Thursday, September 27, 2012

Response to Ben Dyson

I have been in a short correspondance with Ben Dyson, of Positive Money.  I am very much supportive of the educational work they are doing with respect to pointing out the inflationary--and hence redistributive--nature of fractional reserve banking.  You cannot, as one example they use often, understand housing inflation without realizing that the money to buy houses is created ex nihilo.

At the same time, I cannot support their proposed solution, which involves putting all private money in accounts at the Bank of England, and which involves setting up what amounts to an "inflation commission" dedicated to determining "scientifically" what the proposed rate of inflation should be, then passing the "money" along to Parliament.

He proposes that banks, as they receive payments for loans made, in effect pay down their own balances--which he would put in the Bank of England--such that all the money they have created gradually disappears.  They would make their money from money invested in them, and then reinvested.  I have no objection to that, of course.

The gradualistic idea has some merit, as all gradualistic ideas tend to, but as I state below, I don't feel we will do much of ANYTHING substantive until are backs are to the wall, which is where my proposal comes in.


I've read your proposal, and unfortunately I still believe that your proposal will act to consolidate governmental power, without corresponding benefits to ordinary citizens which could not be achieved in another way.

Regardless of other specifics, I think it MUST be understood that ALL money creation, aka monetary inflation, is redistributive. I tend to call it theft, but since you are in effect making it a tax, I will simply point out that such taxes have both winners and losers.

You posit that there is a "normal" or acceptable, or economically justifiable amount of inflation, which can be assessed by a group of apolitical experts. Yet, how can this be? Logically, if we are becoming more efficient technologically, we should be working less, and the value of our labor as expressed in monetary units should be increasing. Not only, in other words, is inflation not normal, it is the OPPOSITE of what should be happening, which is a steady increase in the value of our currency. You should literally see returns on money buried in your back yard, given Capitalist-driven increases in efficiency.

We have not seen that since, as you point out, banks have stolen large sections of the wealth of our respective nations through the fractional reserve banking system. However, allowing the government to continue this function to any extent merely means that those who receive the money win, and those who do not lose. Yes, you can pay down the debt with this money, or hand it out to the "people", but in so doing you are simultaneously devaluing the currency, such that those who have savings, or fixed investments, see net declines in their wealth. More importantly, this interrupts the natural process of wealth accumulation that would attend constant innovation and sound money.

I do not disagree that checking accounts should be separated from investment accounts, but I would suggest that the individua' banks could do so themselves, without the need to place ALL private liquid wealth in the hands of an organization that is already either nationalized or which could easily be nationalized. The direct control of money is and long has been a core Fascist aim, and I use that word carefully, and in the sense that Mussolini praised Keynes calls for this outcome.

There is no inherent benefit to centralizing the repository function, and large potential risks to liberty. All that needs to happen is that the banks separate these functions internally, by charging fees for checking and savings functions, and paying out for investment accounts, which is exactly how Certificates of Deposit work currently in the United States.

As far as how we get the debt out of the system, this is more ambiguous. Your proposal that banks more or less be required to "pay back" money they created is perhaps the right one, but one that could be done within their own ledgers. It is gradualistic.

At the same time, I fully anticipate financial disasters which will arise in the next ten years as a result of the graft, incompetence, stupidity, cupidity and unprincipled behavior of our politicians--both in the UK and here. Gradualism will not work then, and at that point I think something like what I have proposed will be needed.

I will note in that regard that defaults have been common throughout history. Greece has defaulted a number of times, as have many of the nations of Latin America. China defaulted, if memory serves, back in the 1920's.

Money is not real, not even gold money. It is a symbol, and a pact we make with one another. It can be made and it can vanish. My proposal fixes everything, and in a way which no one has ever attempted. When nations default, they normally default as governments. The default is normally the result of the public sector buying too much, spending too much-- often in the service of war, or unsustainable handouts to the people in order to win votes, and secure power.

No nation has tried to eliminate its private sector debt. I say "why not"? The answer, of course, is that most people do not understand how money works. In some respects, it does grow on trees, if you are a licensed "gardener".

You objected to giving the millionaires their homes with mortgages. I thought about this, and came to this conclusion: there are only three groups which could get the home--the government, the bank, and the tenant; given that the goal is wealth generalization and redistribution, there is only one group which would not centralize wealth in getting the proceeds, which of course is the tenants, or mortgagees.

Logically, there is no reason that ALL property held by EITHER the government or the banks could not be passed over to the tenants. All public housing could be converted to condominiums. Most Federal agencies devoted to one social program or another could be abolished, and their offices donated to local or State governments, who if they chose could then reinstate the programs.

We are going to have economic chaos. It is in my view inevitable. We have debts skyrocketing, and at a time when the Basel 2 accords call for deflationary banking policy. We will see calls for tyranny, and rioting in the streets. What I have proposed is far less radical than the sorts of things which have already been tried, like Fascism and Communism, and has the salient advantage that I understand basic economics.

I would be curious as to any thoughts you may have on this. I made detailed notes on your proposal, and am only responding in general fashion, which I hope addresses most of the important points.

Your educational work on the predatory nature of the fractional reserve banking system is very useful, but I want to do what I can to support movement towards solutions which will work to support liberty, and on-going increases in prosperity.   P.S. As far as money, I thought about this too, and decided that physical money is the best solution. It occurred to me we would put gold threads in it, and perhaps radioactive identifications. Banks would warehouse the money, which would more or less be treated like gold in the past, wherein ownership of specific notes could be passed around electronically, but where the "owner" of specific currency could always pick it up at the bank and carry it around.

As I stated in the piece, I see no value in ANY fluctuation in the quantity of money, as it is inherently and ineluctably redistributive in invisible and thus dangerous ways. I would see the creation of a currency, once, and no change EVER thereafter.

Monday, September 24, 2012


More people choose to end their lives in this country than die in car crashes:

I don't often simply repeat stories, but I thought this data point worth sharing here, as it touches on much of what I write about.  Suicide is a failure of a meaning system.  Conversely, a meaning system is an answer to the question of why to live.

What I feel is happening is that we are increasingly surrounded by darkness in our media, of violence, and the hopelessness that violence leads to.  We are also suffering from the high suicide rates among combat veterans.

Here is a list of suicide rates among countries.  Greece is the lowest and South Korea is the highest.  Low stress (at least until recently) and high stress. Hungary and Japan are way up there too.

I don't have time to ponder this more fully.  There are many reasons meaning systems fail, but one of them is that in shame-based cultures, the meaning of life is in meeting certain standards.  Failing to meet those standards means that life is meaningless.

There is a lot of room for thought here, but I need to go.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Love is Narcissism

I think the word "understanding" better gets at my sense of what true love is than the word love itself.  To love someone, you must SEE them as they are, and wish them well.

To the point here, you cannot love in the abstract.  When you see "love is all you need" it is an attractive sentiment, but I think what such people are loving is the self image they form of themselves as loving people.

True love does not have ego involvement.  It does not involve me looking at myself looking at you.  You are the whole picture, one that is separate from me, and one which has its own direction and purpose which must be seen prior to any effort at me helping.  Many people don't need help, even if they want it; and many are hurt by it, even though they think they need it.

Sometimes the path of decency is watching a ship drift by in the night, without saying or doing anything.

There is this compulsion among many I see to feed their anxiety, to satiate it, by finding someone or something to help.  This is the root dynamic of the "Daily Cause" movement, and the reason silly ideas like Global Warming have such staying power.

But the people being helped--and I have said this many times--are the people more or less forcing themselves on others, who might well have done better unmolested.

Take food stamps.  It is not actually an act of charity to spend taxpayer money on advertisements intended to increase their use.  Handouts damage self respect, which damages independence, which leads over time to greatly increased risks of depression, and overall societal dysfunction.

Even when my children were little, when they were confronted with some challenge the rule was they had to struggle with it for a while.  More often than not, they were more able than they thought.  Occasionally they would come to me and say "I struggled for five minutes with X, and I still need help".  Then they would get help.  In my view, this basic dynamic needs to be the social dynamic in any emotionally healthy culture.  It is not presently the dynamic in the United States, and we are paying the cost, literally and figuratively.

Voter ID rules

Posted on the HuffPo, in response to this article:

How's this: if you are too ignorant to understand that you need to bring your ID to the polls, you are too ignorant to cast an informed vote.  People do not get smarter in masses, if every person in that mass is ill informed.  The Democrat model is herding people into cattle cars and telling them who to vote for.  The Republican model is to assume that the informed and responsible will vote Republican, and generally they are correct.

Leftists may not want to admit this, but most Americans GET that preventing voter fraud is a pretty basic element in any democracy.

And as far as the good Democrats do, show me one city in America that is running off the rails--Toledo, Detroit, Chicago--that has not been run by Democrats for 40 years or more. 

Show me where the Senate Democrats have performed their Constitutional duty and passed a budget under Obama.  Show me where Bush's spending was somehow bad, but Obama's is fine.  BOTH WERE HORRIBLE. 

What we need are REAL conservatives.  If implemented their policies will work nearly instantly and those of you who depend on the Leftist religion for your sense of purpose will have to go on a long hike in the mountains to find a new meaning for what have thus far been wasted lives.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Size of Government

I keep seeing a leftwing talking point--and they clearly do use talking points--that either tax rates are at their lowest in forever, or that the government is getting smaller.

The core issue with regard to taxes is: how much money is being taken out of the private sector?

The core issue with regard to government size is: how much money is the government spending? 

This should be simple, but as always the Left is able to make traps for fools through disciplined repetition.

Here are the numbers:

You will note that receipts under Obama are less than under Bush in his second term (no one disputes tax cuts take a few years to grow the tax base, and 2002-2003 were largely affected by the recession Bush inherited combined with the 9/11 attacks), since the economy has sucked for his entire Presidency, but that expenditures have gone up steadily.  You will note that we first spent $2 trillion in 2000, under Clinton, but that we collected $2.3 trillion, which is why we had a budget surplus.  Obama in his FIRST year spent $3 trillion, which is a 50% increase over Clinton and his Republican Congress.

Comment on HuffPo

Putting a stick in the spokes of the Obama "narrative" is not hard, since there is no narrative other than hating ideological others, and trying to distract people with smoke and mirrors.

Here is a sample, from a post I made at the HuffPo, responding to the farcical continued efforts to make it an issue that a rich man pays taxes at the rate we would expect:

Do you all realize that your children will have to live in the world we are making, and that we are going BANKRUPT rapidly? For all intents and purposes, Obama has blocked every budget attempted since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011. He has grown our national debt more in four years than Bush did in eight, and Bush's spending was ALREADY indefensible. Obama is the first President in American history to spend $3 trillion. The problem is not a lack of taxation, but a growing government payroll.

We have not had unemployment this high for this long since the Great Depression.

We have lost most of the Middle East to anti-American zealots, and invested American lives and treasure to do so. Obama's foreign policy has been a dreadful joke.

And we have not even reached the important chunks of Obamacare, which will cut the profits of many small business in half, and which has caused 83% of doctors to think about leaving the field.

And you think it news that a rich man whose money mainly comes from investments is taxed at the rate ALL people are taxed on who make money on investments? Of course not: you just hope it will distract from Obama's failures, and patent refusal to live up to his own promise to do the job in four years or quit.

Obama's grandfather

Apparently the thesis in "Dreams from my Real Father" is that Obama's maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was a CIA agent.  But if he were a staunch anti-Communist, as anyone doing that job in the early 1960's would have needed to be, why grant Obama regular access to a known Soviet agent?  It makes no sense at all, even as a grandfatherly duty.  He would have known what Davis would do to a young mind, cut off from his mother.

It seems more likely that Dunham HIMSELF was a Soviet agent, or even a double agent.  If he was investigated by the FBI, that would have been the reason. 

Obama quite literally spent his entire childhood, in my view, surrounded by people who hated America, and who wanted to impose the tyranny of the few upon the many.

Frank Marshall Davis, Jr.

Here is the analysis of the picture by a professional. The photo was taken from "Barack Obama's" Facebook page. 
When you start to think about the implications of this, they are huge. His name perhaps ought to be Frank Marshall Davis, Jr. 
We have a President whose mother allowed pornographic images to be taken of her by a black Communist back in the early sixties, and who allowed him to impregnate her outside of wedlock with her (he was apparently already married). You can't get farther outside the mainstream than that. 
We have a President who spent a lot of time with this actual father, who was greatly influenced by his actual father, and whose actual father was a Comintern agent and card carrying member of the American Communist Party long after Stalin's atrocities were well known. That man sits in the White House, privy to all our secrets, and capable of controlling large segments of our private economic lives through fiats not being blocked effectively by Congress.
We have a media complex which has allowed this to happen.
 Finally, for now at least, we have to consider that the Obama campaign ITSELF might have started the rumor Obama was born in Kenya, to distract attention from the truth that he WAS born in Hawaii, does have a birth certificate, and that on that birth certificate it lists Frank Marshall Davis as the father.  As stupid as the American people are, that would have been too much even for the complicit media to spin into a positive, not once the pictures of Obama's mother came out, and people started reading "Sex Rebel: Black", and some of Davis' old columns.
Plus, the very name Barack Obama would have been shown to have been a conscious fabrication, a deception launched at the very outset of Barry's life, and continued ever since. 
With a father like that, though, one can readily see why the Ayers would like him.


Obama's real father

I am going to go on record as believing that it is more plausible that Frank Davis was "Obama's" father than the Kenyan. I say this based upon this piece, summarizing the book "Dreams from my Real Father". It answers a lot of otherwise challenging questions. Two pieces of evidence I find particularly solid: the airbrushed picture; and the fact that Obama's mother was apparently photographed naked on a couch we have a picture of Davis sitting on; and that Snopes has apparently backed off their claim that these nudes represent another woman, since while their faces are similar, their breasts are apparently not.  I remember reading their treatment of it some time ago, and just Searched "naked pictures of Obama's mother", and nothing popped up.
 If we survive this period, we will someday look back in wonder at how we could trust so much power to someone we knew so little about.
 To be clear, the Communist ideas likely filling Obama's still-adolescent and unformed mind to this day will, if implemented, HURT most those he claims to want to help.  They will generalize misery, not alleviate it.

Further Romney campaign idea

As I think about it, why not go directly for the jugular: ask lifelong poor Democrats in the inner city: what have the Democrats DONE for you in your lifetime?  Yes, you get little dribbles and drabs of money, but do you have a GOOD LIFE?  Do you see any HOPE of a good life?  Barack Obama promised you hope and change.  Do you really think he EVER thought he could make that much of a difference in your lives?  You've been voting Democrat for 40 years.  Were you aware Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, as were most civil rights leaders back then?

Do you think voting Democrat for ANOTHER 40 years is going to get you a good life?  What do you think, honestly?  My goal is to facilitate, to broker, to enable, to generate new JOBS that pay well, to foster economic growth, and I am quite willing to focus the attention on these areas that Obama has NOT.

Nobody's food stamps or Medicaid or public housing is going to get cut.  What I want to do is give you an ALTERNATIVE, to having your own house in a neighborhood you choose, to picking a job you want, to paying you own way, and beginning to live a better life.

What do you think? 

As I see it, the worst outcome is complete rejection--which is the status quo anyway, as he more or less rightly noted--but the best outcome is fostering thought in people Obama can count on to vote against their own self interest in every election.

I want to be clear: if we reelect Obama, our economic decline will continue and worsen.  There will be no recovery.  High unemployment will become the new normal, since we are transitioning to a European welfare State, and that at a time when the bank is already broken.  The continued malaise will hurt the already poor the worst, and large segments of our ghettos will become much more hellish than they already are.  Death will walk the streets, and elitists like Obama will not see it, since they sit in the back of limousines, vacation in Martha's Vineyard and the like, send their kids to private schools, and don't go within 10 miles of the worst ghettos.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Romney campaign idea

I would like to see Mitt Romney schedule some campaign stops in ghettos.  Obama won't do it: there's no money in ghettos, and he doesn't give a shit about them.  But it would be highly effective symbolically.  And I think he needs to bring ideas.

Here are my own: has already added American small, poor, entrepreneurs to their client list.  Make these contributions tax exempt, and publicize this great organization.

Further, make all business startups within ten miles of a designated "economic development area" exempt from ALL taxation for two years.

Finally, let them choose their schools.  Give them vouchers and let them find what school makes the most sense.  Poor people love this idea.  It is teachers unions and Democrat machine hacks who hate it, as it dilutes their money flow.

Overall, the reality--and hence the truth that needs to be conveyed--is that Republicans will stand by ANYONE who wants to work to improve their life, and that Democrats will stand in their way.  Get this idea out in a big way, and interesting things will start to happen, in my view.

Crazy Idea

I was watching Thursday football tonight--I will be honest here, and admit beer was involved in this post--and this crazy idea hit me: what if instead of football we dedicated three hours every Thursday and Monday night to substantive policy debates about the future of America?  I know, the future of the most powerful and affluent nation in the history of the world is not exactly "EXCITING", but what if we could pretend that foreign policy decisions matter, that monetary policy matters, that the fiscal policies of local, State and particularly the Federal government matter?  What if we pretended for some short period of time that the future of our children was important enough for us to tear ourselves away from men in tights throwing an unround ball?

Ludicrous, I know.  We all know that bad things never happen to Americans, and that no matter WHAT we do, everything will turn out swimmingly, since that is what happens in the movies.  We can always rely on that implausible Deus Ex Machina.

Still, lets' continue down this path to crazyland:

What if we could link up conservatives and self-identified Liberals, not for stupid courtroom dramas once every two to four years, but twice weekly?

What if we debated the future of the national debt, on national TV, twice a week for a month?  Would Americans still be ill informed fucking imbeciles?  No, I doubt it. 

How is it we have become so stupid?  Nightly sleeping pills, delivered by the complicit media. It's very frustrating, not least because the intelligent can plainly see that the policies advocated in absentia by the media (they never place their voice honestly on things; they just condemn through faint praise actually workable ideas) will work TO hurt most the people they claim they are helping.  The whole thing is a goatfuck start to finish, where NOBODY is helped except the elites who did not need helping in the first place.

Then they lie about it, to themselves, and everyone else, and resent INTENSELY those who fail to join them in their fantastic voyage, one at odds with the realities of those they are supposed "helping".

Come on, y'all, let's take a ride Don't you say shit, just get inside It's time to take your ass on another kind of trip 'Cause you can't have the hop if you don't have the hip
Grab your gat with the extra clip And close your eyes and hit the switch We're going to a place where everybody kick it Kick it, kick it, yeah, that's the ticket

Ain't no bloodin', ain't no crippin' Ain't no punk ass nigga's set trippin' Everybody's got a stack and it ain't no crack And it really don't matter if you're white or black

I wanna take you there like the Staple Singers Put something in the tank and I know that I can bring ya If you can't take the heat, get yo' ass out the kitchen We on a mission

Come along and ride on a fantastic voyage Slide, slide, slippity slide With switches on the block in a '65 Come along and ride on a fantastic voyage Slide, slide, who ride? No valley low enough or mountain high

I'm tryin' to find a place where I can live my life And maybe eat some steak with my beans and rice A place where my kids can play outside  

Without livin' in fear of a drive-by
And even if I get away from them drive-by killers I still got to worry about those snitch ass niggas I keep on searching and I keep on looking But niggas are the same from Watts to Brooklyn

I try to keep my faith in my people But sometimes my people be acting like they evil You don't understand about runnin' with a gang 'Cause you don't gang bang

And you don't have to stand on the corner and slang 'Cause you got your own thang You can't help me if you can't help yourself You better make a left

Come along and ride on a fantastic voyage Slide, slide, slippity, slide I do what I do just to survive Come along and ride on a fantastic voyage Slide, slide, who ride? That's why I pack my 45

Life is a bitch and then you die Still tryin' to get a peace of the apple pie Every game ain't the same 'cause the game still remains Don't it seem kinda strange? Ain't a damn thing change

If you don't work, then you don't eat And only down ass niggas can ride with me Hop, hop, hop your five quickly down the block Stay suckafree and keep the busters off your jock

You gotta have heart, son, if you wanna go Watch this sweet chariot swing low Ain't nobody cryin', ain't nobody dyin' Ain't nobody worried, everybody's tryin'

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin' If you wanna have something, you better start frontin' What ya gonna do when the 5 roll by? You better be ready, so you can ride

Come along and ride on a fantastic voyage Slide, slide, slippity, slide When you're living in a city it's do or die Come along and ride on a fantastic voyage Slide, slide, who ride? You better be ready when the 5 roll by
Just roll along, that's what you do Just roll along, that's right Just roll along, that's what you do Just roll along, that's right

Do you want to ride with me? Do you want to ride with me? Do you want to ride with me? Do you want to ride with me? Do you want to ride with me? Do you want to ride with me? Do you want to ride with me? Do you want to ride with me?

The 47%

The left wants to spin this as a Romney "gaffe" (Oh, he's so Joe Biden-like, isn't he?  If we could admit Biden is a fucking moron, of course), and the right wants to spin it as the truth.

The reality is that one could argue that those who get handouts will always want handouts, but I think this is a mistake.  In America, at least since Clinton, our welfare benefits have not really been that generous, from what I can tell.  In Britain you have multiple generations of people where NOBODY has had a job, but I don't think that is how it works here.  I think single mothers get food stamps, public housing, and in some cases perhaps even a stipend of sorts, but the whole thing pretty well sucks.  It is not good living.  It is not happy living.  It is not "I'm going to go on vacation at the taxpayers expense" money, as they have in Britain and other nations.

We are not, in other words, so far along that we have a FULLY dependent class.  What we have are people who see few jobs in their neighborhoods that are worth a damn, and who tend to drift into poverty and apathy, or poverty and efforts to leverage what good jobs there ARE, which normally is in drug dealing.  High risk, but at least worth it if you succeed.

I think about this song from time to time: Breaking the Law

Here are the relevant lyrics:

There I was completely wasting, out of work and down
All inside it's so frustrating as I drift from town to town
Feel as though nobody cares if I live or die
So I might as well begin to put some action in my life

Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law

So much for the golden future, I can't even start
I've had every promise broken, there's anger in my heart
You don't know what it's like, you don't have a clue
If you did you'd find yourselves doing the same thing too

He breaks the law because WHY THE FUCK NOT?  He was promised the good life, a good job, to be taken care of. Everything was supposed to be golden.  But he voted for the good life, and got jackshit.  That is what Obama voters get.

What Romney and Republicans need to focus on is the fact that most poor people want something better, and many--certainly not all--are willing to WORK for it, GIVEN THE CHANCE.  They don't get the chance, and THAT is why they vote for socialists like Obama.

But whenever they see a real CHOICE, if someone can convince them that they actually will create decent jobs--or to the point of my own political philosophy, not convince job creators not to hire--then Republicans are golden.

Democrats have delivered for Unions, union contractors, and some large campaign contributors.  Everybody else, including the poor, has been shit on and tossed onto the garbage heap.  Every couple years the Dem's pretend to care about the poor, but they just want votes.

That makes this demographic primed for a take-over, by somebody CLEVER enough, and ARTICULATE enough to pull it off.

Romney, that is your mission, should you choose to accept it.

The Road Ahead

I can't claim to know who will win in November--the ninth month in the old Roman calendar--but some things seem certain: the news media will still be highly biased to the Left; entrenched interests will remain entrenched, from those receiving corn subsidies, to banks protected by the FDIC, to welfare recipients, to politicians on one dole or another, to the Federal Reserve; truth will continue to be slanted to serve the needs of the postrational within our educational institutions; and many other negatives, as well as positives, will continue.

For the time being, we retain the rights to free speech, assembly, gun ownership, a fair trial, to vote, etc.  This is to the positive.

What I feel strongly we must look to for a strong, good, future, is a generalized capacity to think.  Within a democratic Republic, nothing can take the place of good thinking.  And I think a case can be made that this capacity has never been generalized anywhere, certainly not outside the educated elites, and our particular malady is that the elites are the worst offenders.

There is so malignant hatred out there, so much venom, so much blindness and deceitfulness, almost all of it on one side of the debate (a fact obscured by the further fact that they invest all their energies accusing their enemies of these traits): it is hard to know how to deal with it.  There is no truth you can speak which cannot, as Kipling had it, be twisted to make a trap for fools.

Generations of fools stand in front of us: generations of leftists who have dedicated their lives and enthusiasms to the task of making government omnipotent.  To what end, they cannot say, but since they long ago renounced concrete improvements in human conditions of life, their sacred duty has become a generalized infantilization of all nations.  Logically, if they can't help people who are not infants, they CAN help them if they first make them helpless without them.

Again, this is hate, masquerading as love and compassion, and it is hard to know what to do with it.  They want you to quit, they want reason, justice, truth to mean whatever they need it to mean at any given moment.

Here is my truth: you can't quit, and you can't use their tactics.  They are good at what they do, which is shrinking minds to the point where they literally believe whatever they are told.  Even if we somehow got everyone to feed such minds accurate ideas, conservative ideas, they would still be infantilized.

We must take the high road.  It is a harder road, and it is an uncertain road.  But it is the only path with dignity, and without dignity, without honor, there is nothing.

Rationality and Feelings

Feelings are always rational.  They are responses to what I might call "your sense of self" to environmental stimuli.  They can be altered with cognitive patterns, but when you feel them, they are real, and there is no use pretending otherwise.  That is the path of reason.

What is often called the path of reason is the SUPPRESSION of emotion, purportedly in the name of logic and dispassion.  You cannot be dispassionate: you can merely be passionate consciously, or unconsciously.

To be clear, when you look at someone like Ayn Rand, she was PASSIONATE, but she also had a large quantity of emotions in the background which were completely invisible to her, and made so by her cognitive and emotional habits.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Post on the Fed

Posted here: 

The issue of monetary policy is the missing arrow in the traditional conservative quiver, which otherwise assumes are markets ARE free.  They are not, and it is plain that the malfunctions that leftists blame on "capitalism" are in fact brought on by the part of our system which is a relic of the age when Kings granted monopolies to the connected.  That is all the Fed is: a monopoly on the power to control the trade in and creation of money.

Will is of course right in recognizing the power of the Fed.  What he apparently has not YET realized is that the Fed initiated the Great Depression through conscious inflation and deflation of the currentcy.  Friedman showed this conclusively back in 1960.  Further, though, it seems to have caused the inflation of the 1970's, which was related but not ultimately caused by gas price increases.  And in 2008, it effectively declared all limits on its power to create and gift money to whomever it wanted gone.  It granted trillions to FOREIGN banks, which we only know due to the miniscule auditing capability we do have.

Obama can't fire Bernanke, and Congress can't tell him to quit printing money.  This is not a branch of government, but a monetary cartel run by and for bankers, which pretends as needed to be good for the economy as a whole, but which actually represents the REAL 1%, which is those able to print and spend money first.

Inflation is theft.  I deal with this topic at length here:


What room is there in a Scientistic culture for sadness?  Is sadness not a flaw in the system, a problem to be corrected with medication or pseudo-scientific "psychotherapy"?  Given, as I suppose, that the way out of sadness is THROUGH sadness, do we not magnify the effects of normal life events over time by suppression?  By pretending that we live in a perfect magic world where sadness and delusion slowly drop away in the service of a superior, and unemotional reason?  That we need not process them?

What would you rather feel, sadness or fear?  It seems to me that, today, in a world where no one can stand to watch Old Yeller anymore (although I will grant "Me and Marley" apparently did well), that fear is easier for most.  And for the "rational" fear is perhaps easier to rationalize.  It is a relic of the fight or flight response; it is an evolutionary adaptation.

I believe, increasingly (and obviously I assert many things on this blog, but in dealing with deep emotion it is hard to be confident in large scale generalizations; this does not mean one should not attempt them in the pursuit of deeper understandings) that fear in our culture increasingly substitutes for sadness.

Take "50 Shades of Gray",  I hear it is now called "mommy porn", and can attest to at least one mother of three who appears psychologically normal enjoying reading it at the pool.  I think it was an act of rebellion in an endless process of getting kids from here to there, feeding them, dealing with their crap of all sorts, dealing with the husband, and the thousand things that home makers do.

Such women become sad, not infrequently.  There are often assumed, not appreciated.  How tempting it must be to feel fear--and S and M is sex plus fear of the unknown--in place of that ambient sadness.  Hence that book has set new sales records, and I think has sold the most the quickest of any single book in UK history (as I hear anecdotally on the radio; certainly it has sold many, many millions of copies, and is according to one account has even been sold on large tables in supermarkets; I know I've seen it displayed prominently at Target, which is otherwise a bland middle class store not in the business of selling sadomasochistic literature).

The converse of this is that it is hard to justify irrational joy, exultation.  We all feel pride at accomplishment, at the accomplishments of our children.  We feel happy when something WORKS, especially after long labor.  But do we come even close to approaching the amount of happiness we COULD feel?  Do we truly allow our hearts to fill to overflowing?  No: I think most are emotionally timid.  In America at least, as adults, we have a relatively narrow bandwidth of permissable emotions.  I think this is true, but I may be wrong.

Then I get the sense of the scientistic that their worldview enables a profound esthetic appreciation of the universe, of order, of the brilliance of the blind watchmaker, of natural "law".  Yet, I would contend that what they are feeling is a sense of superiority to matter, through their "understanding".  They stand apart, gazing, "knowing", as they feel.  But their own presuppositions prevent this from being a tenable view, finally.  Examined carefully, they are not apart from the universe in any way.  Everything they think, and that they feel, is of a piece with matter.  They are no more free than ants laboring to feed their colony.  They are no more free than pieces of rock duly traversing the sun in their obedience to gravity.

I have no objections to Empiricism.  I want MORE of it, not less.  The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the propositions that we survive death, that we can communicate telepathically, can foresee the future, can see things psychically at a distance from us, and much more.  The problem is not that the data is lacking, but that it cannot find its way into the research arms of "mainstream" universities, and thus get added in what would UNQUESTIONABLY be a useful way to our national and global dialogues.

My short question is this: why invest so much energy in the pursuit of death, when life is an obvious alternative?

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Daily dose of truth telling

Posted here:

I will add that it was AMAZING how quickly HuffPo dropped the riots in the Middle East once it become undeniable that the Obama/Clinton policy will turn out to have been an effing DISASTER.

You really have to grant that the left, having lost the capacity for rational policy making, has not lost a talent for purposive misdirection and name calling.  We KNOW now that Obama's support for the so-called Arab Spring is going to be a complete disaster.  It is going to put terrorists in charge of nations across the middle east. 

We know that his economic policies have led to the worst recovery in 60 years, at least.  We know that he has racked up more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8, and that Bush's spending was ALREADY excessive.  We know he has no plan to save Medicare, and that his plans to radically expand Medicaid and overall healthcare related handouts CANNOT BE PAID for if we took 100% of the annual income of the top 10% of income earners.

We also know that about 47% of Americans pay NO income taxes--many in fact get refunds on money they didn't put in to begin with--and that they therefore don't care if taxes get lowered or raised.  It doesn't affect them.

Romney is right.  And if the Left had any brains they would admit that four more years of the past four years will lead to disaster.  But they don't CARE about the poor.  That is a rhetorical propaganda device used to trick people.

Obama, Kaiser Soze, and Frank Marshall Davis

The more you study what we "know" of Obama, the more it seems to me like this ENTIRE life may have been fabricated out of whole cloth.  We know Barry Sr., the anti-colonial Marxist to whom his book (which he more or may not have written) met his mother, as we have pictures of them together.  We know they married. We know she returned to Washington state to study, and that his "father" stayed in Hawaii.  We know he attended school in Indonesia, where he was listed as both a Muslim and an Indonesian national.  We know he went to  rich kids school in Honolulu, which would have been the same place Mitt Romney would have gone if he had grown up there.  We know he was a pot smoker.  On his own account--and there is no good reason to lie about this--he spent a lot of time with Frank Marshall Davis, and looked to him as a confidant.

Then, the next known data point is his community organizing days in Chicago, after he allegedly went to Columbia, which is roughly 5-6 years after he left Hawaii. Somewhere in there a Pakistani friend funded a trip to Pakistan, apparently.

Then he was at Harvard.  We don't know if he deserved to be there, or how he paid for it.  We know there were racial tensions when he was there, which likely made electing the first black to the position of editor in the Law Review a very easy political decision.

We know he was offered a contract to write his book/memoir, which was revoked when he failed after 18 months or so.  We know that he tried again, was failing again, and according to at least one biographer finally went to Bill Ayers to help him write it.  This time, the book was written, sold well, and set the stage for his political career.

But there are several large gaps in there, including all the time from when he left Hawaii to when he hit Chicago as an Alinskyite practitioner of Agitation Propaganda.

This reminds me of the moment in "The Usual Suspects" when Chaz Palmintieri realizes that all the names he's just been given came from pictures behind his desk, his coffee cup, and elsewhere, and that virtually every important detail he has just been given may have been completely fabricated.

As I ponder it, it actually makes sense that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's real father.  If there were some way to verify those pornographic images that look like his mother actually ARE his mother, I would say it would be a virtual certainty.  Girls do not let men take pictures like that, then stop short of intercourse, not with a man like Davis, who seems to have had a talent for seduction--due, no doubt, to a lack of conscience and frequent practice, both desirable traits if the goal is getting in a girl's pants.

It would have made sense for Dunham to have more or less dumped him on his real father when she returned to Indonesia.  And it would make it possible both for the Registrar--or whatever her title is--of Hawaiian public records to say she had viewed Obama's birth certificate without lying, AND for it to make sense for him to forge a false one, if Davis was listed as his father.

In the era when he was born, having a father who was a KNOWN, card-carrying, unapologetic Communist dedicated to overthrowing the rule of law in the United States would have been devastating to virtually any career he could have chosen.  It may be in part because of that that his mother chose to move him to Indonesia.  When things loosened up in the late 60's, it might then have encouraged her to return him, so he could grow up with the unique advantages that attend growing up in the United States.

I have said before and will say again that if we survive this era with our freedoms intact, some set of future historians--probably not even that far in the future, perhaps 5 years--will wonder HOW IN HELL did this guy slip through: unqualified as far as what we know, unvetted with regard to what we don't know, and having had far left associates ON HIS OWN ACCOUNT far back into his childhood.

Tragedy and Sadism part three

Tragedy: intact social order, fear, sadness, relief, greater social cohesion

Comedy: intact social order, laughter, relief, greater social cohesion

Horror: broken social order, fear (alleviated in the short term, aggravated in the long term), decreased social cohesion (I will note, too, that tragedies were meant to be watched by groups of rough peers; most modern media consumption is solo or in small groups).

Sadism: broken social order, broken personal order.  Can generate social cohesion only among those equally broken.

Tragedy through Sadism part two

I take things for granted sometimes that perhaps I shouldn't.  If it was not obvious, I was building a continuum starting with Tragedy--which was the dominant form of theater in what we might call the Golden Age of Greece, which arguably is the form of Shakespeare's greatest plays, and which modern Opera in part tried to revive--and leading to what we might term the theatrical elements of clinical sadism, with comedy and horror as stops in the middle.

In tragedy, the protagonists, with whom we are clearly meant to identify, struggle and fail due to flaws--hamartias--in their characters.  They are excessive proud, in most cases, but the flaw can be something else.  What the audience is meant to do is sympathize with the main character, and feel the horror they feel when their world collapses, and to SEE what they might not, which is WHY their world fell apart, and to learn from it.  "Pride precedes a fall" might be a lesson taken to heart, and emphasized through negative emotive operant conditioning.

Further, by teaching people that they can feel deep sorrow and recover, you teach mourning.  Hank Williams wrote a lot of sad songs, but he was not a sad person, on balance: he loved life.  He drank too much, of course, but his short life was filled with a lot of good emotions, and even now his songs make me happy.

And for the Greeks, tragedy was a sort of ritual, something to be gone through periodically, but not something to LIVE in.  The great tragic playwrights were not likely morose men; nor were the Greeks who went to see the plays. On the  contrary, I suspect they were vivacious and fun.  They laughed a lot, playfully, simply.  They just understood that sadness, failure, and futility have a PLACE in life: they must be acknowledged and accepted. Once you do that, you can live more fully, more joyfully.  It is perhaps counterintuitive, but that is my view too.  You get stronger through catharsis, which amounts to a type of emotional exercise.

There have been times Hank Williams songs made me cry: that is OK too.

What is NOT OK is being unable to experience what might be termed primary emotions any more.  Our society tells us that pain is aberrational, so we don't, as a culture, know how to MANAGE it; we don't practice it; we don't have good, effective rituals for it.  Part of the reason we are so infantile as a nation is that we don't have a means of processing the necessity of adulthood, the pain of adulthood, which is to say the capacity to live a rational life as chosen. So we pretend that our decisions have no consequences, when of course they do.

In tragedy you feel the horror and fear of the protagonist, and know why it happened.  It is intended both to teach moral virtues, and to teach people to process complex emotions, which include the ability to accept the pain and suffering in this world.

In comedy you feel much more muted discomfort at the unexpected and the socially "deviant" (I intend simply deviations from social norms), for which the cathartic response is laughter.  It is still useful because it teaches a means of dealing with the chaos, the ebb and flow, of ordinary human life.  It has a place in my taxonomy of tasks.

In horror, you feel the fear of the protagonists, but there is no meaning, no escape, and no catharsis.  What there is, in my view, is a homeopathic release of tension. I think most people in this and many other countries are chronically anxious, chronically afraid, and I think by INCREASING that anxiety, it can actually be made to fade, for a time.  However, the medicine is the poison, in that watching violence clearly also increases anxiety, not least by implanting images in your head that are prone to pop out whenever dealing with any other human, and which pop out in those few unguarded moments when you spontaneously relax deeply.  It leaves a question in your mind as to "who is this person REALLY?"  Horror movies are filled to overflowing with apparently benign people who slip something in the drink of their victims, who wake up in a terrible place, and die painful deaths.

Imagine clear, relaxing water.  Imagine a deep relaxation forming in you, and connecting with that water.  How long before some terrible image pops out?  Not long, for me, and I don't even watch violent movies in general. 

Faith: that is the root of hope, and the Horror genre damages faith.

The final stage is when you sympathize not with the victims, but the attackers, when Jigsaw is your hero, or Jason, or the Elite Hunting Club.  This is the point when you no longer feel your own feelings at all.  You feel nothing but excitement when someone is hurt, tortured or killed.  You have outsourced your capacity to process the real terrors of this world to a sacrificial victim.  This, in my view, is the sociological basis of ritual sacrifice of all sorts.

Catharsis has become a thing which is experienced as pain in the victim.  You need to inflict pain to release that terrible burden of anxiety and meaninglessness.

I could say more, but will leave that be for now.

Tragedy through Sadism

I posted in the last week or so that both Tragedy and Comedy depend upon character flaws/weaknesses.  What makes you laugh is an incongruity between what you expect to happen and what actually happens.  As an example, this video, "how to piss off a frog" makes me laugh.  If you have not seen it, watch it before reading the next paragraph.  Actually, watch this one, too: it's a baby that is first terrified then amused by his mother sneezing.

I think all of us interact with the world with a mixture of fear and avarice.  There are things we hope for and things we fear.  The frog video is funny because first we feel superior to the frog, who has been tricked.  It appeals to your sense of superiority.  Then you realize that is kind of mean to the frog, then the person doing the trick gets attacked, which is poetic justice which is completely unexpected.  Surprise is a key element in humor; it disrupts a pattern. If we posit that the information content of a message is an inverse of its predictability--the more predictable, the less information--then humor almost by definition contains information, which is to say new pattern arrangements.

Now tragedy, too, involves the descent into murder and chaos from existing orders.  It alters the big picture.  Someone dies, or takes their eyes out.  Comedy happens within an intact field.  Cheers would not have been funny if Sam had been murdered by a cuckolded husband, or Norm died of cirrhosis.

You CAN  use humor to form new patterns.  This is true.  Cops and ER doctors and paramedics are notorious for gallows humor.  I remember one case where a motorcyclist lost his leg in an accident.  The cops I knew cleared the scene, then fifteen minutes were wondering how "Pegleg Pete" was doing.  That's how you cope: you take what is in some respects an actually tragic image and convert it to one amenable to humor.  In my view, this is healthy, even necessary, even if the public would be scandalized to hear what goes on behind the scenes.

But contemplating this morning, it occurred to me that the Horror genre is tragedy without redemption--without the possibility of learning, where even when the "protagonist" (were Freddy Krueger's victims really protagonists?  Hannibal Lector? Jigsaw?) somehow through great courage survives, it means nothing, the violence happened for nothing; and overt sadism is comedy without pattern formation.  Sadists laugh at their victims, or at least they can.  What are they laughing at?  Nothing.

Power creates one thing: a relationship without other content between oppressor and oppressed.  All meaning inheres in this relationship, and for the oppressor at least, life is empty without that relationship, although they often enough find masochistic counterparts.

Why the laughter though?  Examples come easily to mind, but simply imagine the evil cackle that Mike Myers made fun of with the Dr. Evil character.

Logically, I suppose, and I am thinking as I type, if the point of humor is altered patterns within the mind of the perceiver, then a power relation is "funny" to the extent that it represents a fall from "sobriety" on the part of the victim, of a stable world with social norms which are about to be broken.  This break is a quantitative one, in that it represents not an alteration in a cognitive gestalt, but an outright break in conditions of life.

I think the foregoing is correct.  I will say in concluding here simply that I cannot see in the Horror genre anything but a de facto giving up on finding a deeper meaning in life than living a dull life punctuated by the occasional excitement of the sort watching other people suffer occasions. Add to that regular pornography, the possibility of good sex, and maybe a lottery win, and that's it.

Our culture, presently, is a very weak one.  And to make a final final point, walking backwards is not a possibility.  We cannot return to anything.  We must move forward to something new.  That is the underlying thesis of the Goodness Movement website.  One day soon I am going to try to form a "church", but one not quite like anything I've ever heard of.  I need to get my own shit straight first, and am making progress on that score.

Saturday, September 15, 2012


Posted in response to this article, which is somehow hawking the fantastic notion that the disaster in the Middle East is anything other than an obvious result of idiotic foreign policy decisions on the part of the Obama Administration. It is ASTONISHING to me on an on-going basis how indifferent leftists are to issues of basic principle, human dignity, and human suffering.  They just don't care, and they cloak this fact by accusing conservatives of it.  It is anti-enlightenment, anti-human rights, and anti-rationalism.  They will be accusing the right of this tomorrow, with no capacity to back it up, since I am RIGHT.

It is astonishing the extent to which partisan hacks will TWIST the truth.  Libya was "freed" from Gaddafi in part by conscious policy of the Obama administration.  So were Tunisia, Egypt, and other places where we are under attack.  The salient question is: "how can ANY human being rationalize this outcome as other than a foreign policy disaster?"

The Muslim Brotherhood and kindred organizations are taking over these countries, who previously were more or less allies, and will be in a position soon to wage these types of attacks consistently.  This does not have ANYTHING to do with Romney, and EVERYTHING to do with horrifically misguided and AMATEUR foreign policy decision by BARACK OBAMA.  Crisis?  This could be worth 5-10 points for ROMNEY.

As I often do, I will repeat that all you have to do to read leftist minds is see what they accuse others of and apply it to them.  There is no "out there" in the leftist mind, so they have to project realities.


It seems to me the root of narcissism is self loathing, which exists like a bubble--or abcess--in an ocean of water and apparent freedom, and which colors everything.

Obama is a narcissist who was abandoned relatively early by his mother, and by at least his Kenyan father (we are not sure if Frank Marshall Davis was not the actual father; a credible case for it can be made).  This must have made him angry, particularly at his mother, who seems to have been herself very self absorbed.

Mother hatred makes for self loathing, as I don't think you can hate your mother and not somehow redirect that at yourself, in ways not immediately apparent to your surface consciousness.  This anger would not but be intensified if she was a frivolous woman who allowed pornographic pictures to be taken of herself.  That home would not have been happy.  That woman would not have been interested in being a good mother.

And self loathing leads easily, through projection, to Other loathing, which has been the principle project of our President since before he entered his teens, in my view.

Leftism is the perfect philosophy for narcissists: its lust for power leads, over time, to never needing to apologize, and in the interim to a fully "justified" outlet for your grief/anger.

Jobs question framed properly

The question is not what Mitt Romney is going to do to "create" jobs, but rather what latent creative talents of the American people he is not going to stop from expression, what taxes he will not impose, what regulations he will not yoke upon us.

Obamacare, if implemented--which it will be if Obama wins--will devastate the small businesses that create 90% of American jobs.  What we have now will get MUCH MUCH worse.

Public Sector Unions

The reality is simple: all pay increases of public sector employees are paid for by tax-payers.  Period.  There is no other way to look at it, although that money may in the short term be borrowed or the result of inflation.

Public sector unions consist in one part of the government--the union members, and the leaders paid for by the dues they pay that come out of their checks which are paid by the taxpayers--negotiating with another part of the government, usually politicians who benefit from contributions from these unions.  Both sides have every interest in inflating the wages of the union members, and virtually no accountability other than public outrage at constantly increasing benefits and wages at far greater than the rate of inflation, which has been the consistent outcome over the last several decades.

Public sector unions suck money out of the private sector, with NO compensating increase in performance or benefit to the people at large.  This is a necessary conclusion, given both that the money is taken in taxes, and that NO part of the negotiations involves any promise to perform. On the contrary: quite often unions work to protect the lazy, incompetent, and the dishonest.

Other than that it is convenient as an issue for Democrat politicians who benefit from this process, there is NO BENEFIT to public sector unions for the people at large.  It helps 10% of the population, and hurts 90%, which is about par for most Democrat policies.

To be clear, PRIVATE sector unions at least negotiate with people who are not on the same side as them, and who are spending THEIR OWN money.  I will reiterate my views on private sector unions, which follow Barry Goldwater's ideas in "Conscience of a Conservative":

1) They must exist in relation to one company only, and as a general rule should only be formed when there are actual grievances.  Given the extent of government regulation, such as OSHA, very few reasons exist to form unions any more other than to facilitate extortion, which backfires over time, as Detroit--and the northeast generally--will readily attest in a mute way if you drive though it.

2) Membership must be voluntary.  Most people would rather work for less than be paid nothing, which is the result of layoffs that attend overly aggressive union representatives emboldened by the fact that THEY can't be fired.  Most uninsured people live in Closed Shop/No Choice States, where unions are allowed BY LAW to require union membership.  Even if members hate their unions, and would gladly work for 25% less, they are not ALLOWED to.  Such States bow to the Unions by requiring a linkage between EITHER an employer or a Union and the ability to buy health insurance.  Everyone in every State should be able to buy health insurance directly from the insurer.  The Unions can be relied on to oppose this, since it reduces the advantages they offer their members.

3) Unions should not be able to make political contributions.  As things stand, as I understand it, both public and private sector unions are tax exempt, yet they can make political contributions.  The way things were, corporations--which make ALL the money that unions and government rely on--were not allowed to form PAC'S, and yet had to surrender 25% or more of their profits to the government, AFTER they paid the unions, where applicable. It is small wonder that the left screamed bloody murder about that decision, since corporations are now more or less on an open playing field with the unions.

I would change the law, though.  I think anyone who pays taxes should be unlimited in their ability to make contributions, but I think that it is unfair both that unions and corporations spend money on candidates their employees/members may not agree with.  It dilutes the power of democracy.  Therefore, I think BOTH unions and corporations should be banned from making political contributions, but that corporations should be TAX EXEMPT too.  All taxes should be income, excise, and sales taxes.  Obviously, income taxes will go up, but so will incomes, since all that money now being paid to the government can be either reinvested, or used to increase incomes.

When a dollar of profit hits a corporation, it is double taxes.  It is taxed when it is accrued as a profit, then it is taxed again when it is paid out in a salary or wage. Most people don't know the basics of how things work, and fail to even want to try and learn.

War on Women

The "ideal type", in a Weberian sense, of a poor person in this country is a single woman with multiple kids trying to survive on low wages brought about by her sudden departure from the school system. Such people are enormously sensitive to economic conditions.  When times are good, they more or less make it. When times are bad, as now, life gets very, very hard.

And to pretend that social programs do much to alleviate such suffering is ridiculous, and to pretend that we have the money to expand such programs is also ridiculous.  What the poor need are well paying jobs.  Anything that moves the national economy away from well paying jobs hurts them.

Obama's policies plainly benefit a few at the expense of the many.  They help Democrats running for office in States where his pork barrel policies helped them temporarily appear to be able pay their bills.

They help highway contractors who are paid to fix non-existent problems.

They help government bureaucrats, such as the 16,000 agents they plan to hire to suck every last penny they can out of the American private sector.

They help Wall Street, not least because he has no intention of ever allowing the Fed to be audited, and the root cause of our economic problems--theft through inflation--to be addressed. He also has no intention of ever abolishing Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, both of whom were big campaign contributors, and the former director of one of which is now part of his anti-rationalist team.

We are suffering through the worst economic recovery since WW2, and you know who is likely hurting most of all?  Single mothers.

Single mothers are hurt worst by Obama's policies, which are systematically undermining the private sector, the middle class in particular, and WOMEN.  

All you need to do to understand leftist objectives is figure out what they are accusing their ideological enemies of and apply it to them.

QE Infinite

The latest announcement by Bernanke, that the Fed will buy roughly $40 billion a month in mortgage backed securities indefinitely, has several implications in my view.

First, it seems to me that this method will put far more money into active circulation that the previous two rounds of Quantitative Easing, and is thus FAR more likely to lead to short and medium term price inflation.  I did not predict it before, but I predict it now.  We will see price increases starting in 3 to 6 months, if this continues. Not hyperinflation, hopefully, but steady decreases in our buying power, which are the result of give-aways to trillion dollar banks.

Previously, Bernanke took government bonds off the hands of major investment banks.  Whether they invested it or not was up to them, and given our lack of inflation, they either put that money somewhere else, or are sitting on it.

Now, they will be effectively doing what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did, which is buy up mortgage backed securities, many of which are likely unvalue-able--whose true value is impossible to determine--and which for that reason are not otherwise moving.  Basically, the Fed is likely just using its power to create money to fluff up the balance sheets of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and others.  This will however create an immediate incentive to create MORE mortgage backed securities, and in effect amounts to a guarantee that all such securities created in the next few months will be purchased, particularly if the bank in question is plugged in politically to the core elite making the buying decisions.

Secondly, and perhaps more interestingly--less obviously--I think this amounts to a decision by the Fed to do what it can over the next two months to improve the economy, and thus is a tacit endorsement of Obama.  The action is being taken now because any capable mind can readily see how easily it will be to blame the murder of Christopher Stevens and the three others on Obama's foreign policy.  After all, we helped topple Gaddafi's regime, in an undeclared war, without the support of Congress, and more or less under the command of the UN.  At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, that attack would have not have happened under Gaddafi's regime.  He decided to stay home and play dress-up after Reagan made him crap his pants back in the 1980's, in a paradigmatically effective use of power projection.

It is a reliable article of Democrat propaganda that they stand up to the power elite, in the name of the "common man".  If it was ever true, it no longer is.  Obama took a LOT of money from Wall Street, which more or less wrote his Wall Street "Reform" act.  That act will HELP Wall Street; it will not hinder its excesses in the slightest, and in fact guarantees government bailouts, as I understand it.

Romney is a politician, which means he goes whichever way the wind blows.  Right now, the wind is blowing in the direction of auditing the Fed.  The main opponent right now is Harry Reid, and the Democrat majority.  Behind them stands Obama, who can be counted on also to veto the bill since he depends on Fed member banks for his campaign cash.

Romney is not as reliable an ally as Obama.  He is a Republican, and as such has to respond to the Republican base, which is drifting steadily rightward (might I coin the term "reasonward").

Bernanke had been sitting on his hands.  One to two days after the attacks, he announced a policy very much to the liking of those who stand to benefit from the largesse of the power elite.

I will remind people that the Federal Reserve Act was sponsored by a Democrat, and signed into law by a Democrat, after having failed as a Republican sponsored law.  When the Republicans called for it, they were seen, accurately, as standing for the interests of the big banks alone, and against the interests of ordinary Americans.  So these people just bought a Democrat, passed virtually an identical law, and achieved propagandistic superiority.  For this reason, it is easily argued that the more favorable party for the very people that rank and file Democrats think they are opposing have their interests served BEST by Democrats.

These are the sorts of outcomes that happen when you don't read the fine print, when you don't retain the habit of critical examination and rational house-cleaning (sweeping up the errors, mopping up the fallacies), and instead rely on assumptions and propaganda designed to lull you to sleep.

Comedy and Tragedy

I was watching an old Cheers episode today, and I realized that both comedy and tragedy revolve around the character flaws of the participants, and got to thinking about the difference. 

The difference is CONSEQUENCE.  In a comedy, things turn out more or less alright, despite the vanity, stupidity, cupidity, and shortsightedness of the protagonists.  In a tragedy, it all goes to shit.

We live in a comedic age, which in having forgotten history, has forgotten how quickly comfortable lives can become miserable.

Friday, September 14, 2012

How's this?

The point of science is to establish connections between objects.  The point of philosophy is to establish connections between affect and affect, and subject and subject.  The error of scientism is precisely in trying to treat subjects as objects.

In philosophy, broadly understood (which here could easily also mean both psychology and sociology), introspection can yield useful information, since the subject of action--the human affective domain--is coterminous with the subject doing the introspecting, with the salient question being the extent of congruence between that person's affective environment, and that of others.

Philosophy and Science

Posted on this page. In my view, this was a reasonable conversation.  The constant problem one faces with most conventional academics is the ASSUMPTION about certain aspects of the universe, specifically that consciousness is synonymous with the body.  This assumption is never examined, which means that it is simply posited in discussions.  Since this assumption appears wholly unwarranted, this means that error must attend all such discussions, necessarily. 

This is a reasonable discussion, although I do not share the materialistic bias of both, as in my view since the proof of non-locality it has been impossible to justify a view in which things simply are where they are, and not somewhere else. It is a source of on-going interest to me how many leading academics continue to hawk 19th century physical models. I will give you the end of the story: Einstein failed. His version of mechanistic physics was disproven.

In my own moral system I question both the possibility and desirability of final answers to moral questions, such as "is homosexuality wrong?" I posit that proper answers to moral questions are local (contextualized) , necessary (no need to render a decision on homosexuality absent a need to render a specific decision) , and imperfect. The quest for the exact, mathematically correct answer is inappropriate in a non-linear system, which is what human behavior is.

I posted the other day that "philosophy is what we do on the way to something else", and what I intended was that as I grow in what I will call my understanding it increasingly seems to me that the point of reason is not intellectual clarity, but a subjectively pleasant emotional state. Mr. Krause, for example, feels a sense of satisfaction in the sense of order his very pleasant but static system creates.

I say static, since if we are not different in principle than rocks, then life is an illusion. Free will is an illusion. Nothing CHOOSES anything. There are no random events in the world. Nothing MOVES but rather is moved.

Quantum physics, of course, posits constantly randomness, but no orthodox materialists that I have debated really want to deal with the implications of the theory, although certainly some very bright men, like Richard Feynman, both understood the details and refused to examine the implications.

These rough topics are near and dear to my heart, since in the end, our ability to succeed as a human race is going to require dealing EMOTIONALLY with the results of our ontology, which for the scientistic is clear beyond doubt, and amenable to coherent analysis as something OUT THERE, which I do not think it is.

I posted this the other day:
I came up with the word "vulgaron", which is one unit of vulgarity. Logically, if scientism is correct that all observable phenomena are measurable, one ought to be able to measure vulgarity, correct? But will not one hundred people rate things each a bit differently? And is this process made precise through statistics? Of course not, it is formally complex, and the result of mutable subjectivity.

And to the point, the worth of our lives is the worth of our emotional lives, and it seems clear to me that the scientistic impulse Acts To, in a Hayekian sense, reduce our trust in our own emotions, our spontaneity, and thus many of the most simple joys in life.

Obviously science builds things, but looking around, at oceans of "Fifty Shades of Grey" being sold to housewives, the prevalance of torture porn and zombie parades, the rates of anti-depressant use, can people really say we are on the way, now, to building a better society:? I don't see it, and the core problem is the neglect of philosophy, which in my view links one emotional state with another. That is its primary purpose.


A response on HuffPo.

When Democrats talk of "cost control" what they are talking about is healthcare rationing.  Why does America have the best and most specialists in the world?  Because we PAY for them.  With regard to the insurance industry, what do you think will act more effectively to cost cutting: free market competition, or really, really sincere bureaucrats who promise really, really hard that they won't hire extra people to build their budgets, offer wage increases unrelated to market realities, or let their workers unionize.  Wait, that last one is already a fait accompli.

We need more competition, both between health CARE providers and health INSURANCE providers, which some of you seem not to realize are two different groups.

83% of doctors have thought about quitting because of Obamcare, at a time when we need MORE doctors. 

KFC estimates it franchisees will see their profits cut in HALF by Obamacare, and it is easy to generalize to SMALL business in general that this law will be DEVASTATING.  It is a cost increase with no corresponding benefit to the business, which will, yes, hurt business owners, but when they close their doors, are any of you so stupid as not to realize that MASS unemployment will be the result? 

All you have to do to decipher the truth where leftists like Obama are concerned is take their statements and invert them: he intends war on the middle class, a war on women (whose struggles to survive are already much harder than those of the average man), a war on small business, and generalized decreases in access to healthcare, at inflated costs.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Plastic people

I travel a fair amount.  There are certain strip malls you see in every city which could be in ANY city.  You have no way of knowing if you're in Memphis,  Chicago, or Albuquerque.

It seems to me that many political views are like this, particularly on the Left.  The whole project has been oriented around quality control, which here means homogenization, and the availability of outrage when it is politically useful.  Large segments of our population have not had an original, individual, personal perception in their entire lives, and since they spend all their time with ideological others, they don't realize this.  Their beliefs are just background, assumed, and never examined.

I like to fuck with people like that, and they don't like it, not one bit.  It's not my job to bring peace to the complacently and arrogantly wrong.  A sword: yes, a sharp, really fast one, to separate quickly vanity from fact, reason from illusion, assumption from truth.

Of course I'm not changing minds, in general, although I have won a few converts.  It is to show the morally and mentally alive how easy it is.  Upon such people our world depends.


I like Doris Lessing's Canopus in Argos series.  In Shikasta she has an agent from a highly advanced alien civilization incarnate to do useful work.  This is more or less the avatar concept of the Hindus, where, say, Vishnu will periodically show up and do something useful, as a dward, or a fish, or as Krishna.

This got me to thinking about Boddhisattvas, the enlightened ones who keep coming back.  What must that be like?  You are a general, trying to combat darkness, so you develop a battle plan that might involve 100,000 lives.  Ponder that for a moment.

We know so little, yet we think we know so much.  The arrogance of this modern age is horrifying.  It is death, death, death.


I invented this word the other day.  It popped into my head.  It is one unit of vulgarity.  I propose it as a heuristic device to see the difference between quality and quantity, between the intrinsically unmeasurable, and what can, is, and should be measured.

How do you measure vulgarity?  Surely every person will see things differently.  Nowadays, virtually nothing is beyond the pale.  Yet, not one hundred years ago, Rhett Butler saying "damn" was scandalous.

I was in the Toledo Art Museum the other day.  I am no art connoisseur, but I find walking the floors to be highly stimulative of thought.  In that trip I developed an idea that had first come to me in the Indianapolis Art Museum, which is one of the best museums I've seen.

Science treats emotion as artifact.  It is accustomed to "objectivity", to measurement, to the idea that things exist "out there", and that they can somehow separate ALL physical occurences from subjectivity, from an inherent inability to measure.

Scientism, the materialistic atheist fundamentalist creed, holds that our bodies, our minds, are objects. They are complex objects, but not different in principle from chalkboards or cockroaches.  This creed has social consequences.

Our emotive lives are all out of whack.  I see signs all around of the inability to mourn, to process deep emotion, to feel deep joy, to express anger in mature and useful fashions.  All of these things are necessary for us to negotiate our connections with one another.  When we do not exist as in-dividuals, when we do not privilege our own emotions above interpretations offered by others, or a fear of feeling at all--simply, when we lack spontaneity--we diminish as spirits, as people.

What I felt in the museum was a tide sweeping emotions out to sea, to be examined by specialists with no emotional ties to the topic, under microscopes.  And please step out of your clothes, Mrs. Smith, we must take accurate measurements and shame is not anything we recognize.

What we NEED is to use science for what it was intended: making things.  What we NEED is to learn how to express emotions more wisely, with greater freedom, with greater intimacy.  And almost NOTHING in our culture is building this.

What does one see in most of the art from roughly 1918 to the present?  Cries for help.  Confusion,  Anger.  Lust.  Willfulness.  Treachery.  All of these things are supported by the IDEAS of our intellectual elites, which posit, in effect, that meaning is a thing, and that we don't have it, and can't figure out how to manufacture it.

What is needed to counterbalance this flow out to sea is a tide inward, which focuses on quality of feeling, of hope, art in the good sense, justice, freedom: all the things which leftist tricks have removed from our national dialogue.

I will add that as I suspected I was not quite able to do justice to the sentiment.  It's frustrating: I can see and feel things, watch them flow, feel them in my body, but as much as I write, words sometimes fail me.  I guess that words, too, are in the end quantitative.  That would make sense.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

The rich

There is a profound difference between hereditary, landed wealth, and hereditary industrial wealth.  The very rich tend to stay that way, but not to anything like the extent people imagine.  Of the 100 richest families 100 years ago, perhaps 10 are still on the list.  Money made can be lost, and often is, usually by the grandson of whoever made the money.

I will ask, further, if you the reader have created a company with employees.  For most people, the answer is no.  Yet, this is the path to wealth.  It is a path fraught with hard work, much worry, and frequent failure.  Leftists only want to look at the end result, success, and not what it took to get there and how FRAGILE the will to such success is.  All you have to do to make it stop is add just a bit more weight to the struggle, and it will stop.  People will stop innovating and creating. 

Most jobs in this country are created by small businesses, which are created by innovators, by people who see a need and work to fill that need (borrowed from the movie Robots).  They seek, in other words, to get paid for being public servants, for making something available that was not available before.  This is a reliable motivation, but again it is one that is easily destroyed.

I see leftists wail about the "corporations" as if they were all equal.  They are not.  The large corporations are the ones they usually intend, and it is thus highly ironic that the policies of the Democrats tend disproportionately to favor such corporations.  It is hard to kill trees, but easy to kill small upshoots on the ground.  Obamacare, as one example, is going to be a forest fire that kills much that is not already mature.  It is going to vastly increase unemployment, as it will lead to many small business bankruptcies.  The claim that requiring companies to increase coverage is somehow going to save them money is one best told as a joke.  No serious person could consider it for a moment.  In this world you never get more for less, and anyone who tells you you can is selling something: here what is being sold is continued Democrat hegemony over our national dialogue on domestic policy; what is not being sold is useful, helpful policy that will increase national happiness, and decrease the misery of any but a few.

We need the people who know how to build businesses.  We need them happy and motivated to continue as paid public servants.  What happens when we punish them through unnecessary regulation and excessive taxation (both subjective terms, but in my view we are far past excessive in both realms) is they STOP.  They stop creating and innovating.  America has the most healthcare specialists, and the best specialists, in the world.  Why?  Because we PAY them.  When we stop paying them, which is the end goal of Obamacare, we will stop having them.  Simple enough.

The rich can go on strike.  And since they are the ones who create the jobs, this will lead to far less economic opportunities for EVERYONE, but most of all for the poorest, least qualified among us, which is to say the already poor.

That is more or less what has happened under Obama.  He hates the profit motive, and hates the private sector.  He is only comfortable with government parasites, and those who live off government largesse, like large highway contracting companies.  People are not stupid: we all KNOW taxes will go up.  They are already slotted to increase a LOT in 2013 to start "paying" for Obamacare (there will of course be a large shortfall, not least because Obama getting reelected, combined with the taxes, will lead in short order at least to another recession), and it is clear he wants them much, much higher, as they are in Europe.

I need to go.  I will post further on this topic.  One thing that I want to document and need to make the time to do is that it seems clear to me that at tax rates above about 25% or so net receipts from top income earners go down.  What I think happens is that the proportion paid by the wealthiest 1% shifts down, meaning that a larger burden falls on the middle class.  Tax cuts for the "rich" mean tax cuts for the middle class, and vice versa.  I will document this--assuming my thesis is correct--when time permits.