friend Nicholas Rockefeller that the plan was to imbed all Americans with RFID chips, and turn them off (cut them off: imagine that your credit card is in your chip; you can walk into the store and out with whatever you want and have it automatically tallied; that technology exists today) if they misbehave.

Here is a website which promotes his movie, Freedom to Fascism (which I have not watched, but likely should):

Anyway, all of this came back to me when I read this story:

The net is that a high school is going to use RFID chips in high school students ID cards, to keep track of them.

Let us imagine would-be totalitarians as pedophiles.  I don't think the psychological dynamics are all that different, with clinical narcissism up to and including full blown sociopathy being common.  What do pedophiles do?  They "groom" their targets.  They start with small inappropriate things, then act as if the intended victim is misbehaving if they object.  They continue to violate boundaries, until the victim loses a sense of self, and the ability to object, even though they don't like what is going on.

We all know you start with the kids if you want to build a different society.  We all know the society being built today in most schools is not a good one.  But the one being proposed here is one in which kids are being groomed to be monitored 24/7--for their "safety" of course (even though there has likely not been one act of violence on any of them in some time; or at least one that could have been prevented with a chip).

As I have argued, I believe the TSA sexually molesting everyone from kids to grandmothers unable to walk is a part of this grooming process.  I believe their VIPR patrols, which in a categorically unConstitutional fashion claim to be able to stop, detain, AND SEARCH anyone traveling on public transportation ANYWHERE.  This is not just a clear violation of the Federal and State functions, but a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  CLEARLY.  There is NO ambiguity here.  This is EXACTLY what the Bill of Rights was intended to protect us from.

And on that note, it is interesting that less than two weeks or so after Rand Paul announced plans to work to end the TSA the CIA "found" a double agent--who knows who he actually works for--with a better underwear bomb, so now the TSA can say "look, we are really protecting you."  Bullshit.

There are some 650 million people who travel on a commercial jetliner annually.  Since Sept. 11, 2001, how many have died in terrorist attacks?  Not one.  How many credible attempts have there been?  In my view, not one, since neither the shoe bomber nor the underwear bomber had, in my estimation, bombs that could have taken down an aircraft.

So let's multiply that out.  Between 9/11/01 and for simplicities sake let's say 9/11/09, which is roughly when the Obama Administration decided to start doing the nutsack and vagina searches, there were 5.2 BILLION individual flights.  Not one death.

Look at this list of causes of accidental deaths:

In the same time period choking killed some 20,000 people, fire killed some 21,000 people.  Falls killed 200,000 people.  Poisoning (including drug overdose), killed 310,000 people.  And car accidents killed 336,000 people.

How do we compare the risk of terror attack with these other risks?  We can't.  The risk is not statistically zero: it IS zero.  For this, we are forced to choose between having a nude photo taken of us or getting sexually molested by a paid pervert?

I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but it is my increasing conviction that Prison Planet is closer to the truth than Fox; or at least much closer than the more complacent among us would like to admit.

To be clear: these academics, like Hitler, have MAPPED OUT what they want to do, in writing, and in public.  And most of them are seemingly conscienceless, despite constant outward hand-wringing.  Morality, to them, is an abstraction, and the worst of crimes easily rationalized.  Most of them are clinical narcissists.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Hip Hop

It would be a very short list, would it not, if one were to inventory the hiphop songs about marital fidelity, sincere love, and the value of long term honest hard work.

If we posit that one can understand cultures through music, is it that hard to grasp how black people--the primary originators of hiphop, and the predominant consumers of it--constitute 40% of our prison population, despite being only some 12% of the population as a whole? 

Culture matters, and culture is transmitted perhaps most directly by parents, and then music.  Corrupt either or both, and you get failure.

The Real Self

We all live, to some greater or lesser extent, in varying worlds of illusion.  We lie to ourselves, about ourselves.  It seems to me that we deal with many false "selves".  It seems to me, though, that we can reasonably infer we are dealing with our true selves, when we tell ourselves the truth, even when that truth requires laying aside as immature and weak crazy images of ourselves that made sense, long ago.

Most of us live many lives even in the one we can see, don't we?


This is a paraphrase with addition of some interesting sections of the Tao Te Ching.

Renounce sainthood.  There are no saints on this earth.  Everyone you meet has something to teach you, and you have something to teach them.  Learn what you can, teach what you can: the rest is either chance or illusion.


I was driving home tonight, thinking about worship.  I drank a few beers, and had some nice conversations with 3-4 people.  Driving home, it felt like what I was meant to do.  I have many things to process, and this seems to be, for now, a method that is working.

Then this peace entered me, and I felt a very light, very happy touch on my heart, and realized worship is really nothing but offering a bowl which is then filled without effort with friendship and laughter. The singing, sacraments, Eucharist, praying:  all for social reasons, nothing more or less. They make people feel less alone, less confused.  They empower the weak to demand suffering of the non-conforming. They rape women, virtually and actually, and torture young children.  They demand wars, and refuse peace.

This is how I see most organized religion, despite the fact that I am often a defender of the religious against those who have the same flaws, and yet lack even the few virtues religion does cultivate.  The cult of Leftism is the most obvious example.

I got home, and walked my two dogs, who pooped 5 times.  I only had two bags.  I try to be responsible, but there are limits.  It was annoying.  My "worship" ended.  As I see it, very few New Age teachings have room for 5 craps and two bags, despite the fact that that is the frequent experience of most of us.

That is my goal: a "religion" for five craps and two bags.  It is actually funny, if you think about it.  Humor: the tone of God.

I will add: who can believe that God cares if men stick their dicks in vaginas or male anuses, if both parties benefit?  Who can believe that God cares how often we go to church, how much we drink, or that God can fail to understand those who suffer and make bad decisions as a consequence?  The Light: it sees all.  You cannot hide, and if you have nothing to hide, then it is Comfort and Joy itself.  This is my view; this is my experience.

Culture of Science

If you understand the scientific method, it does not deal with "truth", but rather repeatable and replicable measurements.  From those measurements--of gravity, of energy, or whatever--models are built that are never, formally, final.  Force=Mass times Acceleration is not final.  Nothing is ever understood, formally, as permanent.  This lack, this gap, this formal refusal to close any door finally, is what enables progress.

If some Church of Human Cultural Protection had declared Newton's Laws as final, Einstein never could have proposed General Relativity.  If the nature of subatomic particles had been declared "unknowable", we never would have had quantum physics.

The problem, in our current era, is that we have advanced to a point where many supposed scientists, and particularly their "lay" polemicists, want to declare certain areas more or less done.  They do this because there is a fundamental human urge or tendency to want "reality" to be fixed.

Now, in my view, it is quite likely that we will never as individuals EVER have a grasp of "reality", whatever it is, in this lifetime, and possibly ever.  If one is going to take the method of science and deploy it culturally, it has to be done so with humility, and an ACCEPTANCE of the fact that there is much about this universe we may never know, but that many, many things are repeatable and measurable.

Oi: I am physically tired from some hard physical work.  I wanted to write this, to get some very rough ideas down, but seem to be faltering.  There may yet be something useful here for someone.

Actually, I will add this last thought: I don't like the word truth.  The word I like is useful.  Ideas are not true or untrue; they are useful or useless, with both bookending a continuum in between.

Note on Greece idea

Formally, what I am proposing is a de facto default.  This should be obvious.

My whole proposal also depends upon wholesale reform of the banking system.  We can get everything socialists want, though Capitalism, but only if we deal with the banks.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Solution for Greece

Post from here:

I have a plan. It is a simple plan that depend on realizing only two things: 1) money is not real; and 2) the only reason that ANY modern nation has financial problems is that money creation, i.e. inflation, takes money out of the pockets of ordinary citizens.

Greece presumably has a central bank.  That bank needs to print up enough drachma to declare their debts settled.  They then need to revalue the drachma such that it is tied to the dollar or gold.

If there are any adults in Greece, they then need to reform the system such that they work the same hours and number of years as everyone else, because no one will any longer be willing to fund their lifestyle, but they will have been given a second chance.

Cry not for the German bankers: they make money out of nothing too.  This just flips the currentcy (sic) direction.

I deal with this idea at some length in my treatise, here:

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Only in America

I don't have any shortage of ideas.  At this moment, I have a backlog of probably 30-40 posts, some of which in all honesty I may never get to.  Still, from time to time I do like to pass things along that strike my fancy.  Here is an email I got today.

1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still
discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black. 12% of the population is black.

3) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of
Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims
might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the
budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as

7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to
cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate
whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

10) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income
taxes be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't
pay any income taxes at all.

Inner Child

My inclination normally, when seeing this phrase, is to think of the Eagle's song "Get over it".:

Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick it's little ass

Now, what's interesting about this is that when they did their Hell Freezes Over tour, they literally, in my understanding, had to pay someone to pass notes and messages between them, as they refused to speak face to face to one another, their terrific harmonies on stage notwithstanding. (note to self: needed a few, more, commas, in that sentence).

As I grow older though, and I think get more perspective on my own emotions, it seems to me that this concept of the inner child has some merit.  On occasion, I get deep enough within my own self that I feel as though I am lying underneath my emotional self, separate from it, and that I can feel it, see it, process it, as it is.  And frankly in most respects I am not the sort of person I would want to be.  There is ugliness in me that I hate to see, but must admit.

It is truly astonishing how deep and pervasive and long lived illusions about your self can be.  We think we are one sort of person, and can live out a life, easily, without ever grasping who and how we really are.

The value of the "inner child" idea is this: it is a place holder for the notion that at some point in our lives we stop--or never begin--processing emotion honestly, directly, spontaneously.  We equate our selves with how the world sees us, or how we feel we must be seen by the world.  We equate ourselves with goals and accomplishments that are compulsive, the energy for accomplishing which does not arise from our selves, but from other people, from persuasion, from illusion.

To win is not the best end to strive for.  To accomplish, or to experience quantitatively (I saw 42 world landmarks last year, and visited 27 countries) is not the best end.  Checking off lists is not the best end.

What to me seems worthwhile is the learned capacity to feel deeply, and in particular to feel spontaneous positive feelings deeply, and in response to normal, routine stimuli, like cool days, warm days, cloudy days, clear days, rainy days, sunny days, around pleasant people, and around challenging people.  It is far easier to make your world interesting than to seek out an interesting world.  You have far less competition, too.

Most people stop feeling at some point.  I don't know why this is, if it is a peculiarly modern thing, or if it dates back to the earliest moments of culture.  As I have often remarked, it is interesting how many songs talk about losing the ability to feel.  As one example, Lady Antebellum's "Need you now": "Yes Id rather hurt than feel nothing at all."

One can accurately, I think, look at all the death metal, speed metal, Marilyn Manson, punk rock, etc. as expressions of a need to feel something while in the throes of an emotional apocalypse.  It is so hard to see what is not there, which in this case is the capacity for the expression of innocent, constructive, meaningful, satisfying emotions.

You cannot blame your childhood for adult dysfunction.  You must force yourself to do your job.  At the same time, I think a life lived without down time, without leisure, lounging time, is almost necessarily going to be wasted.  That is when you re-create yourself.

Thus, this idea of the inner child is not an excuse, but it is rather an opportunity to look back, to realize that you lost something useful, something valuable along the way.  The concept is not a regression into helplessness and irresponsibility, but rather what for most people will be an advancement into the ADULT expression of primary, honest emotions.

Hopefully that makes sense to someone.

Monday, May 21, 2012

JP Morgan

We have been reading, over the last week or two, how JP Morgan "lost" $2 billion.  Presumably, this was from the London trading office, but it was never clear to me, and irrelevant to the point I want to make.

According to the Financial Times, their net profit (note this is profit, not revenue, which was some 27 billion) for the first three MONTHS on 2012 was some $5.4 billion.  That means they were tracking to net some $22 billion on the year.  Why was there so much press over a "loss" of a mere $2 billion? 

That this was a story is itself a story.  That the media ran with it the way they did indicates to me that they were more or less given direction to run with the story.  For its part, JP Morgan clearly did not suffer from this revelation.  My best guess is that they continue to want to get burdensome regulations put on smaller banks that will reduce effective competition, and enable them to corral yet more of the market.  They needed some lead-in to give the usual suspects, the paid politicians, some reason to shout about regulating the banking industry.

Truly, the stupidity of the press on this and nearly every other topic is quite breathtaking.  I am not willing to believe they are all complicit; their complicity is simply not needed, their buy in is not needed, when all you have to is spin them three times then set them off in whatever direction you choose.

A herd of cattle would at least not do us the disservice of pretending to inform us.  Silence is preferable to misdirection, most of the time.

Moral Relativism

The mind of the true moral relativist is the mind of a slave.  People who sincerely believe nothing have made themselves tabula rasa (pl., whatever that is in Latin), and will sooner rather than later not just find an ideology--which of course must necessary be expressed by concrete men--as master, but demand that they be forced to submit.

An interesting example is Michael Moore's call for the rich--him--to pay more in taxes, without himself volunteering to do so.  From his perspective, it is not "moral" until compelled.

This is a subtle point, and the point of congruence between what I have termed Sybaritic Leftism and Cultural Sadeism.

Allahu Akbar

I think this is best translated "All hail the God of Islam".  There was no need for Major Hassan, in initiating his terrorist attack at Fort Hood, to yell this to himself: he was proclaiming the power of his God to the infidels he was about to kill.

People who translate this "God is great" miss the point that for Muslims God only has one name, and it is Allah, and Arabic is His language.

Saturday, May 19, 2012


this sink is appalling:
sagging, hot and cold reversed.

It will soon be broken.

Who put it in?  Was he thinking of
Rosa's, a plate of parillada, fresh tortillas from
a real mother,
big titted waitresses who move just a bit
than their enormous heels and miniskirts

Or was it "fuck, fuck, fuck this heat."
It's not so bad before lunch, but work must be done after,
The cool is for those who made other decisions.

he has left his mark.

Sunday, May 13, 2012


For some years, I will periodically dream I am battling Voldemort, from the Harry Potter films (I only read the last two, and only at the request of my oldest).  Sometimes I win, sometimes it is a game of evasion.  Usually I am being chased, but occasionally I am the pursuer.

Yesterday I watched two and a half movies.  I watched Iron Man 2, the Avengers, and half of a French film entitled "Sarah's Key".  That last was a sad but somewhat redemptive movie about one of ten million tragic stories from the Holocaust.  No doubt all of this affected my dreams.

When I woke up this morning, I realized that Voldemort is me, too.  This is in some respects a pretty basic psychological insight, in that people that assume the brain and mind are synonymous would postulate that any psychic conflict in dreams necessarily  involves split psychic "parts".

Indeed.  As I look at this, I see that no process of psychological integration can fail to involve the understanding that we all have evil in us.  There is no point any free person can reach in which the capacity for resentment, self pity, bitterness, malice, anger, hatred, viciousness, spitefulness, grandiosity and all the other negative emotions drops away.  Their potential, their possibility, will always be there, even in the most advanced people.

You cannot not hate.  You cannot make it go away.  What you can do is recognize that you are NOT a saint, will never BE a saint, and that if you think you are all sunshine and love, you are probably a superficial person, who has simply split off the venom.  You see this in "Christians" who hate in the name of God.  You see this in "peacenik" left wingers, who hate in the name of peace and love.  What good was accomplished by losing the Vietnam War?  None: horrific, stomach turning violence was the outcome.

All of us need to own our violence.  We need to see it.

I have often quoted a line I love from the Tao Te Ching: "Renounce sainthood.  It will be 1,000 times better for everyone."  There are many meanings which can be teased out of this, but I think this is the primary one.

I should probably end there, but hell, I have more to add, even if it affects the flow.

What people call sainthood is likely quite often simply compulsive behavior--psychological aberration--taken to an extreme in the external FORM of predetermined religiously desirable behaviors, within which of course I include the churches of political radicalism.

An obvious example is the Mahdi of the Sudan, who lived in a cave for some time, and did the sorts of things Sufi saints did (fasting, recitation, renunciation).  Given troops, he turned out to be a vicious, sadistic, sexually voracious pig.  But his status as a saint never disappeared, and he is idolized to this very day by some Islamists.

More generally, though, I agree with Moshe Feldenkrais that almost all forms of what is called "greatness" is to some greater or lesser extent psychological dysfunction.  Who is driven to "lead"?  People who are driven to lead.  Again, it is for this reason that the Tao Te Ching teaches that only those who do not want to be king are fit to be king.

Few thoughts on a rainy "Sun's Day".

Friday, May 11, 2012


Sometimes things don't go, after all,
from bad to worse.  Some years, muscadel
faces down frost, green thrives, the crops don't fail,
sometimes a man aims high, and all goes well.

A people will sometimes step back from war,
elect an honest man, decide they care
enough that they can't leave some stranger poor.
Some men become what they were born for.

Sometimes our best efforts do not go
amiss, sometimes we do as we were meant to.
The sun will sometimes melt a field of sorrow
that seemed hard frozen: may it happen for you.

Sheenagh Pugh


I would like to define this as anti-mourning.  It is constant activity, while one is pursued by unwanted emotions.  I read articles like this one: , and see that our elites seemingly feel no need for down time.  Moreover, their parents seem to be narcissistically involved in every last detail of their lives.  These people will find themselves believing that such activity is normal, and that their natural position is that of ruler.  That is my guess, at any rate.

A scene in a movie that left a lasting impression on me was in Kurasawa's Kagemusha, in which it is revealed that the great Lord has concealed his own death for some years--it was 3 or 5, if memory serves--and one of his arch rivals breaks out a fan, and spontaneously performs what I assume is a piece of No theater.

This is spontaneous mourning, and a sign of integrated emotions.  Yet, this was the warring states period, and all these people were fighing one another constantly.  This is a poor state of emotional integration too.

We need more mental health the world over.  It is neither being nice nor being cruel.  It is being appropriate.  War is a short path to a sense of meaning, and a short path to building aggregated groups.  Yet, it is also a horror that leaves lasting traumas both in terms of pain, and in the inability to process it.

The only possible utopia on Earth will be one in which people are universally mentally healthy.  This will mean that they process their emotions, that they are capable of genuine and deep feeling, that they are empathic without being needy, that they are capable both of self assertion and altruism, and that in general they are oriented around the Good, and around becoming better.

Much traditional religion facilitates mental illness.  I think Islam is particularly guilty of this, in that I don't believe ANY social order which is so hostile to woman can EVER fully mature.  The men who rule have far too many unprocessed psychological issues with their mothers.  I would add that black culture in this country has turned somewhat in the direction of generalized misogyny as well, to its great detriment.

Some religions, like Buddhism, do seem to have some capacity to at least contribute to mental well being, and I think all religions offer some solace for the tragedies and uncertainties of life.  The question is how accurate they are.  I believe science can and should investigate how our universe actually works.  As I have said often, I believe the preponderance of evidence is that our souls survive death, and that we are connected in ways we cannot quite see.

Some random musings on Frey's Day.

Thursday, May 10, 2012


Some unwanted changes/experiences are inevitable in every life.  You have to integrate them, mourn the loss of what was, and move on.  What I think complicates this process in modern life is that since everything is in a constant state of flux, there is no status quo ante to which you can return.

As Turner (if memory serves, and I think it does) described the ritual process, it consists more or less in a three stage sequence: place/other place/place understood differently.  As an example, to become an adult you go out in the desert and fend for yourself for a day.  You leave as a child, and come back a man. 

The key point, though, is that you return to the SAME PLACE, the same set of rules, the same group of people, the same beliefs, the same daily rituals, the same food and space.  It is hard to do that in the modern world.  When you get hit by some experience or other, this added distress and disturbance gets added to a pervasive underlying sense of stress with regard to the permanance of change in our world. 

Why do we feel some comfort from 50's memorabilia?  Why does Elvis get invoked so often?  Why does the character of Captain America apparently resonate with so many?  It evokes a world that was NOT in constant flux.  We forget that the 50's was an era of the Cold War, Korea, bomb drills, segregation, but we remember that at least from this distance things seem to us to have been less in motion.  That was the last period before the turmoil of the 60's that is clearly still with us.

How do you mourn in such a world?  How do you find a space which is not moving around you to process emotions?  You can do it in the wild, I suppose.  In a home that feels comfortable.  But increasingly, I think people simply choose NOT to mourn; they choose superficiality and constant activity/stimulation, over facing unwanted emotions that must be faced to live fully.

I mentioned a week or two or three ago (my life is very busy, and time flies for me) that I had read "The Way of the Peaceful Warrior".  What I do not recall anywhere in there is him crying, mourning.  He feels empty, he feels anger and fear and determination.  He learns calm, focus.  He sees at one point the sufferings of EVERYONE ELSE, but I can't recall him ever grieving anything in his own life.

Unless I am mistaken, his childhood was one of relentless pressure to perform, to live up to expectations of his parents.  He had little down time, little time to just be, at least until his motorcycle injury.  I suspect on the beach there is when he took his first hit of acid, and smoked his first joint.  That is when he first took seriously all the metaphysical stuff going on around him.

And I look at the New Age movement, and have been saying for years that what it is missing is a sense of the tragic, of grief.  We read how one can develop an insuperable serenity just meditating, just latching on to the correct guru.  I think this is bullshit.  I think that ALL OF US have got to learn the psychological process of grieving, of feeling pain while we CONSCIOUSLY detach from some person or situation, or habit of which we were very fond.  It is like breaking through scar tissue: I think once it is done a few times properly, it becomes something that we can control; it becomes an emotional process over which we can exercise control, and this is spiritual growth.

But it cannot be avoided.  You cannot just make yourself stiff, learn to smile knowingly, distract yourself with all sorts of metaphysical books, and run into meditation and other sundry trash for which you are not ready.

I feel this: I do not think it.  I see it, increasingly, as I rip open my own scar tissue for the first time, properly.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

The Palestinians

It is worth noting from time to time that the so-called "Palestinians" are refugees from a war which happened in 1948, some 64 years ago.  Where else in the world can one find people so callous as to allow their own to languish for such a long time?  I find it difficult at times not to view Muslim Arabs as culturally inferior to substantially every other population on Earth.  They glory in death. One finds this in cultural alleys in other nations--the Thuggee cult, for example, in India--but not as the main theme.  I have spent some years studying varying religions, and I can think of no analogue to Islam as practiced in the Middle East.

Large numbers of Jews were cast out of Arab nations in 1948 as well.  We do not read about them because they were assimilated in Israel, the United States, or other nations, without undue fuss, and even though they, too, lost everything they had built and owned.  Unlike the Arabs living in the British Mandate, however, they were not given the option of staying.


If you want to control something, get the authority to tax it.  This is easy enough.  What is less obvious is that you also get control of something if you force it into borrowing, if you control the borrowing.  Education is an obvious example, but was it not the case that most homes 50 years ago were bought on 15 year notes held by the banks that made the loans?  It was only Fannie Mae that enabled the credit expansion that pushed prices--and the size of the houses--into the stratosphere.

Keep in mind, if you think we are  truly free country, that the Federal Government holds the title to roughly one third of the homes in the United States, and is currently trying to get full control of our healthcare and health insurance systems.

Education costs

I don't know why educations costs have skyrocketed to the point where normal middle class Americans can no longer afford a college education.  What I can say with certainty, though, is that the intervention of the Federal Government has played a major role in facilitating it, and probably the decisive role.

Companies which make loans to students--with $100,000 in loans for a four year degree even at mediocre colleges not being that uncommon--are GUARANTEED to get their money back.  This has been the case for many years.  You cannot make the loans go away in bankruptcy.  Other than repayment, there is no means of avoiding these costs.  This intervention in the private sector means that means testing is irrelevant: no matter how much someone overborrows, even if they will literally be in debt the rest of their lives--which means servicing the interest but failing to repay the principle--the loans will be made.

In the private sector, loans are made based upon the ability of people to repay them.  If the student loan business had stayed in the private sectors--with both losses and profits borne ONLY by the lenders--then much less money would have been lent.  With less money available, less money would have been borrowed, and the new outcome of this would have not been less students going to college, but less of the MASSIVE expansions we have seen in university infrastructure, size of the Administrative element, and the pay for the bureaucrats who run things.

Net: as with Fannie Mae--which was supposed to boost home ownership, but has instead contributed to a massive economic decline coupled with massive rates of foreclosure-- a program intended to INCREASE college attendance has over time made it much more difficult, and forced most students either into de facto punitive loans, or foregoing college.

Now that the Federal Government owns the loans, things will not get any better.  The interest rates that students pay will not go down, as that "income" was intended to help mask the actual costs of the horrifically bad Obamacare legislation.

Monday, May 7, 2012


It is less than obvious, but it has become my firm conviction that those who hurt the most feel the least.  Pain beyond a certain point causes a sort of emotional swelling, which performs the same role for the psyche that actual swelling does for injured limbs: it immobilizes and protects you.  Inflexibility is the outcome of unprocessed emotions, and inflexibility, in turn, is the cause of most misery in this world; it is the rejection of what is, in favor of what was or what one feels should be.

Those who are cruel hurt the most.  This is not obvious, because they will have thoroughly buried their pain, and even appear outwardly in some cases happy.  Yet, we all to some greater or lesser extent built artificial selves, artifacts of experiences we often cannot remember, and in response to social needs.  Any self built upon the need to see pain in others cannot be real, cannot face the world as it is, cannot, in the end, be at peace or ever be fulfilled.

As I watch myself, look inwardly, what I see is that self is almost always tied to the introjection of some authority or principle.  Who you are is who your fathermother was, or what you saw written in some book, or decided at some point.  You are this out of habit.  You repeat patterns.  But is that you?  Is that even a useful question?  We want to be happy, do we not?  Does repetition best serve this end?  I don't think so.

Increasingly, I feel that the highest attainment is to process the world with full consciousness of all the filters within one, and finally to process it as it is, without filter.  This is of course an old idea, but what I would suggest is that most of what gets called spiritual growth is nothing but the advance of personal emotional well being, and nearly fully encompassed by good psychology.

Few thoughts.

Friday, May 4, 2012


An important point I think many people miss is that for those seeking dominion over the world--despite this being a stock goal of cartoon supervillains, these people do in my view actually exist--it never matters if this goal is being pursued overtly, or consciously.  Those working to support them in their aim may in fact believe they are working for the exact opposite.  Reagan called for smaller government, rhetorically, and no doubt believed in it, but the OUTCOME of his Presidency, what actually happened, was that government expanded tremendously.

Many of the "New World Order" conspiracists think George W. Bush intended to create a police state.  I don't believe this.  It is sufficient, for Fabian purposes, to have people whispering the right things in his ear, WHICH MAKE SENSE.  Given the supposed extent of the intelligence failure presupposed by the success of the 9/11 attacks, it made sense to create a Dept. of Homeland Security, and a TSA.  Now, the NSA's Total Informational Awareness was shot down, but has now been quietly resurrected.  Its time was not then, but rather now.

The simple fact is that if water is made steadily hotter by degrees--whether intentionally or not--then it will sooner or later boil.  This is a ridiculously obvious point, but one missed by most nonetheless.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Post on National Review

Tried to post here:

Page won't open for some reason.  Internet working fine.  For whatever reason, I am often blocked from posting on blogs, left and right.  This is intended just as a basic catechism of my ideas.  Bit disconnected, but the basics are there.

Ideas have consequences. Seeing this, and articulating where things lead, is the proper role of what are typically called intellectuals, and what I prefer to dress in overalls and call "thought workers". This class has not done its job in 50 years, by and large, with the exception of William F. Buckley, Brent Bozell and the like.

What instead is presented is a pretend game, an artificial world in which everything is possible, and ideas never lead to concrete outcomes other than protest and other ritually useful forms of social interaction.

Now, it is in my view imposslble to lie to yourself--to ALL parts of yourself--which means that sustained lies necessarily lead, for self described "nice" or "loving", or "compassionate" people to cognitive splitting. What happens is that if internalized violence is projected "out there", that the sense of responsibility for it disappears, limits on its use disappear, and that massive and intractable rationalizations become necessary. Psychologically, this is how people like Noam Chomsky or Bill Ayers justify their support of programs of mass torture--physical and mental--rape, capricious imprisonment, suppression of basic human rights, generalized poverty, and of course the implementation of insurmountable systems of class.

When I look at the landscape particularly of our supposedly best universities, what I see is pervasive psychopathology, and cognitive dissonance suppressed only with the power of the routinization of nonsense.

Moral abandonment leads necessarily to cruelty. Any person incapable of a non-ironic, non-contingent moral code will necessarily join a group which tells him or her what to do. If conformity is the only virtue, then power is the arbiter of right and wrong. Those who seek power, seek it to use it. Hence the first sentence in this paragraph.

I explore these issues at some length in this piece, which is nominally about the Vietnam War, but which really just uses that as a jumping off place:

It is not perfect, but it is in my view solid, and gets to the meat of the matter.

Ron Paul is still in the race

It would be easy to forget that, looking at the complicit media--whose "conservative" side still shills in most cases for something far short of actual conservatism--Ron Paul is still in the race.  I'm not big on videos, but I think this one tells its story better than words:

We borrow $120 billion a month.  There are no plans by anyone but Ron Paul to seriously address this, and the plain fact is that the demographic wave of Baby Boomers is just starting to hit.  The bleeding on the "entitlement" front has just started, and this will be overwhelming even if Obamacare--which adds a HUGE increase in spending just when we are already tipping over--is overturned.  Romney is simply not serious as an adult or responsible leader.

Our NSA is implementing what will soon be the perfect surveillance state.  If you carry a cell phone, if you drive a car, if you use a credit card, they know where you are, how much money is in your bank, who you associate with, what you say to them, and no doubt have developed computer programs to develop quick and largely accurate psychological profiles of EVERYONE in the country.  People capable of dissidence can be spotted years before they express anything publicly.  A totalitarian state built on modern technology would quite simply be insurmountable in timeframes less than thousands of years, at least without internal dissidence that could be easily eliminated.

Ron Paul's ideas need to be made mainstream.  The extent of the existential threats we face need to be broadcast far and wide.

I am going to give him another $100.  It is not much, but it will be worth it if he can make the fake conservatives squirm at the Republican National Convention.  I want less flag waving, and more substance.  To be honest, seeing the American flag does not bring out the emotions it used to, not when I contemplate the generalized mediocrity necessary to elect a Barack Obama ONCE, much less twice, or the stupidity expressed in the failure of most Americans to grasp what is actually going on.  Who can be proud of such a people?  Of course, there are many who are awake.  In them lies whatever hope we have of keeping our freedom and dignity.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Now that Trayvon is over. . .

Can we get back to discussing the Federal Reserve, and the role it plays in taking away our wealth?  Can we agree that it is PECULIAR that a private, invitation-only corporation run by and for certain very large banks has complete control, by law, of our banking system?  Do you realize that when you cash a check, it goes through the Federal Reserve?  It is my understanding that when you use a credit card, it ALSO goes through the Federal Reserve.  They charge for these services, and this is one of the ways that the people who work for them make FAT money, even though the enterprise as a whole--once the salaries and bonuses have been paid--shows no net profit at the end of the year.

Is it the case--do you want to try and argue--that the foxes best understand chickens and are therefore most to be trusted to watch the henhouse?  This seems, to put it mildly, quite dubious to me.

Why do you work so hard?  Because of fractional reserve banking, and the Federal Reserve system which keeps it from collapsing, quite literally daily.  These facts need to be known, and the Left and the Right need to come together in demanding an end to this inequitable system.  Corporations are not and never have been the problem.  They are a source of prosperity.  BANKS are the problem, and the reason all the productivity gains over the last century have translated into MORE hours and less net worth.