ArchiveCategory Archives for "Myth Busting"
Shattering the mainstream narratives.
Shattering the mainstream narratives.
We have been played.
The opposite of government intervention is the free-market, where everything is voluntary, and thus the importance of earning a reputation relative to many competitors will drive all to maximize innovation and efficiency in order to give customers a better product for a lower cost. The absence of government barriers when starting new companies or inventing new products will maximize employment, innovation, and independence.
The potential for profit means that if people want something enough to pay for it, then a free-market is the system most likely to give it to them, and the fact that they can pay for it, means they did some honest labor that other people wanted enough that they would voluntarily pay for it.
The free-market is the system that rewards those who are the most genuinely helpful. In the eternal war of makers vs. takers, the free-market rewards the makers; whereas, government rewards the takers.
If everything were voluntary, then that raises an obvious question:
In a free market, who would save a dying child?
The answer is:
In a free market, the child wouldn’t be dying.
A free-market creates greater wealth and innovation, and thus the child is more likely to be healthier, and if the child still needed help, then more people would be able to help him, and better technologies would be available to help him. Poverty and primitive technology are the biggest killers, and government is the cause of both.
Regulation is one of the ways government creates poverty and retards innovation. For a product or industry where there are many competitors, the real purpose of regulation is to reduce the number of competitors so that only those competitors who are most favored by politicians remain. Once there are only about 1 – 3 competitors remaining, the real purpose of regulation is to create barriers to entry, which protects existing businesses by making it harder for new businesses to start up or grow.
Another purpose of regulation is that it makes people feel good, as if their votes and political activism fixed a problem. Perhaps more importantly, it makes people think the systems works. Like I said, we have been played.
It may be the case that government does not deserve any of the credit we give it. You may even conclude that government does more harm than good.
The problem with money is where it comes from, which is answered more fully if we look at how banks make money:
That last part “No one is allowed to compete with the Federal Reserve.” is the key. It makes all the others possible. Otherwise, we would use whatever money we wanted and Federal Reserve money would be worthless. This is an example of cronyism, and cronyism is at the heart of what is wrong with the government – and the country.
Why don’t we just use whatever money we want and ignore the Fed? As long as both parties in any trade agree, it’s no one else’s business. Right? After all, in a free country, money would be a product, and it is a free country … isn’t it? ….
Like I said, we have been played.
As another example related to money, FDR forced all Americans to turn in their gold to the US government, who only paid them $20 per once when gold was worth $35 per once. Of course, FDR is also the one who put all Japanese Americans into a concentration camp …
Government is a monopoly on the right to initiate force or fraud within a border.
The primary purpose of government is to redistribute the fruits of our labor, which cannot be done without force. The reason government redistributes the fruits of our labor is because it can. Government claims the right to all of the fruits of our labor and does not have to give us anything in return.
Everything government does is backed with lethal force. Try not paying taxes and see what happens. The reason government bonds are considered a safe investment is because taxes are backed with lethal force. Even disobeying the smallest, stupidest, or most illegal of orders from a cop can get you killed with little or no repercussions for the cop. People killed 59 cops in 2014; whereas, cops killed 1100 people. Any ordinary person is far more likely to be killed or harmed by their own government than by a foreign threat. In the 20th century, over 100 million ordinary people were killed by their own governments.
In addition to government claiming the right to all of the fruits of our labor, it claims the right to spy on everyone, and President Obama claims the right to assassinate, torture, and indefinitely detain anyone, and he has already exercised all of these powers.
You can’t opt out, and just claiming that you have opted out … simultaneously terrifies cops and empowers them to shoot you on site with impunity because you were a “sovereign citizen”. You can’t opt out as a group either because that’s secession, and although America was founded by secession, the US government (under Lincoln) stopped secession by acting on its willingness to kill every person in a seceding state and its willingness to sacrifice three times as many of its own people to do so. Over 600,000 died.
The US government even targets anyone who aspires to be more independent (e.g. self sufficient), such as family farmers, preppers, and gun owners. Of course, it is whistleblowers who government targets most aggressively.
The US military now trains to fight civilian populations, and even trains to fight its own people. It even trains foreign troops to help it fight the American people. Also, the President has signed a treaty that would require him to disarm the American people, but the Senate has not ratified it yet.
The US government claims it is legitimate because it was created by the Constitution, but I didn’t sign the Constitution. Did you? Nor would I sign the Constitution because it either authorizes the government we have or has been unable to prevent it.
The US government does not obey the Constitution anyway. The Constitution says the US government has no power at all except for a few specific powers granted by the Constitution, but for a long time, the US government has interpreted the Constitution as granting it unlimited power except where the Constitution explicitly states a limit. Of course, since 9/11, even explicit Constitutional limits on government power are violated regulary.
It may seem progressive to see government as limited to only implementing good ideas, but a government limited to implementing only good ideas, is not limited at all.
Is it legitimate for a government to implement a good idea that was supported by a majority – assuming the majority was not under duress? No.
Democracy is not legitimate. Only freedom is legitimate. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Freedom is a well-armed sheep.
Democracy is not only illegitimate, but it is not as good as it seems. Democracy’s supposed success is mostly being in the right place at the right time in history, but even the people in the Soviet Union had a Constitution and could vote for anyone they wanted. Now, of course, democracy and rule of law are failing around the world. The legitimate alternative is Rule of Market.
We do not even have a democracy. If we did, Congress would not have only an 11% approval rating, and the federal debt wouldn’t be $57,000 per American. Do you have that in your account? What about the debt owed by your state, county, city, and school district? Is that what you voted for? I didn’t think so, but you got it anyway. That’s not democracy.
Fortunately, for you, the Federal Debt is also illegitimate because:
If your teacher in a government school disagrees with you about the nature of government, just point out that she is a government employee and thus has a conflict of interest. Furthermore, in the absence of school choice, the school itself is not legitimate.
Freedom of speech is a concept that is an absolute, so if you don’t believe in free speech for everyone, then you don’t believe in free speech at all. Laws and regulations are all backed with lethal force, but good guys don’t fight words with violence – ever.
If people have a right to health care, then how would that work? Would you force the doctor to perform services, or would you force taxpayers to pay the doctor enough so that he would voluntarily perform services? A right to health care is thus tantamount to a right to the fruits of other men’s labor, but isn’t that the reason slavery is wrong … because no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor?
One cannot survive, let alone thrive, without performing labor and using his full intellect, and thus confiscation of the fruits of ones labor or limiting the use of his intellect constitutes a lethal threat.
You own yourself, and thus you own the fruits of your labor. It is thus your right to trade the fruits of your labor in any manor you choose.
Any well informed person knows that things are really messed up and that so many things just don’t add up. Somehow government solutions either don’t help, or actually make things worse, and the solution is always to double down on the failed, flawed, fatal policies of the past. The solution to government is always more government. Even when the people get exactly what they thought they wanted, it turns out to have been a trick. Either it is all coincidence and accident, or some of it is conspiracy.
It is fairly well accepted that for centuries, and possibly millennia, those who create money out of thin air (e.g. the owners of the Federal Reserve) and loan it to governments are also the ones who create problems – usually wars – that cause governments to borrow money from them.
In addition to the wars caused by bankers, we know that all of human history is full of conspiracies. We know that some recent conspiracies and their continuing cover ups include the creation of the Federal Reserve, the attack on the USS Liberty, the JFK assassination, COINTELPRO, the Franklin Scandal, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the LIBOR scandal. We know the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag. We know the NSA spies on everyone. We know the CIA puts up its own cell towers to capture everything our phones send and receive. We know the IRS targets pro-freedom individuals and organizations. The military knows that the government is often telling the people one story and then giving them orders that directly contradict that story.
Even with known conspiracies, have you noticed how Hollywood and the mainstream media are on the same page with government cover ups? Is there any topic on which the government and the media are not on the same page? Isn’t the only exception when the media attack some element of government who is not pro-government enough? How can journalists be even more pro-government than government? Journalists are supposed to be government watchdogs – not government lapdogs.
Are pro-freedom words ever matched with deeds? How is it that the party that says it wants to empower the little guy is the party that wants to disarm the little guy? How is it that the party of choice is so rabidly opposed to school choice? How is it that so many billionaires, CEOs, and conservative leaders promote socialism? How is it that they also want to disarm the people?
There is one conspiracy and ongoing cover up that is so big we now know that any conspiracy is possible. The 9/11 conspiracy is chock full of smoking guns, but the best smoking gun is that four planes were hijacked, three hit their building, and the fourth plane never reached its building, World Trade Center 7, but the fourth building collapsed anyway – in a controlled demolition. Watch it here. That WTC 7 was a controlled demolition is self evident, and yet some organization has the power to cause the entire establishment media to ignore it.
If you care about freedom or the future, then you should try to find out why conspiracies always try to discourage freedom and encourage more government, a police state, and global government. Also, why do these conspiracies span many decades and even centuries? Even George Washington was certain about what appears to be the same ongoing conspiracy. How many generations do they span? How far back does this go? Who is at the top? Certainly the owners of the Fed must be near the top.
Some people call the overall conspiracy The New World Order because that is what its proponents often call it publicly. It was explained very well in a short book by Gary Allen entitled: None Dare Call it Conspiracy. That was 45 years ago …
Regardless of the hidden elements, the evidence is in plain sight that any conflict being covered in the media is always used as a justification for more of a police state, and now that we know the level of conspiracy at play, we know that any conflict which leads to more government is no accident. For example, Ferguson was inevitable.
The Federal government trains police around the country to fear the people and shoot without hesitation. Then they give them armored vehicles, assault rifles, bullet proof vests and military training. An event like Ferguson was inevitable – sooner or later – somewhere. Then George Soros and the media spent a lot of money to agitate the residents of Ferguson. There were even agent provocateurs among the protesters. We thus see it is not necessary for the conspirators to directly control anyone or give explicit orders to further their agenda.
Like I said, we have been played.
In the eternal war of makers vs. takers, the conspirators are the takers, but the free-market rewards the makers, and it is government that rewards the takers. Government is thus the necessary medium in which the conspirators thrive. If we stop asking government to do stuff for us, then the conspiracy withers.
There is more at stake than just freedom or prosperity.
If we look at the bigger picture, at a level of consciousness that even the conspirators may not understand, the eternal war of makers vs. takers is part of the larger and more eternal war where the Soul of Animals is trying desperately to exterminate the Soul of Humanity.
The Soul of Animals was slowly losing ground for millennia. Then we really had it back on its heels in 1776. However, it began to rapidly regain lost ground around 1913, which is when the Federal Reserve was created.
Since then, hundreds of millions who carry the Soul of Humanity have been killed or neutralized by their own governments. Once the American people have been disarmed, there will be little to stop it from wiping the Soul of Humanity from the gene pool.
Each paragraph is a synopsis of a link that provides compelling evidence of conspiracy in the cause and/or cover up of 9/11. Although this list should be more than sufficient to convince any independent minded person of conspiracy, consider that this is just a fraction of the compelling evidence. Also consider that the entire mainstream media has conspired to ignore all of this compelling evidence.
9/11 Summary by James Corbett – In this five minute video, James Corbett makes a pretty comprehensive, compelling, and entertaining argument packed with facts and supporting evidence making it pretty obvious that the official story on 9/11 is ludicrous and that powerful motives existed for an inside job.
WTC7 – The best single issue to start with is the little known fact that a third tower fell on 9/11 and the self-evident fact that it was a controlled demolition; whereas, the official story that came out several years later was that, what looked exactly like a controlled demolition, and which had been previously admitted    to have been a controlled demolition, was putatively the result of an ordinary office fire. Watch the videos here, and see for yourself that the official story cannot be true and can only be an intentional fabrication.
Flight 93 Debris Pattern – Multiple facts confirm that Flight 93 in Pennsylvania broke up in the air as if it had been shot down, which contradicts the official story, and the single most compelling of these facts is the debris pattern. The official story is that terrorists flew Flight 93 straight down into the soft ground of a land fill where it was instantly and entirely submerged with not one scrap of debris visible anywhere around the site and leaving only a modest gouge in the dirt. As ludicrous as the submersion of the flight sounds, we don’t need to debunk it directly to disprove the official story because the official story disproves itself by admitting that an engine was found one-half mile to the right of the crash and two more debris fields were discovered along the original horizontal flight path about three miles and nine miles away! The official story is that the debris had bounced to their final locations!
Molten Steel Proven but Denied – This video proves that molten steel at the site for 6 weeks following 9/11 existed and was well documented, and that NIST Lead Engineer, John Gross, denied the existence of molten steel at the site when asked about it by a citizen. Consider also that molten steel would have been compelling evidence of the use of thermite, which would have contradicted the official story.
Bill Cooper Predicted 9/11 – This video proves that as of 6/28/01, Osama had been working with the CIA all along, and how anti-government extremist, Bill Cooper, predicted that same day that a major attack would be perpetrated a few weeks later by the “New World Order” and be blamed on Osama Bin Laden. It also explains how he was ambushed and killed by police on 11/5/2001. Shortly before that, Bill Cooper had said that the same NWO forces that perpetrated 9/11 were hoping to perpetrate a false flag some day in the form of an alien attack, which sounds pretty far fetched until you consider that he was right about the 9/11 false flag …
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?
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:
Examples of how some advantages of large investors have been vanishing are:
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:
The following video is an excellent example of a person thinking for himself in direct contradiction to the news media he observed.
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.
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: 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:
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:
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:
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.
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!”
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.
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”.
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.
A lifetime of education from America’s media elite, such as MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, PBS, the NYT, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, have given me the foundation and principles that empower me to think for myself and thereby figure out why we can’t let Detroit go bankrupt.
Detroit is too big to fail.
Republicans are turning Detroit into a plantation.
Don’t blame the victims of greedy capitalists.
Only racists would oppose a bail out.
We are all in this together.
It takes a village (a government).
We have to move forward.
Somebody has to be in charge.
There is a Constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare.
Government rightly has the power to implement any good idea.
When we’re all on the same page, everyone benefits.
Everyone has a right to good healthcare.
Everyone has a right to a living wage.
Everyone has a right to good nutrition.
Just think of it as reparations for slavery.
Do it for the children.
Do it for Trayvon.
What if it were Obama’s kids?
What if it were your kids?
If it helps just one child, no cost is too great.
In a free-market, who would save a dying child?
It would be bad if George Bush did it, but we can trust Obama.
Obama is The One.
Only racists distrust Obama.
The alternative is chaos.
The alternative is anarchy.
What would Jesus do?
After all, Jesus would be a Democrat.
Detroit has done everything right. It has been ruled by Democrats and unions for 51 years, and ruled by black mayors for 49 years. It even has the 3rd highest income tax of any city in America. Therefore, the problems of Detroit must be part of a vast right wing conspiracy. As an example, consider how the internet has allowed the spread of right wing hate speech from people like this guy. He says stuff like:
Sooner or later, socialists run out of other people’s money.
The world is the result of our individual choices.
Progressivism violates the Soul of Humanity.
Freedom is the Promise of Reality.
Now can you see the problem? These are the ideas on which America was founded, and we all know that America was founded on slavery. Such right wing hate speech is what scared all of the white people into leaving Detroit. It is like something out of Atlas Shrugged, in which the most productive people in America left the system and formed their own society. Therefore, the solution must come from the federal government because, while it is easy to leave a city, it would be much harder for people to leave the country, and Obama’s DHS would stop them if they tried – and rightly so.
What about when it is no longer Obama’s DHS? I know it is hard to imagine how America could elect anyone who is not a Democrat ever again – but that is why we need global governance, so that wealthy individuals cannot escape their debt to their country and to the world.
As you can see, a lifetime of education from America’s media elite have given me the foundation and principles that empower me to think for myself.
In America, the party who cares most about freedom is the Libertarian Party – by far, but of the Democrats and Republicans, which voters care more about freedom?
As we can see from this comprehensive measure of freedom in each of the 50 states, all of the 27 most free states are red states (Republican leaning states).
Another revealing measure is the reaction to the government recording all of your phone calls and emails.
Clearly, Republican voters care more about freedom than Democrats.