Saturday, July 26, 2014

Rule of Market – The Next Leap Forward

History began with the Rule of Man, which is where the law is the whim of one man who has no accountability to those under the law. He is above the law, and thus the law is likely to be inefficient, subjective, arbitrary, and applied unequally.

A great leap forward from the Rule of Man was the Rule of Law, which is where those who make the law are accountable to those under the law, and no man is above the law.

The next great leap forward will be the Rule of Market, which is where the law is a product like any other. An individual could produce his own law, or choose one or more of the products produced by others, or choose no such product at all. The market will be the judge.

In the Rule of Market, the law is voluntary – just like any other product. For example, suppose you voluntarily enter into a contract, and then discover you were tricked, and then you decide it is in your best interests to only fulfill the part of your contractual obligation you feel is fair. You would then be wise to make your case on the Internet, because in the future, other parties (the market) will evaluate your actions and decide on what terms they would be willing to enter into any given type of contract with you. You should assume that the other party will be making their case on the Internet as well.

You would be wise to hire an advocate to help you produce your side of the story. The role of such an advocate would be similar to the purpose of a lawyer today.

You would want to maintain an online presentation that explains your principles, and thus let potential partners know what to expect. An advocate could help you with that too.

You would want to hire one or more reputation rating companies to evaluate your side of the story. Such a role would be similar to the purpose of a credit rating agency. Each reputation rating company would decide whether your actions were consistent with the expectations you created with your statement of principles. They would decide the extent to which your actions were justified given the objective facts of the case, and they would decide the extent to which your actions were justified given the ambient culture. Then they would adjust your reputation score accordingly.

Note that if your statement of principles and your contract used common components found in other statements and other contracts, then evaluation would be easier and thus cheaper. On the other hand, if you are like me and insist on a custom statement of principles, then you should expect to pay more.

The reputations companies you hired might decide that your actions were consistent with your stated values and were thus expected, and that overall your actions were mostly justified both objectively and given the ambient culture. Therefore, given a potential future contract, the other party would probably just look at your reputation score and that they would be willing to contract with you, but for a slightly higher interest rate to reduce their risk.

A little imagination is all that is necessary to see how the Rule of Market would apply in any conceivable case, and the Rule of Market has never been more obtainable than in the age of the Internet.

A little imagination is all that is necessary to see that the productivity, innovation, and happiness resulting from the advent of the Rule of Market would be the dawn of a new renaissance like nothing we have ever seen before.

Unfortunately, we are no longer moving forward. We are now moving backwards towards the Rule of Man. For example, Obama claims the power to spy on anyone, indefinitely detain anyone, and even to assassinate anyone without due process, without accountability, and without transparency, and he has already exercised all of these powers.

We are moving back to the Rule of Man because governments are absolutely terrified of the Rule of Market because it is becoming clear that the only purpose of government is to force a majority to give their time, give the fruits of their labor, and even give their lives for a goal they would not voluntarily choose … such as wars, pyramids, cronyism, propaganda, censorship, reeducation camps, false flags, genocide, slavery, redistribution of honest wealth, and disarming the people.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Democracy is Illegitimate

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Democracy is not freedom, morality, or rule of law.

Democracy seems better than it actually is because it is new and because it is known to have followed bad monarchies or theocracies, and thus those new democracies consisted of people who had learned the evils of government (i.e. taxation, inflation, regulation, conformism, censorship, double standards, cronyism, false flags, gun confiscation, democide, genocide, slavery). What most people don't know is that those same things can also happen under the newer concept of democracy too once the culture who formed the democracy no longer understands why it revolted.

Democracy seems better than it actually is in comparison to other forms of government because it has primarily existed in the age of radio, then television, and now the Internet and digital cameras. Therefore the evil forces at work in all governments have naturally been forced to evolve more slowly, be more secretive, hide behind more layers of front men, and adopt far better PR mechanisms – all to stand up to greater scrutiny.

Democracy seems better than it actually is because it was created and evolved at a time when the people owned guns, and thus governments had to be more respectful of the people.

Democracy seems better than it actually is because it was usually created at the same time as a constitution or a bill of rights that captured the lessons learned by the generation who revolted.

Although democracy is not inherently good, it is not as inherently evil as less democratic forms of government because it must please a larger segment of the population.

Therefore, government has improved a only a little because of democracy; whereas, government has mostly improved because of armed citizenry, revolutions, radio, TV, Internet, digital cameras, constitutions that incorporate lessons learned by those who revolted, and because those lessons learned limited government to those actions that pleased a larger percentage of the people, which has slowed the propagation of evil.

Unfortunately, that is still not good enough or else we would not have the problems we have today. In fact many of the problems we have today are the unintended consequences of past government action. One cannot overemphasize that democracy can still be very evil. Consider Obama's DHS and consider What is Wrong with the People.

The path forward is clear. Why not limit government to those actions that please an even larger percentage of the people?

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Investing: Professionals vs. Individuals

I have heard many myths that claim the small investor shouldn’t waste his time and money, but some of the most annoying are the following:

Why should individual investors even try? After all, how can they outperform professional investors?

- or -

In any trade, one of the two parties is the fool, so if you are uncertain which is the fool, then the fool is probably you.

Common sense alone is sufficient to see through these myths, but a little general knowledge of the economic reality can help to further debunk them.

First, note that many small investors are ineffective for many reasons, but being a small investor is not one of those reasons. It is actually an advantage.

Some advantages of large investors are vanishing; whereas, many disadvantages have always existed. Also, small investors don’t have to outperform large investors to make a profit.

Some examples of why small investors don’t have to outperform large investors to make a profit are:

  • Small investors are also competing against other small investors.
  • The best small investors are clearly better than the worst professional investors.
  • It is not a zero sum game. Suppose CDs, bonds, and savings accounts will give you anywhere from 1% to 5%, so you buy an asset because you will make 10%, and the seller is another small investor who actually is making a better decision than you because he will use that money to buy another asset that will make 20% profit, and suppose that small investor bought that asset from a professional who will use the money to buy an asset that will make him 30%, etc.

Examples of how some advantages of large investors have been vanishing are:

  • Small investors now have far more information thanks to the Internet.
  • Commissions on small trades are now about 80% cheaper than 20 years ago.
  • Small small investors can perform trades as quickly as professionals now.

The disadvantages of large investors that have existed much longer than 20 years can be summarized as how small investors don’t have the constraints of large investors. For example:

  • Large investors have to find a place to put more money, so they can’t just put it all in their first choice.
  • Small investors are free to take their money off the table when there are no good options for them (or even to invest in their education or health) until financial investments become worth their effort again; whereas, professional investors must always choose some financial investment.
  • Small investors are free to admit that they lack insider information, publicly available information, natural intelligence, competence, etc.; whereas, professional investors would lose their job if they admitted any of these things.
  • Professional investors have to spend a lot of time dealing with corporate politics, such as other professionals trying to torpedo them.
  • Professional investors must be more conservative. A single embarrassing investment mistake could be the end of their career.
  • Professional investors cannot afford to look as if they are going against the experts or the crowd, so they cannot risk exposing themselves to alternative news, conspiracy theories, etc. or else they might believe some of it, and if they believe some of it, then they might repeat some of it, and if they repeat some of it, then they will lose the confidence of their clients and/or employer, which is a disadvantage because:
    • The mainstream is often wrong:
      • Economics professors are usually wrong.
      • Economists are usually wrong.
      • Economics is mostly about politics rather than science.
      • The newspaper of record (the NYT) is usually wrong about economics.
    • The alternative media is often right:
  • Large investors therefore act within a narrow range; whereas, individuals are free to think outside the box.
  • Small investors can thus act based on the conformism and (thus predictability) among large investors; whereas, large investors cannot depend on conformism among millions of individuals each having a different world view, different risk threshold, and who are free to think outside the box.
  • Individual investors live in the real world; whereas, large investors live in an artificial world.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

The Great Reset – The New Dollar

The Internet is increasingly abuzz with talk of A Great Reset, but there is a lot of disagreement about the details. Some of the more common themes are the likelihood of hyperinflation, default on the government debt, confiscation of retirement accounts, economic collapse, civil war, world war, and the subsequent rise of police states under a global government, which according to some, is the the goal of a great reset. An equally prevalent but less likely scenario is a prolonged period that sets technology back over 100 years.

While such events have happened throughout history, they are never the most probable near future – until they are already happening. Nevertheless, these predictions are more credible than the mainstream media are willing to admit.

If we think for ourselves, we can see that the US government is incapable of controlling its borrowing and printing of money, that it is increasingly taking an interventionist approach to individuals, business, and other countries, and that it is indeed becoming more of a police state. It is a little harder to see, but the evidence is now sufficient to validate how the US government is trying to provoke armed conflict with the people to justify even more of a police state.

The common recommendations are to buy gold, guns, and farm land, and then ride it out. Almost as prevalent is the recommendation to do the same in a foreign country as a backup. Of course, most people can’t do any of this. Nor would such an individual strategy prevent any of the predicted dystopian futures anyway.

That pretty much sums up The Great Reset.

Now let’s think for ourselves:

Everyone is getting deeper into debt, and hyperinflation seems almost inevitable, but if there were hyperinflation, then all of those debts could be paid back with a day’s wages, so obviously that would not be allowed to happen, which leaves one option. All debts would be recalculated in the New Dollars. Existing dollars would become illegal, and thus worthless, except that they could be traded in for the New Dollars – at an unfair exchange rate. Of course, the usual exceptions would be made to benefit the usual cronies.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

USS Liberty: Israel Attacked America

In 1967, Israel perpetrated an act of war by trying to sink the USS Liberty, and Israel committed war crimes against US sailors by machine gunning the survivors in the water. Israel knew even before the attack that it was an American ship. Then, US government officials at the highest level committed treason both by covering up the atrocity as well as for planning to sacrifice the US sailors from the beginning.

Three days earlier, the US had secretly helped Israel launch a secret surprise attack on its neighbors; whereas, the US and Israel denied that Israel had started the war, so Israel had no reason to sink this American ship unless it were trying to cover up an even greater atrocity than starting the war, or else trying to frame Egypt if the massacre succeeded. However, Israel failed to sink the USS Liberty and also failed to kill all of the US sailors, which is probably because the US sixth fleet had scrambled planes to protect the USS Liberty, but unbeknownst to Israel, McNamara had ordered the US rescue effort to stand down – much like the US did during the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi in 2012.

Not only was the USS Liberty massacre a treasonous US cover up of an atrocity perpetrated by Israel against US sailors, but the US government intended to sacrifice the USS Liberty and its crew all along. Consider that the Liberty was ordered to 13 miles off shore instead of the recommended 100 miles. When the Navy later supposedly sent multiple orders to the ship to move 100 miles away from the shore, the USS Liberty, the Navy’s most advanced communications ship, supposedly didn’t get the memo. Then, when the sixth fleet sent planes to defend the USS Liberty, McNamara ordered them to stand down. Clearly the US government wanted the USS Liberty sunk and all of its crew murdered.

I first learned about the USS Liberty around 2003 when I saw a documentary on cable TV. In that documentary the survivors testified that Israel machine gunned the survivors in the water. The survivors were quite clear that the intent of the machine gunning was to kill the survivors. The survivors were also quite certain that Israel knew they were Americans. It is the only documentary I have seen where one of the multiple Jewish survivors looked directly into the camera and said that he was Jewish and had no reason to lie or make Israel look bad and that Israel had indeed machine gunned the survivors in the water, but I have not been able to find a documentary containing that testimony since then.

The testimony of Jewish survivors is critical, not just because it lends ironclad credibility to the already unanimous and consistent stories of the survivors, but also because it makes clear the fact that Jewish people and Israel are not the same thing. Whereas, the actions of Israel endanger Jewish people everywhere, the heroic actions of these Jewish survivors protect Jewish people everywhere, and yet both Jewish and non-Jewish Zionists ridicule and threaten these brave Jewish men. You can find the statement of one of the Jewish survivors here.

Fortunately, the BBC did an equally good documentary entitled USS Liberty: Dead in the Water. The History Channel also made a pretty good documentary in 2001, which I just watched because I thought it might have been the first one I saw.

In addition to the three documentaries, I recently spoke with a 61 year old veteran of the US Navy, and he confirmed that Israel knew it was an American ship, that Israel did machine gun the survivors in the water, and that everyone in the US Navy knew it and was mad about it. Nevertheless, the US Navy immediately began a cover up that continues to this day.

If you didn’t know any of this, that is because the US government and the US media have done everything they can to cover up the USS Liberty incident.

Friday, April 4, 2014

Separation of Commerce and State Amendment

The powers over commerce and money granted by the Constitution are very limited. The Congress can:

  • Borrow money.
  • Coin gold and silver money.
  • Tax imports and exports.
  • Tax income. (The 16th amendment.)
  • Regulate interstate commerce, which obviously means the Congress can make laws to settle disputes and inconsistencies between the states.

Of course, the government now exercises absolute power over commerce. For example, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the power to tax justifies forcing everyone to buy health insurance or else pay a fine. Even though this new precedent gives the Congress a way to force us to buy products and services, it was still not satisfactory to the four so-called “liberal” justices because they wanted the decision to include a direct assertion that the commerce clause empowers the Congress to force us to buy products and services. How is it that so-called “liberals” want to force the little guy to buy products and services?

The so called “liberal” Clinton administration argued before the Supreme Court that the power to regulate interstate commerce justified banning the presence of guns in homes within 1000 feet of a school because guns impact education, and education impacts the economy, and the economy impacts interstate commerce, and the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce! Amazingly, five of the Supreme Court justices disagreed with the Clinton administration. Of course, once one of those five justices has been replaced by Obama, his plan to ban guns everywhere within, not 1000, but 5000! feet of a school will pass the Supreme Court.

Given the new precedent that Congress can make us buy products and services, the many existing bans on products and services, the millions of pages of regulations, the fact that our money is printed out of thin air without competition, and the federal debt; I think it is fair to say that government now exercises absolute power over commerce and is not wielding that power in good faith.

Such extreme power and corruption requires an extreme remedy. Therefore, I propose a new Freedom Amendment – The Separation of Commerce and State:

Separation of Commerce and State

The Congress shall make no law with respect to commerce.

Given that money is part of commerce, the Congress shall not borrow money and shall make no law with respect to money.

Given that labor is a part of commerce, the right of everyone to keep the fruits of their labor shall not be infringed.

Given that trade is a part of commerce, the right of everyone to trade the fruits of their labor for the fruits of another's labor shall not be infringed. Nor shall the Congress compel the states or the people to trade the fruits of their labor.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

The Armed Citizenry Amendment

The intent of an armed citizenry and of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not sufficiently clear and protected in the Second Amendment, and thus a deeply entrenched culture has evolved where the government feels it has the right to disarm us, spy on us, indefinitely detain us, and even assassinate us. As a proportionate solution to such extreme and such deeply entrenched culture, and as a solution to the lack of clarity and protection in the Second Amendment, I therefore propose a new Freedom Amendment:

The Armed Citizenry Amendment

The right of the states and of the people to form militias shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear any individual arms, such as those borne by any individual serving any branch of the government authorized in this Constitution, shall not be infringed.

The combined number of armed persons serving any branch of the government authorized in this Constitution shall never exceed one tenth of one percent of the people.

The government authorized in this Constitution shall never declare martial law. The states shall never declare martial law.

Persons serving any branch of government authorized in this Constitution shall never fire on the states or the people. Given any individual who, while serving any branch of the government authorized in this Constitution, has fired upon the states or the people, the right of the states and of the people to terminate the life of that individual and the life of the individual who gave him that order, shall not be infringed.

In a nutshell, the federal government might still develop and purchase military technology, but the actual defender of the states and the people, would be the states and the people – not the federal government.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

NYC Measles Outbreak – Think

The following video is an excellent example of a person thinking for himself in direct contradiction to the news media he observed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9sSR8iAJ4M

The media said that out of the twenty infected, the two who were not already vaccinated may be guilty of infecting the others, but this man points out how that also means that 90% of those infected were already vaccinated. Not only is this compelling evidence that the vaccine does not work, but it also raises the very rational question about whether the vaccines could actually be causing the outbreak. On both questions, the cognitive dissonance in the news media is breathtaking – as is their lack of curiosity and lack of critical thinking skills.

Saturday, March 29, 2014

The Transparency Amendment

Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

More specifically, government is, and always will be, the tool of those who cause the problems.

Better legislation does not work.

Eternal vigilance does not work.

Better candidates does not work.

Transparency works. In the eternal war of makers vs. takers, transparency is the only way government can be anything better than a force multiplier for the takers.

Transparency works, which is why we don’t have real transparency. In fact, the lack of curiosity in the media is truly breathtaking. It seems almost as if the establishment media exist solely to fabricate a sufficient illusion of transparency to prevent revolt, but of course, we know they also exist to fabricate other illusions, such as the illusion of representation (e.g. They fabricated The Myth of Obama).

Given the entrenched forces resulting from so many generations without transparency, extreme measures will be necessary for about a generation. Therefore, I propose a new Freedom Amendment – The Transparency Amendment:

The Transparency Amendment

The President, Vice President, and every member of the Congress shall wear a device to capture the surrounding video and audio every second of every day while in office. Failure, for any cause, to publish all content to every citizen within one hour of capture by the device shall constitute forfeiture of office. Publication to a web site shall be considered sufficient to meet the requirement to publish to every citizen. Once published, such content shall remain continuously accessible to every citizen in perpetuity. Intentional or accidental removal or disabling of the device, by any cause, shall constitute forfeiture of office.

This amendment shall also apply to the Chairman and governors of the Federal Reserve, to all federal judges, and to all justices of the Supreme Court.

This amendment shall take effect sixty days after ratification.

This amendment shall expire twenty years and sixty days after ratification.

Sunday, December 22, 2013

The Honest Labor Amendment

The Honest Labor Amendment would disqualify candidates like Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama because only those candidates who had performed sufficient honest labor would qualify.

Let’s first define what we are calling honest labor. Honest labor complies with honest laws, competes with other honest labor, and is voluntarily exchanged with another individual who voluntarily traded the fruits of his own honest labor.

Now let’s explore what is not honest labor.

By definition, governments spend money they either borrowed, printed out of thin air, or collected from other people by force. Governments also tend to forbid competition with their services. Governments ban the fruits of some labor, subsidize other labor, and even force us to buy some products and services. Governments even compel people to serve in their military. Therefore, any labor performed for a government is not honest labor.

The legal profession is a special case. Everyone knows it has a dishonest reputation and is intimately dependent on government, but perhaps more important is that about 90% of Congress has a law degree, and Congress has an approval rating of 11%, and our goal is to improve Congress …

Even work done by private sector doctors is not honest labor because doctors are protected from competition.

Volunteer work is also not honest labor because even those rare volunteer jobs that avoid the taint of government are not a two-way trade.

Therefore, very few people actually perform honest labor, but we don’t have to be purists to make an effective amendment. The Honest Labor Amendment merely needs to be fair, effective, and enforceable.

The Honest Labor Amendment

No one shall qualify for the Congress or for the office of the President of these United States without having first performed 10 years of labor separate from government and independent of individuals and organizations receiving government funding.

Saturday, December 14, 2013

The Funger Games

If you can understand the allegory of The Funger Games, then you can understand how the world really works …

In the Funger Games, Federal Reserve would assemble the 12 most favored banks (who own the Federal Reserve) and say to them:

Welcome to The Funger Games. The name was inspired by the fungibility of money. You are the 12 chosen banks.

The Federal Reserve shall print 3 trillion dollars out of thin air and inject it into the economy. We could just distribute it to everyone evenly, but instead, we shall distribute it amongst you – the chosen people – at zero percent interest. You must take your share, and you are not allowed to pay it back for 100 years.

The 3 trillion dollars shall enter the economy regardless of your actions; however, not all of the chosen people are equally worthy. Your share shall be determined by your performance on a series of puzzles that will be more easily solved if you acquire all the best young minds in engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences.

To acquire and protect your investment in all the best young minds in science and engineering, you must also acquire all the best minds in business, law, and politics.

Those who acquire the biggest share of all the best minds shall likely win the largest share of the new money.

If you can understand The Funger Games, then you can understand how the world really works because it is similar to what is actually happening, and would have pretty much the same effect on the world.

If you find it hard to believe that The Funger Games is an accurate allegory to what is really happening, and you want to learn the full cause and effect, read What is Wrong With the People.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Jesus Confronts An American Believer

It was the future, and Jesus approached a believer in Heaven, and said,

I want to introduce you to my friend who was an atheist. He did not believe in me, but after he died, I gave him the choice to enter heaven, or to remain dead, and he chose to enter heaven. Everyone would know everything he had done, and he chose to be here.

You are angry. You thought only believers could enter Heaven, but belief only grants you the option. I do not grant this option to every atheist; whereas, I grant it to every believer.

You said you believed, so after you died, I fulfilled my promise. I gave you the choice to enter Heaven, or to remain dead, and you chose to be here.

You are still angry, but I gave him the option because he lived the life meant for every man. Even without my teachings, every man knows what is right and what is wrong, but unlike most men, he did not believe those who corrupted my teachings. He made personal sacrifices to do what is right. He believed that when he died, it was the end, and yet, when it mattered most, he sacrificed his life.

You know it was my right to offer him this choice, and you are satisfied now, but listen carefully. He saved many with his example – just as I saved many with my example; whereas, you saved no one with your example. Maybe he can save you too. If you call, he will come.

You are angry again, but you did nothing. You believed, and so you knew that if you did nothing, you would have eternal life. So you did nothing. You thought you could deceive me.

You told others to believe, but that was nothing. You thought of me as a narcissist who just wanted people to believe in me, so you did nothing. You thought I wanted to be glorified. You did not know me.

You wasted much energy supporting the Zionists, who did not believe in me. You believed the Zionists when they told you I could not return until they controlled Palestine. You thought of me as a racist real estate agent. You did not know me.

You allied with the Zionists because you believed them when they told you that whatever they did was my will, and yet as governments ratcheted up tyranny, when good people asked for your alliance, you said “Salvation is all that matters.” When others asked you for guidance, you taught them, “Salvation is all that matters.” You said that I would sort it out. So, you did nothing, and thus you helped to bring the eventual end for everyone who carried the soul of humanity.

Long after your death, those men who still carried the soul of animals had finally purged the earth of the soul of humanity. Those genes are gone. That was the end of humanity.

Like the majority of believers, you voted for the enemies of humanity when you had other choices. Like them, you chose to conform rather than follow my teachings. Your wife and children loved you, and so they believed you when you taught them to conform as well.

Like yourself, many in every generation irrationally believed the end would come in their lifetime, which was a myth crafted to persuade them to voluntarily stand down in the face of tyranny. Like them, you were wrong.

Like yourself, many believed the rapture myth of their day, which was crafted to persuade them to voluntarily stand down in the face of tyranny. Like them, you were wrong.

Like yourself, many believed the salvation myth of their day, which was crafted to persuade them to voluntarily stand down in the face of tyranny. Like them, you were wrong.

Like so many other believers, you earned your gold with your honest labor, but then, like many of them, you hid in your home with your gold to wait for the end. Like them, you helped to bring the eventual end of humanity.

You said you believed, but you did not live according to my teachings. You did not believe me. You believed those who corrupted my teachings. I let them corrupt my teachings because, like every man, you already know what is right and what is wrong.

Everyone in heaven knows what you did. Everyone in heaven pities you for the sickness in your soul, and those who were atheists pity you most.

Your pain is unbearable, but at any time you can choose to be dead or to become sincerely repentant, and yet, you lack the strength to choose either. Even now, you will continue to follow others who tell you what you want to hear.

You can stay here with everyone as I promised. Hell is not a place. Hell is a choice, and Hell continues to be your choice.

Friday, October 18, 2013

What is Wrong With the People.

First, there is plenty of reason for hope, so don’t despair, but …

Something is wrong with the people, who seem increasingly partisan, ignorant, apathetic, dishonest, evasive, cowardly, hypocritical, passive aggressive, insecure, conformist, closed minded, irrational, illogical, and unprincipled. Perhaps most obvious is the increase in cognitive dissonance, but the entirety of the character devolution of the people should be really obvious to any American who has lived long enough. I first noticed it during the Clinton Administration, but the root cause actually started long before that and merely caused a rather obvious leap under Clinton.

A lifetime of experience has taught me that just about everyone has the potential for the dark side as well as the potential for nobility. Both impulses are in our genes, but something in our environment is favoring the dark side.

First, let’s identify the rather obvious trends that motivate us to find a cause. Then, we will learn how they all have the same root cause:

Before we can solve a problem, we usually must understand the cause; otherwise, the unintended consequences could be worse than the original problem. In fact, the solutions of the past are the cause of most of our problems today.

Given that those who are most successful tend to be those who are least principled, we can see why every other problem is the result of unhealthy interventions at the top, but how did it get to be this way?

After a few generations of unhealthy interventions from the top by men who may or may not have been principled, we can see how their bad solutions created a perverse incentive structure that rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior. Just like bad parenting creates a spoiled child who suffers from arrested development, now an entire people are increasingly spoiled children who suffer from arrested development.

The Soviet Union had a system that rewarded unprincipled people, and it crumbled from within.

Everything afflicting the people (that wasn’t caused by evolution) is caused by dishonest banking and a dishonest money supply, and the watershed of problems are self reinforcing. One unusually large cause of problems, that was itself indirectly caused by dishonest banking and dishonest money, is political correctness. Another unusually large cause of problems that was itself indirectly caused by dishonest banking and dishonest money, is media bias. Of course, the chain of cause and effect is long, complex, and suppressed by the media; whereas, myths are substituted by the media, but the chain of cause and effect should be clear by the end of this article.

This is where the real explanation begins.

Dishonest banking and money are caused by:

  • Central banking
  • Fiat currency
  • Fractional reserve banking
  • Quantitative easing
  • Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP)

Central Banking: The Federal Reserve is a private bank with a government granted monopoly on currency creation; whereas, money is a product just like any other, and thus would benefit from competition just like any other product. Why do you think the Federal Reserve refuses to be audited? Central banking was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.

Fiat Currency: What most people still don’t know is that all of the money in America is created from nothing and backed by nothing except confidence, and thus it is referred to as fiat currency. Fiat currency was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.

Fractional Reserve Banking:  The main cause of fiat currency is that banks can lend at least ten times as much money as they receive in deposits, and depending on the type of loan and type of deposit, it can be even more. Over time, the government has been making it increasingly easier for banks to create more unearned money out of nothing. This is known as fractional reserve banking, which was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.

Quantitative Easing: In addition to fractional reserve banking, under Obama, the Federal reserve has been creating a much larger than usual amount of money and loaning it to the government and the banks. This is known as quantitative easing, which was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.

ZIRP: The federal reserve has reduced the interest rates to nearly zero percent on money it loans to the government and on money it loans to those banks who own the Federal Reserve.  This is known as Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), which was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.

Consider that any entity who borrows money at zero interest has little incentive to ever pay it back, and will in fact have much incentive to keep borrowing. That’s a very corrupting influence.

Bailouts: Before Quantitative Easing and ZIRP, the government tried bailouts. Does anyone believe that the crash of 2008 and many of its prerequisites would have happened if all the self-proclaimed Elites had been certain that bailouts were an impossibility? It is almost as if bailouts were part of some plan.

Bailouts are unconstitutional, but they happened anyway, so we see that it is really just the character of the American people that gives the Constitution its power, and the American people lacked the character to stop the bailouts. It is almost as if character devolution were part of some plan.

Bailouts were universally considered dishonest until Obama.

Cronyism: Dishonest banking causes the government and the big banks to receive a flood of unearned money, which then finds it way to their closest cronies, which thus tempts cronies to become closer cronies and which tempts honest entities to become first-time cronies. This is called cronyism, and although it has been growing for a long time, it was universally considered to be dishonest – until Obama became the President.

Government rewards cronies with bailouts, contracts, tax breaks, regulations that help the crony and/or hurt honest competitors, and with selective enforcement of laws and regulations. Once the media became cronies, then media bias also helped other cronies and hurt honest competitors.

Once cronyism took hold at the top of government, the cronyism trickled down to the local level. Cronies in local government thus have the support of the cronies directly above them.

A system that favors cronyism makes it increasingly difficult for honest individuals and honest businesses to compete with cronies. It also manufactures more cronies by corrupting honest people. Furthermore, the dwindling number of men of principle limit their success by avoiding doing business with cronies.

Dishonest bankers corrupted honest banking, which then corrupted government, which then corrupted the free-market, which thus corrupted the people, which thus reduced entrepreneurship, innovation, efficiency, and honesty.

Inflation: Newly created dollars make each existing dollar worth less than before, and thus a reason to be first in line for the new money is the ability to spend it before each dollar has become worth less than it would have been worth – had the new money never been created. This is called inflation, which was universally considered dishonest before FDR.

Inflation is like a tax of several percent a year on every dollar in existence. It makes prices permanently higher than they would have been. The recipient of the inflation tax is whoever received the new money before it inflated prices. Inflation is theft.

Therefore, inflation tempts honest people to compete to be first in line.

Misallocation of Capital: More than ever before, there is a flood of new money at near zero percent interest rates. This new money often starts off in investment banks and thus much of it naturally finds it way into financial instruments, which thus creates even more incentive to bet the rest of the new money on financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, hedge funds, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and options.

Consider the alternatives available to anyone who had access to unlimited new money at zero percent interest rates. Would he spend the effort to evaluate and fund your idea for a product which has a 50% chance of making him 10 million dollars in five years, and which is in a field he knows nothing about, and which will have even less chance of success than before – given inflation, cronyism, and the increased interest in financial instruments? – OR – Would he instead invest in financial instruments and in bribing politicians given that those have the potential for more profit and faster profit, and that he is already intimately familiar with such investments? If he loses, he can always just borrow more at zero interest.

Consider the alternatives of an MIT graduate who could invent a product that could attract investment capital. He could make an engineer’s salary, and then maybe someday invent something that would make him a couple of million dollars after years of saving or after increasingly difficult competition with financial instruments for investment capital. – OR – He could work for Goldman Sachs and make three times as much right away, and have three times the opportunity to make a couple of million dollars, and do it three times sooner. This is like The Funger Games.

Suppose government has more money to spend. That means more labor is directed toward government projects and less labor is available for projects that are capable of earning enough money from voluntary customers to pay for themselves. At the same time, inflation resulting from government borrowing reduces the value each dollar spent on projects capable of earning enough money from voluntary customers to pay for themselves.

These are examples of misallocations of capital resulting from interventions in the free-market, and are caused by dishonest banking. Misallocation of capital was universally considered unhealthy before FDR.

The Seen vs. The Unseen: Misallocation of capital is very hard to detect because of “the seen vs. the unseen”, which is a phenomenon first identified by Frederic Bastiat in 1850. Whereas, we can easily see the jobs created by the new money at zero interest, only one man in a million can see the jobs that were lost or never created because of the new money.

An additional hurdle is the bias of a crony media cheering for the new money projects and ridiculing those one in a million who can see the lost jobs and who can see that they were higher quality jobs because they would have been making something for which people would have voluntarily paid enough to generate a profit; whereas, crony jobs were created as a result of cronyism, taxes, bribes, and free money.

The “seen vs. the unseen” was universal knowledge – before government schools.

The Broken Window Fallacy: One way to penetrate the media bias and “the seen vs. the unseen” is the broken window fallacy, which is another idea from Frederic Bastiat in 1850.

Consider that progressives claim that all government spending, such as war, helps the economy as much as, and usually more than, any private spending. The progressive argument is another version of the argument that if a kid breaks a window, then that helps the economy because the capital spent on fixing the broken window created more work for the carpenter and more work for the window maker.

Whereas, we can easily see the jobs created by the capital spent on fixing broken windows, we cannot easily see the jobs that would have been created by that same capital if the windows had never been broken. Both labor and physical resources were obviously wasted in such a misallocation of capital.

Sooner or later the capital would have been used create something the owner thought customers would voluntarily pay enough for to earn him a profit. If the owner couldn’t think of any use for his capital, then he or his bank would loan it out to any borrower who did have an idea to create something the borrower thought customers would voluntarily pay enough for to earn him a profit and pay the interest on the loan.

The broken window fallacy so easily penetrates the seen vs. the unseen that it made it difficult for governments to borrow such great sums of money, and thus great effort has been spent by economists and other cronies to deny or circumvent the broken window fallacy. The pressure to deny reality has corrupted many economists because the surest path to obscurity in economics has been to embrace reality.

Keynesianism: The broken window fallacy was universally accepted until John Maynard Keynes developed the obfuscation that so delights dishonest bankers, governments, and cronies to this day. Keynes said that if people were unemployed, and if capital were not being used at that moment, then government should take that capital in the form of taxes, or borrow money, and spend it on some kind of project – any kind of project.

Keynesianism has been the dominant economic theory since FDR. Consider that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman recently said that the best thing that could happen to the economy would be fighting off an alien invasion! or building the Death Star! or just plain old war! Of course, we could just build some pyramids or some bridges to nowhere too. We could even just dig some holes and fill them up again. We could make them dig with spoons to maximize employment.

Like I said, the pressure to deny reality has corrupted many economists because the surest path to obscurity in economics has been to embrace reality. Fortunately that has been changing rapidly since the Great Crash of 2008 and the ongoing economic malaise since.

The New Plantation: In order to buy off a majority in a pseudo democracy, the dishonest bankers and their cronies understood that they needed a lot more cronies, and that it would be pretty easy to buy the poorest people with all that free money and with the bias of their cronies in the media. Hence they invented the New Deal and then the War on Poverty.

They are not even spending their own money. They just create it and loan it to the government, and then the middle class must pay it back to them (through taxes) – and with interest! These programs are unconstitutional, and are also taxation without representation for those who were too young to vote against the programs or the against borrowing. This is why I say the federal debt is not legitimate.

The War on Poverty has enslaved the black community. Government dependency is the new plantation. The black community has thus been neutralized and pacified and only causes damage to itself and is no threat to the dishonest bankers.

Winning an election in America is just about impossible if a candidate is perceived to be unsupportive of government dependency. If a candidate does not conform on this issue, or on other issues as well, then the crony media will paint him as an uncaring racist who hates poor people. Not only does this system prevent men of character from winning, but such a repulsive system naturally discourages men of character from running for political office in the first place.

In addition to corrupting or discouraging honest candidates. Teaching people that they can’t survive without being given the fruits of other men’s labor is a corrupting influence on their character. It is an atrocity of progressivism on a grand scale.

A few brave black men have come forth to expose how the Democratic Party have enslaved the black community on the new plantation. They call themselves “runaway slaves”. Some are the one in a million who can see what would have been (they can see the unseen), and some are just honest, independent minded men of principle. They are mercilessly ridiculed by the crony media when not being completely ignored by them. They are among my heroes.

Affirmative Action: In a wealthy country like America, the trinkets of the new plantation could not corrupt enough voters, so the dishonest bankers and their cronies in government and the media then invented affirmative action, which lets a woman or an individual from a racial minority sue an employee and his company for millions if that company fired him, didn’t hire him, or didn’t promote him. Ironically, the potential of such lawsuits is a rational reason not to hire someone. Likewise, another irony is how it raises the rational question of whether someone is competent if they benefited from affirmative action.

Of course, if the assumption were correct that hiring a given number of women and minorities is profitable for a company, then that would have obviously happened by now without government interference. To understand why, suppose those companies who hired women and minorities outcompeted those who did not, then other companies would either emulate their success or go out of business. If hiring women and minorities does not make your business more profitable, then why should the government destroy your business unless you hire them anyway?  Either way, to interfere in a private business is fascism.

Another aspect of affirmative action in business is 8a companies, which are companies owned by women or racial minorities. Government gives preference to 8a companies for government contracts, loans, bailouts, subsidies, taxes, etc. Government also gives preferential treatment to companies who buy goods and services from 8a companies.

Academia also has affirmative action. For example, every school gives preference to students who are female or from a racial minority.

SAT scores are fudged based on race. Asians lose points. Hispanics gain points. Blacks gain more points than Hispanics, and the scores of whites are unaltered.

Title IX is a court decision that mandates a university must have equal numbers of female athletes and spend equal amounts of money on male and female athletics. Given that females are genetically programmed to be less interested in athletics, the universities try to be fair by giving a lot more athletic scholarships to female students, and by reducing the number of male athletes. Now they want to extend this philosophy to science and engineering!

Another example of the cognitive dissonance of title IX is cheerleading. Although cheerleading is the most rigorous and dangerous female sport, they are not counted as athletes, because cheerleading is politically incorrect. In their putative desire to help female athletes, progressives have exposed cheerleaders to great danger without any of the insurance or other protections they give to other female athletes.

Reproduction is another kind of affirmative action, and one where the government’s double standard is pretty extreme. The result of pregnancy is solely the woman’s choice, and thus the result of that choice is solely the woman’s responsibility. More specifically, if the woman chooses the more expensive choice, then that extra expense is solely her responsibility. Just to be clear, birth is the more expensive choice, and abortion is the less expensive choice; therefore, the extra expense for the birth choice is the cost of birth plus 18 years of child support minus the cost of abortion. It would be a simple and fair legal matter for the man to also choose whether he wants to be responsible for the birth, but instead, the government let’s the woman decide whether the government will force him to pay 18 years of child support.

Divorce is another kind of affirmative action, and one where the government’s double standard is pretty extreme:

  • Everyone knows that child custody decisions are extremely biased and typically force men to pay a lot of money to a woman who can spend it however she wants while the man is treated like a criminal without any rights by the government and by his ex-wife. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say he is treated like a slave.
  • If a man decides to use his own time and his own genius to build a business instead of watching TV, then his wife can divorce him, and the government will give here half of the business he built, which not only hurts that man and his business, but which also hurts his employees and his customers, and the economy in general.

Winning an election in America is just about impossible if a candidate is perceived to be unsupportive of affirmative action. If a candidate does not conform on this issue, or on other issues as well, then the crony media will paint him as an uncaring racist who hates poor people and women. Not only does this system prevent men of character from winning, but such a repulsive system naturally discourages men of character from running for political office in the first place.

An employee who takes the noble and rational position of opposing affirmative action will be cited as evidence of his employer’s guilt in an affirmative action lawsuit. This discourages companies from hiring or promoting anyone who opposes affirmative action. Also, the crony media have taught everyone that it is OK to ridicule and shun anyone who opposes affirmative action, and thus only conformist employees who lack principles can easily climb the corporate ladder.

If an opponent of affirmative action tries to be an entrepreneur, then advertisers and investors will shun him because of potential ridicule from the crony media.

Such a double standard not only tends to corrupt or expel honest, independent minded men of principle, it also corrupts women and racial minorities. Although the putative goal is to help women and racial minorities, teaching them that they cannot succeed without help from the government is a corrupting influence on their character. Teaching them that double standards are OK, and that intervention in voluntary agreements is OK, are also corrupting influences on their character.

Sexual Harassment: In a wealthy and tolerant country like America, the trinkets of the new plantation and affirmative action could not corrupt enough voters, so the dishonest bankers and their cronies in government and the media then invented sexual harassment. which is all about banning speech and ideas. For example it is illegal to create a hostile working environment for women through one’s speech, although for all practical purposes, women have no such restrictions on their speech about men. Ironically, the potential of such lawsuits is a rational reason not to hire a woman.

For example, if a man were to make the politically incorrect statement that men and women have obviously evolved different genetically programmed behaviors, then that would contradict the politically correct belief that men and women are only different because of how they were raised. This would place his employer at risk of being sued if they did not fire or discipline him – if anyone complained – which is likely.

Telling any joke about women would be illegal; whereas, the HR woman at my company had a joke on her wall ridiculing men, which is legal – for all practical purposes. The rules do not apply equally to men and women.

If a man complains that the rules do not apply equally to men and women, then this would place his employer at risk of being sued if they did not fire or discipline him – if anyone complained. At the very least, he would just be shunned – because his thinking did not conform, and the crony media have taught everyone that it is OK to shun and ridicule anyone who does not conform with political correctness.

The kind of man who thrives in a politically correct workplace environment is obviously like the kind of President who thrives in a politically correct environment – like Bill Clinton – the unprincipled, harassing, raping, adulterous, liar – who feminists defend.

Sexual harassment laws created a hostile workplace environment for honest, independent minded men of principle.

Winning an election in America is just about impossible if a candidate is perceived to be unsupportive of sexual harassment laws. If a candidate does not conform on this issue, and other issues as well, then the crony media will paint him as an uncaring misogynist who hates women and will accuse him of sexual harassment. Not only does this system prevent men of character from winning, but such a repulsive system naturally discourages men of character from running for political office in the first place.

Such a double standard not only tends to corrupt or expel honest, independent minded men of character, but it also corrupts women by teaching them to have double standards, to overreact to perceived insults, and to feel dependent on government.

Arrested Development: In spite of all the pressures trying to corrupt every man, woman, and child in America, a mature, honest, independent minded man of principle can successfully maintain his integrity and still support a family if he is smart enough and articulate enough. Such individuals are few, but their power is magnified by the Internet, which is why the dishonest bankers and their cronies in government and the media employ an array of forces to arrest our development.

Controlling the Internet is one strategy employed to  arrest our development. Although the Internet is not the physical world, and cannot by itself produce a mature person, it can help anyone to develop faster and more completely through exposure to all of the ideas that ever existed. Control of the Internet continues to progress along many fronts.

Eliminating independent entrepreneurs (those who get no advantage from the government) is a strategy employed to arrest our development. Independent entrepreneurs not only learn all about reality, but are also role models who inspire others.

Eliminating small businesses is another strategy employed to arrest our development. Although many small businesses are dependent on government in one or more ways, and are thus cronies to varying degrees, they still are much closer to reality than the big corporate experience.

Eliminating family farms is a must. People are exposed to a lot of reality on a farm, and they feel way less dependent on government.

Eliminating ownership of single family homes (especially without a mortgage) is also an important technique for arresting our development. People who grow up in cities and who rent, preferably an apartment, are much more likely to suffer from arrested development and feel much more helpless and dependent on government. They are more likely to be conformists, and they are also more like puppies – weird little puppies. They quietly support the system built by the dishonest bankers and passive aggressively pressure others into conforming. They lack the confidence, the courage, and the independence of thought to break out of their cage. Their only sense of confidence comes from being part of something bigger.

The myriad regulations, laws, and financial collapses have been forcing waves of people into becoming city renters – almost as if that were the plan.

Bad Role Models: The most obvious of the many causes of the character devolution of the people is bad role models. We already explained how bad role models got to be role models, but apparently we are genetically programmed to emulate successful role models – even if they lack principles.

I first noticed this trend in the Clinton Administration, and I am certain that it was the example of Bill Clinton himself that influenced people to devolve. I am certain because that is how it affected me, as well as the people around me. It probably didn’t help that I lived in the Washington DC area throughout the Clinton administration. I started down this path a couple of times, but as an independent thinker, I always came back and continued to evolve in a more noble direction. This doesn’t work for everyone because being an independent thinker is much harder for most people; otherwise, we wouldn’t have these problems in the first place.

Whereas, Bill Clinton was the first relevant bad role model, since then, the relevant bad role model has been the media. These role models are almost exclusively Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc. Perhaps not so coincidentally, when I think of those people succumbing to character devolution, they happen to mostly be Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc.

Obama is not a relevant bad role model because he is just another infected progressive. He is the good cop, and the media are the bad cop. Together they are one entity. Obama is just a front man – a blank canvas on to which the media can paint any image they want.

Although we live in a system that tends to reward those least principled, and where those infected partially infect everyone else, I also notice that because their character flaws have become so  obvious, many others are becoming better people by taking pride in not being like them.

Elitism: Needless to say, so much free money and so much power creates a class of people who could not compete in a free-market, and yet, who feel entitled to … well … everything. They are much like trust fund babies, or like the boss’s son. In fact, their character is similar to that of the people they have trapped in government dependency.

Most elites think the rest of us are just sucking up their resources. We are useless eaters, and the earth would be a lot better off if there were far fewer of us. That’s called eugenics – much like what was proposed by Obama’s progressive science czar. It is no secret that Nazis were inspired by the eugenics of American progressives. It is thus almost as if the exponential growth in physical and mental maladies were part of some plan.

Therefore, elites plot to convince us that we need a global government to protect the earth – hence exaggerated global threats like anthropogenic global warming. Of course, they would control their new global government just as easily as they control the US government. Then there would be even less diversity of ideas in government which would be just about perfect for an established oligarchy.

Elites protect themselves by keeping us divided against each other, which is another reason for their programs such as affirmative action, welfare, title IX, sexual harassment, political correctness, and all other manifestations of identity politics. They use the same technique Machiavelli recommended to divide and conquer a people. They are not ideological. They will support any weak faction, but always through coercive means – in order to maximize division among the people.

Whichever party is in power, the federal debt rises, poverty increases, and regulation increases. Their regulations reduce competition and retard innovation. Fewer competitors and retarded innovation are solving problems slower than they occur; whereas, a freer market used to solve problems faster than they occurred.

Reduced competition and slower innovation is a good thing to those elites who want to maintain control over the people and continue milking them. I think that perhaps at one time, elites were more noble, but then they lost their way. They have been corrupted by … themselves.

Media Bias: While both extreme and quite obvious, media bias is not as obvious as a cause of character devolution, but the media cause character devolution by suppressing reality and promoting myths in support of all of the other causes of character devolution we have already talked about. Such a biased agenda permeates the entire media, from Hollywood sitcoms, to the mainstream “News” organizations.

The following links are just a sampling of topics on which the media suppresses reality and promote myths:

Progressives

It’s about ideas – not factions.

The collection of ideas and policies driving the character devolution of Americans, like all ideas and policies, do have their adherents; but what can we call these particular believers given how they span all other factions? They could be any religion, race, party, nationality, etc. They include the Republican Party leadership (the Neocons), the Democratic Party leadership, and lots of other believers; but the most diligent and articulate believers tend to call themselves “progressives”, which is pretty historically accurate, so we use that term as well. I previously referred to believers as The Political Class, but the term “progressive” is much more common.

Looking at the words and actions of enough progressives, anyone can conclude that they champion two ideas, whether they realize it or not:

  1. Government rightly has the power to implement any good idea. (progressivism)
  2. When we are all on the same page, everyone benefits. (fascism)

Just talking with a wide variety of people in America, one can see that a large percentage, adhere to both of these two ideas, whether they realize it or not. Of course, believers seem even more numerous outside America, but I am merely a witness to the American manifestation.

 You are Here

While there have always been some unprincipled men who were able to acquire power and wealth, dishonest banking has given them almost unlimited power and money. While cronyism has always existed, a flood of unearned money has made it grow exponentially – especially under Obama.

We all know that the opportunity to receive unearned money creates perverse incentives, but this historically unprecedented flood of unearned money has created a pusillanimous plethora of perversity.

Most people in America today remind me of Vika in the movie Oblivion. She is the poster child for passive aggressiveness and normalcy bias.

The reality is that we now live in a system designed to corrupt, expel, or hobble … honest, independent minded men of principle, and reward unprincipled conformists. The purpose of our system is to control us and milk us while preventing any competition from arising.

Hope

Although we live in a system that tends to reward those least principled, and where those infected, partially infect everyone else, I have noticed that because their character flaws have become so  obvious, many others are becoming better people by taking pride in not being like them.

The Tea Parties and OWS may not have realized it, but before they were co-opted, they were rebelling against the character devolution of the people, and were unprecedented in recent history. More recently, President Obama, backed by the crony media, was hours away from attacking Syria in another progressive interventionist act of aggression designed to cause countries to borrow more money, but then the Tea Partiers, occupiers, conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, independents, socialists, and libertarians came together and said NO! Obama and his progressive cronies stumbled and backed off when confronted with this unprecedented assertion of character, which thus empowered Vladimir Putin and the British legislature to also resist Obama and his progressive allies.

It is never to late for anyone to become the person he wants to be. To once again embrace the Soul of Humanity requires little more than a decision.

I am reminded of the epiphany of one of the characters in the movie Slow Burn (2000). He was a criminal and a simpleton, but he instantly transcended every character in the movie when rebuked the beautiful woman who offered him herself and a treasure in diamonds if he would kill the other criminal who always bullied him and who deserved to die anyway, but he told her, “No! I’m never letting anyone else talk me into doing something that I know is wrong!”

Monday, October 7, 2013

Obama was the First Tea Partier?

Before the first Tea Party, Senator Obama said:

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.

SENATE S2238 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE March 16, 2006

I was at the first Tea Parties, and only about 3% of the signs mentioned Obama, and yet, Obama’s words shortly before the first Tea Parties sound exactly like what Tea Partiers have been saying from the beginning. It is almost as if the first Tea Parties were inspired by Obama’s speech in 2006.

That hardline anti-spending anti-debt speech was from Senator Obama under President Bush; whereas, President Obama is spending and borrowing way more than Bush did, and he is unwilling to make any cuts. In only one respect has Obama been consistent – he is unwilling to negotiate on the debt limit – but this time he insists on raising it!

Instead of calling Obama on his breathtaking hypocrisy, the mainstream media direct bitterness and ridicule at anyone who takes the same position espoused by Senator Obama in 2006. Did the mainstream media direct bitterness and ridicule at Senator Obama in 2006? No, speaking with Senator Obama was a universally orgasmic experience for both the men and women of the mainstream media in 2006.

Therefore, beyond the merely breathtaking hypocrisy of Obama is the epic unprecedented world-class hypocrisy of the American mainstream media.

On a related note, Obama and the mainstream media say he will negotiate, but they obfuscate the fact that he will only negotiate after he gets what he wants. That’s not negotiation. That’s just a conversation, but the media won’t call him on that either.

As usual, this is not about Obama, who is just a front man. It is about how the bias, conformism, and ignorance of the media and Obama voters are the biggest problem in America today. Their bias, conformism, and ignorance are holding back progress. They cling to the Myth of Obama fabricated by the American media, and we can’t move forward until they abandon the failed policies of the past and become more in touch with reality. Obama voters are holding back progress. This is why we bust the Myth of Obama.

(update 10/17/2013): Obama has identified those who have been holding back progress … “the bloggers”.

Saturday, October 5, 2013

How Did I Know They Were Black?

This was another very sad week in American history. A woman ran her car into a gate at the White House (and minutes later while driving away, she was shot and killed by police as she drove), then the next day and just a few blocks away, a man set himself on fire on the Capitol Mall in DC.

I instinctively and correctly assumed that both were black, and I think that my instincts were telling me that the woman must have been motivated by disappointment with Obama, and that only black people could be that disappointed with Obama.

In the case of the man, it was obviously extreme disappointment with something, and I think my instincts were telling me that based on the timing and location, it was obviously extreme disappointment with Obama.

This is like in 2011 when the media and other Obama voters were complaining that the media and other Obama voters were abandoning Obama, and I explained to everyone that he could rally them to new heights of hope and motivation with a single speech because they were just really frustrated that he had not yet given them their orders.

Believers said I was way off, but then Chris Matthews proved me right when he cried out to Obama on-air and said ”Obama, give us our orders!”

Believers are not that hard to understand, although, apparently they don’t understand themselves.

As a further proof, consider that a few weeks before this, I instinctively did not assume that the shooter at the DC Navy Yard was black. When I then learned that he was black, even though he was also in DC and almost certainly voted for Obama, my instincts still told me it had nothing to do with Obama or race. Again, my instincts were correct.

In the Navy Yard case my instincts were correct on both of my additional suspicions. First, I correctly assumed that the media were lying about the use of an AR-15, just like they lied in Sandy Hook. In both cases, the MSM later quietly admitted that neither an AR-15, nor any other kind of rifle was used – thus ensuring the majority retained their original false impression.

Second, he carved, “This is my ELF weapon” on his shotgun, which the media called gibberish, but my instincts told me that he was seeking retribution for being harassed by Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) technology, which is a complaint shared by thousands of people. My instincts were confirmed again when I learned that he had complained to peers, police, and healthcare professionals about the kind of harassment done via ELF and was moving around to escape from it.

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Why Greece Arrested Golden Dawn

The Greek government arrested the leaders of the Golden Dawn Party today because the Golden Dawn is fascist. For example, the Golden Dawn is fascist because it might try to arrest other political parties.

In spite of the people having already been disarmed by the Greek government, the leaders of the Golden Dawn had a few firearms. Therefore, the Greek government also disarmed the leaders of the Golden Dawn because the Golden Dawn is fascist. As another example, the Golden Dawn is fascist because it might try to disarm the people.

Like the Greek government, the German government also bans fascist groups and disarms the people.

It may seem like the actions of the German and Greek governments are themselves fascism, but we know they are not fascist ... because Anderson Cooper doesn't call them that.

The self-appointed Elites do not fear the Golden Dawn, or fascists, or communists either. In fact, they probably support the Golden Dawn Party given that they back just about all sides in order to keep us fighting among ourselves. They do not fear the Golden Dawn. They only fear zero squads.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Fix the Economy by Regulating the Militia

Progressive economists agree. Enough government spending (of any kind) would fix the economy. For example, building pyramids would fix the economy. War would fix the economy. Fighting an alien invasion would fix the economy, and building the Death Star would fix the economy. Therefore, the government could fix the economy by performing one of its very few Constitutional roles – regulating the militia.

The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and it says the people have a right to form militia, and it also recommends that the government regulate those militia by providing them with regular (standard/uniform/sufficient) equipment and training.

Of course, providing equipment and training in no way obligates a free individual to show up when the government calls forth the militia. A individual militiaman shows up only when he has decided it is the right thing to do, and he shows up only for as long as he continues to believe it is the right thing to do.

Of course, just as those who have freedom of speech are all of us, and the media (the press) are all of us – the militia are all of us.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure freedom by ensuring that the people are a much greater military force than the government. Therefore, every individual has the right to keep and bear – not just any kind of arms the government has – but any kind of arms without limitation – without infringement.

To avoid distraction, let’s quickly address weapons of mass destruction. Until the Constitution is amended, the people also have a Constitutional right to own any weapons. With or without such an amendment, the government would not have to equip the militia with weapons of mass destruction. Now, back to our point …

The government could equip the militia (all of us) with the best weapons, training, and gear.

Although the militia are all of us, it wouldn’t make sense to equip everyone, and the test of whom to exclude from the program of free regulation must be objective, ethical, and simple. For example, it must be free of conflict of interest. The test is thus – pretty obvious.

Only those who pay taxes are eligible, and regardless of whether one pays taxes, anyone who receives income from the government is not eligible.

If you are a progressive, the economy would be fixed.

If you are a conservative, America would be impossible to invade.

If you are a libertarian, freedom would be ensured.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Progressives Push War – Media Provide Cover

The MSM are promoting the idea that the push for war in Syria is the work of Neocons, and John McCain in particular. I call bullshit. The role of John McCain and Neocons is minor news no one really cares about – nor should they. It is being used to avoid the more important players who are pushing for war in Syria, and thus

The MSM coverage of the push for war in Syria is fake news.

Who is John McCain? Is he the President or the Secretary of State? Does he have a radio or TV show? Does he have any kind of followers at all? Does his political career have any future at all? Is his party (Republican) primarily the one pushing for war in Syria? Is he known for his brilliance and usually being right and never being played?

"No" is the answer to all of these questions? The opposite is true? Then why are we talking about him?

McCain does happen to be on the psychopath side of the push for war in Syria – just like the President and the Secretary of State (both Democrats); whereas, mostly Republicans – especially Rand Paul and Tea Party Republicans – are on the healthy side of (they oppose) the push for war in Syria.

For example, the President and his Secretary of State were moving fast on Syria, and everyone knew America was within 24 hours of attacking Syria. He produced no compelling evidence and claimed he needed no Congressional approval. However, for the first time in history, the Internet let the people move quickly enough to stop war. Just as quickly as Obama was moving towards war, enough people began to doubt the evidence, saw counter evidence, and demanded UN and/or Congressional approval (which is required by the Constitution). The President very suddenly learned that the people were unusually opposed to his latest war and that the world was unusually opposed to his latest war. All of which empowered the Tea Party Republicans to threaten impeachment. Only then did Obama back down.

This is part of a pattern. For example, the President is also on the psychopath side of most issues, such as drones or the NSA spying on Americans; whereas, Republicans – especially Rand Paul and Tea Party Republicans are usually on the healthy side. Although is it the Libertarian Party who cares the most about freedom – by far, of the Democrat and Republicans, it is the Republicans who care more about freedom.

Neocons are Republicans, and they are indeed pushing for war in Syria, but Neocons are Republican progressives.

Looking at everyone's actions and applying a little independent thought, anyone can conclude the following ...

Progressives are those who believe that government rightly has the power to implement any good idea. Progressives are interventionists – both domestically and overseas – they just can’t mind their own biusiness. Progressives control the media, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party. Republican progressives are called Neocons. Neocons want big government as much as Democrats. Neocons are the leadership of the Republican party. The Tea Party are challengers to their leadership. Neocons, Democrats, and the media hate the Tea Party. Just like progressives in the Democratic Party, Neocons like war and are huge supporters of Israel. Democrats actually believe war helps the economy because progressives believe that all government spending helps the economy.

We know why the MSM prefers to talk about the psychopathology of McCain instead of the psychopathology of the President. In the recent past, they were afraid to bust the Myth of Obama, but the Myth of Obama has already been busted. Now they are just in denial.

Eventually, some day, maybe the MSM will apologize for creating the Myth of Obama in the first place.

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Oblivion – The Soul of Humanity Wins

This movie powerfully illustrates what I call the Soul of Humanity vs. the Soul of Animals. Whichever one triumphs will determine the survival of all life on earth, and yet, this conflict mostly plays out between an individual man (Tom Cruise) and the wife assigned to him.

Ignore the critics, they lack the maturity to understand this movie. Even the folks who made it lack the maturity to understand this movie. We know this because if they really understood, the movie would have been even better. They just got lucky.

Oblivion, and the role played by Tom Cruise, should remind you of Gladiator and the role played by Russell Crowe, or Equilibrium and the role played by Christian Bale.

You will not see the plot twists coming.

As the story begins, the main character, Jack Harper (Tom Cruise), tells us that 60 years earlier, an alien race began a war to exterminate humans and take the earth for themselves. Humans won the war by using all the nukes, which rendered the earth uninhabitable.

It is now 2077, and no one lives on earth except for Jack and his wife Vika, who are finishing up their five-year earthside mission. Their job is to maintain the drones that protect the giant fusion reactors that are sucking up the oceans in order to power the human colonies on Titan. The reason they need the drones are because a handful of aliens remain on earth and are trying to sabotage the power generators. The only other surviving humans live in the giant mission control space station that gives Jack and Vika their orders.

Mission control erased the memories of Jack and Vika at the beginning of the mission so that if they were captured by the aliens, they could not reveal that information.

From the beginning we can sense that something is not right, and this feeling only grows throughout the movie as the evidence mounts. In fact, the future of all life on earth depends on Jack and Vika figuring out the truth and doing the right thing. However, one of the things we begin to learn right away are that Jack and Vika are two very different people. Jack is curious, adventurous, and courageous; whereas, his wife is very nice - as long as she is in her comfort zone.

Whenever anything out of the ordinary happens, Vika is fearful, small minded, petty, spiteful, jealous, etc. She wants nothing more than for her and Jack to rejoin the others on Titan. She has never violated a rule. She has never left their amazing apartment that sits on a mile high pole. She has never been to the surface of the earth. She has never met another human, She has never met an alien. She would place her life and the life of her husband at risk just to avoid hearing any evidence that might cause her to leave her comfort zone.

Vika's is the poster child for passive aggressiveness and normalcy bias. She is holding Jack back.

In a world of epic threats and epic deceits, Vika is convinced that she is doing the right thing, and that Jack must conform. She is too closed minded to change.

Likewise, back in the real world, we too face epic threats as well as epic deceits, and it is people like Vika who are holding back progress. They are preventing us from moving forward because they are too closed minded. They are convinced they are doing the right thing, and that the rest of us must conform. They include all of those who voted for Mitt Romney, but worse than those are the ones who did not vote, and the most closed minded and delusional bullies of all are those who voted for Obama.

I know, that is 98% of America, so that probably includes you, but you could have voted for the Libertarian Party, or the Green Party, or written in Ron Paul. You could have contributed to their campaigns. You had a choice.

Given the recent scandals and how both parties are determined to go into Syria, some of you are now very sorry and promise to never vote for a media-approved candidate again, if not, then you are still one of the assholes who is killing the Soul of Humanity.

You still have a choice. The world is the result of our individual choices. It is never too late to become the person you want to be. Some of us just figured it out sooner than others. You will be forgiven.