ArchiveCategory Archives for "Reality Check"
Shattering the mainstream narratives.
Shattering the mainstream narratives.
We have two easy ways to disprove the central claim of global warming alarmists, who claim that there is a very strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature, and that CO2 has thus been the cause of the recent warming, and that the warming will thus begin increasing at an alarming degree starting in the year 2000.
Proof #1 – No correlation over 600 million years
As we can see in this 600 million year time line, there is no correlation between temperature and CO2. Also, we can see that the earth has usually been 18° F warmer than it is now, and that it has rarely been this cold and hasn’t been colder.
Proof #2 – Perfect correlation with solar activity
In 2015, someone finally got around to publishing a professional peer reviewed study correlating temperature with solar activity since 1880, and we see that temperature correlates perfectly with solar activity.
An increasing percentage of adults of average intelligence are making at or near the minimum wage, which is a tragedy from any perspective, and thus a popular solution today is to double the minimum wage.
Bernie Sanders is the Presidential candidate promising to double the minimum wage. He says it’s because he really cares about people, and because people have a right to a living wage, and because it would strengthen the economy by enlarging the middle class, which would thus increase consumer spending.
Imagine if Bernie Sanders won and implemented his ideas. Then, if a 30 year old man had been making minimum wage and it were suddenly doubled, he could afford to marry a woman who was making minimum wage, and they could afford to have kids.
That example sounds pretty good if we stop thinking at this point, but if we think for ourselves …
It is pretty easy to see that:
For many, allegory will be more clear than abstract reasoning, so let’s consider how the future would unfold for one man, Chris, if Bernie Sanders won the 2016 Presidential election and promptly doubled the minimum wage.
The Life of Chris
Chris graduated from college with a liberal arts degree in 2009, so he had voted for Obama of course, and even though he had been making minimum wage since the beginning of the Obama administration, he voted to reelect Obama because he still believed the media, who were still telling him that Obama was going to fix everything. He still believed the Myth of Obama created by the media.
Chris was flipping burgers at McDonald’s and thus was contributing pretty much nothing to the world, and for this reason, the world was contributing pretty much nothing to Chris.
Since graduation in 2009, Chris had dreamed of making enough money that he could get married and support a family so that his wife could stay at home and raise the kids so they wouldn’t turn out to be little sociopaths. He had seen how well this had worked for his parents and his brother, which is why he wanted to emulate this aspect of his heritage, even though he saw his family as “not smart enough to vote for Obama”. At some level, he also understood that he had also avoided the trap of drug use because of his parents and his brother.
However, by 2016 Chris had declared bankruptcy. He was at the lowest point in his life and had pretty much given up on Obama. He was ready to make the effort to become a computer programmer, like his brother, which he accurately concluded anyone of average intelligence (like his brother) could do at any point in life if he were willing to make the effort.
According to standardized tests, Chris was actually slightly less intelligent than his brother, and thus both were considered average by what Chris called “conservative” testing methods. Whereas, Chris felt with deep conviction that he was actually smarter than his brother because he was more liberal and because all of his friends agreed with him. He could go all day every day and not meet anyone else in Seattle who disagreed with him. He also believed with deep conviction that he was not “misinformed by the media” like his brother because he did not even own a TV.
Therefore, in 2016, Chris, and all of his friends, voted for Bernie Sanders. They refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. They would not be fooled again like they were with Obama who they were beginning to feel must have actually been “some kind of Neocon”.
Although Bernie Sanders won, Chris didn’t know that, like Obama, Bernie Sanders had won in all the states that used electronic voting machines. Also like Obama, Bernie won in some precincts with more than 100%.
Bernie’s election had once again filled Chris with the hope that he had slowly lost throughout the Obama administration. Then, a few weeks after Chris had begun studying computer programming, Bernie Sanders doubled the minimum wage by executive order. He did this in his first week in office and thus suddenly affirmed everything Chris and his friends believed.
Chris was thinking that computer programming was harder than it actually was because he was still a few weeks away from developing the necessary personal discipline. Chris thus decided that it would be very liberating to free himself from the difficulty of becoming a programmer at this time. He could always do it later.
Chris was flipping burgers at McDonalds and was thus contributing pretty much nothing to the world. However, the world was now forced to contribute twice as much to Chris. Somehow it all seemed fair and just to Chris and his friends, and they knew that it was all because Bernie really cared about people, and because they were smart enough to vote for Bernie.
Out of convenience, Chris married a woman who also made the newly doubled minimum wage. Although they did not make as much combined as his brother, they could buy cheap stuff from China and could thus afford to raise a family with the help of free day care from the government. Of course, their kids were raised by daycare and TV, and were thus little sociopaths compared to his brother’s kids.
Chris’ potential, and the potential of his wife, and many of his friends continued to be wasted … but it gets much worse …
The higher cost of labor then forced many companies to permanently layoff an ever increasing number of minimum wage workers because it was more cost effective to automate the labor of those minimum wage workers. Of course, that caused many new jobs to be created around the world in corresponding skills, such as computer programming. His one libertarian friend, Jim, called it creative destruction, which is why Chris believed with deep conviction that libertarians were stupid people who didn’t care about anyone – except for Jim.
The higher cost of labor also caused inflation, which eroded the extra buying power of the higher minimum wage, so Chris and his wife made twice as much money, but after ten years, everything cost twice as much. By then, he was 40 and becoming a computer programmer was harder, so he postponed it again.
In addition to the damage of inflation, Chris could no longer afford to buy things made in China because Bernie Sanders had imposed a tariff on Chinese products. Bernie claimed that cheaper labor in China was causing American jobs to go overseas. Bernie didn’t know that his higher taxes and heavy regulations were retarding American job growth and innovation. He didn’t know that such policies were a large part of why so many Americans were in minimum wage jobs in the first place. He did not know that freedom is what creates a middle class.
The Chinese government had learned from what once made America great, so they did not reward mediocrity and they did increase freedom. As a result, their people and businesses were thus forced to grow and excel and innovate, which anyone can do, if they must, and thus, products made in China became more expensive and of higher quality than products made in America.
Then Chris’ wife, who had escaped so many previous layoffs, got permanently laid off herself … and commited suicide …
Of his three little sociopaths, one ended up in prison and one died of an overdose, but before further tragedy could strike, the next president (another Democrat) started a war with China because Democrats believe that WWII was good for the economy. Then, like in WWII, all basic necessities were rationed so they could be redirected toward the war effort. Instead of cars and washing machines, people made tanks and bombs, and thus his wife could have gotten a job in a government factory …
His remaining son was drafted of course, but at least he had a job … except … then his son died in battle … and Chris commited suicide … and it was all because Bernie Sanders cared so much about people …
Chris’s friend Jim observed that hundreds of millions around the world died, and that it was those who were most dependent on government. Jim also observed that, perhaps not so coincidentally, this was also the goal of eugenics, which has always been a goal of progressives, and which is thus a goal of the New World Order.
Jim observed that it was almost as if Bernie Sanders were a useful idiot for the NWO.
Then Jim learned that the Federal Reserve was also a large cause of America’s economic problems and that Bernie Sanders had sold out Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill by introducing an amendment that neutered it.
Perhaps Bernie was not being played by the NWO at all. Perhaps Bernie was one of the players.
There is a growing conspiracy theory that claims the earth is flat, and it usually goes like this: Aliens or some other higher beings created the earth, which is a flat non-spinning disk, and which is covered by a dome. The north pole is at the center, and Antarctica rings the entire disk. The dome is a screen several thousand miles high on which all objects in space are displayed. Gravity does not exist. The earth is between a few thousand and a few million years old. All photos and evidence to the contrary are fake. Only 500 human insiders are part of the conspiracy.
Now, a scientifically minded person should be willing to consider any new evidence, and many conspiracy theories do turn out to be true, and we do know that governments and powerful people lie about … well … everything. However, after watching a few hours of video, any person of at least average mental abilities should be able to determine that the flat earth theory is both a weak argument and is simply not falsifiable because all evidence to the contrary is simply declared fake. Therefore, no rational person would believe it. Nor would anyone who cared about his reputation make such an extraordinary claim based on such weak evidence. A more scientifically informed person would also be aware that flat earthers do not address most of the evidence that contradicts their theory.
There is some excellent material that refutes the flat earthers, and which is easy to find, so this movement cannot last long.
It would thus be obvious to flat earthers that making such a poor argument for such an extreme position would permanently destroy their credibility on … well … everything, and that they would have little time left to profit from it, so they would do so only if they were getting a pretty large short term reward or a long term promise of some kind from a secret benefactor.
Perhaps the lowest level flat earthers get enough emotional benefit from believing to make it seem worth the cost – like from a religion or other addiction; however, the most prominent flat earthers, who exhibit substantial savvy, are even more likely to know it’s fake, and have even more to lose, and yet are not getting a sufficiently large short term reward …
The only possibility for the most prominent flat earthers is that they have a long term expectation of reward from a secret benefactor. Therefore, they are part of a psyop intended primarily to tarnish real conspiracies while providing the fringe benefits of dividing conspiracy researchers and wasting their time. The psyop even causes people to self-identify as candidates for future eugenics programs.
The most prominent flat earthers also promote real conspiracies, so it is as if they are smearing poo all over their work on real conspiracies. This has been explained to them countless times, and yet, they keep doing it.
One of my favorite aspects of the flat earth psyop is its unintended indictment of government schools. Government has a monopoly on schools and sets the standards for all schools. The money provided to government schools has exploded in recent decades with no improvement in thinking skills. Their increasing budgets to teach kids to sit down, shut up, and believe what they’re told … seem to have produced no results at all – until now … We now see that the result of all that increased spending is a population more suceptible to believing the earth is flat – based on very weak arguments.
I am able to think, not because of my government school teachers, I am able to think … in spite of my teachers.
An ability to think is all one needs to dismiss the flat earth arguments I have found thus far. For example, one needs no special knowledge to see the weakness of the inductive argument that claims the earth is flat because no one made a sequel to the movie Apollo 13. Likewise, one needs no special knowledge to see that, unlike other conspiracies, a flat earth would require at least 10,000 humans to be in on it. Also, anyone should be able to see that, even if the moon landings were faked, which is pretty unlikely, then a flat earth would still be just as improbable.
The lighthouse claim requires a little more thought than usual, but anyone should be able to see through it if only they had the confidence to try. The claim is based on an article from the 1800’s describing a 300 foot tall lighthouse that was so impressive that sailors could see it from over 60 miles away. Flat earthers claim this would be impossible unless the lighthouse were several thousand feet tall. First, one should be immediatley very skeptical because the claim is based on a single article from the 1800’s, but the the real smoking gun is how flat earthers imply that sailors could see the lighthouse itself from that distance. Think about what sailors would see at the furthest point out where the lighthouse would be useful. We can deduce that they see a fuzzy blinking light on the horizon. It would appear each time the light passed in the direction of the ship and it might have a slight sweeping motion to it. Now consider that the light travels horizontally over the water and not straight up, thus giving it a further reach over a curved ocean surface. Then we can note that flat earthers try to lead us away from such thoughts. So, again we see that no special knowledge is necessary to defeat such claims.
Additionally, many of us do have special knowledge. By the time I got out of high school, I already knew (from independent study) about the following evidence that contradicts the flat earthers: the tides, gravity, redshifts, spectrometry, refraction, reflection, relativity, galaxies, nebulae, telescopes, super novae, evolution, radioactive dating, fossils, Foucault pendulums, water circling a drain, earth’s magnetic field from a spinning iron core, the tilt of the earth’s axis, the coriolis effect, phases of the moon, the earth’s shadow on the moon, round planets having round moons, pictures and video of earth from space, circumnavigation of the globe, hundreds of kinds of satellites and space probes. The diameter of the earth was measured a couple thousand years ago by Archimedes. Since before Columbus, sailors knew the earth was round because ships would appear and disappear over the horizon a few inches at a time because the surface of the ocean is round. Rockets departing at the equator are already moving faster than from points further from the equator. I also learned enough to do the math to disprove some specific claims by flat earthers, such as the claim that it should be impossible to see Chicago across the great lakes.
Nevertheless, a scientific mind is always open to new evidence from sources that have not already proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and thus if a new source has new evidence, then I will hear it.
The mainstream narrative about Abraham Lincoln is almost entirely myth. Lincoln is portrayed as all good and as one of the greatest men who ever lived. However, the reality is very different from the mainstream narrative.
Let’s first look at the handful of positive things we can say about Lincoln:
In spite of the few positive things we can say about Lincoln, the facts prove that Lincoln was a reckless racist fascist democidal psychopath. For example, Lincoln:
Although governments, and especially US administrations, have a long history of perpetrating false flags, I have not verified the claims that the Union itself fired on Fort Sumter to get the war started. However, even if the South fired first, it is self-evident that the Union, under Lincoln’s orders, started the Civil War because placing one’s troops in a foreign country is an act of war.
For months after the Confederacy had seceded, it kept asking Lincoln to get his army out of Confederate territory and told Lincoln that if he sent more troops into Confederate territory, then they would be fired upon. Now, Lincoln knew the Confederacy was mobilized for war and was not bluffing, and he knew that Washington DC was undefended because he had been negligent, but he still sent troops to Fort Sumter, and thus it is self-evident that Lincoln started the Civil War.
When evaluating American history in relation to slavery and the Civil War, it is important to note several additional facts:
In order to understand what kind of society works and what kind does not, let’s analyze the Zeitgeist trilogy because they cover a lot of the subjects and fallacies I have encountered in the last few years. Perhaps they are the source of such fallacies.
The Zeitgeist trilogy is very good as explaining conspiracies, such as religion, 9/11, some examples of cronyism, and how banking currently works; but it has a very strong progressive socialist technocracy bias. It even has some very good material on history and psychology. However, whereas the film is 95% right about conspiracy and the supporting history and psychology; it is 95% wrong about economics and the supporting history and psychology. In fact, it is so wrong that such error cannot be an accident.
Its major correct themes, both direct and implied, are:
Its major wrong themes, both direct and implied, are:
Let’s first look at just a few examples of the errors and fallacies that permeate every few seconds of any discussion of economics in these films. The continuous barrage of errors and fallacies in economics and any supporting history or psychology is so great that it would literally take a thousand hours to document and explain all of them, so I will only look at a few. Then we will discuss some of the more general fallacies in the film, and contrast them with what we know actually works and is consistent with human nature.
All of the film links below are from points in the third film in the trilogy, which is named “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.”
Reality says: “The invisible hand” sounds ominous, but it just means that in a free-market: supply, demand, and prices reach a natural point of equilibrium, and innovation naturally occurs, all because of the countless individual voluntary transactions where all parties are competing and thus trying to maximize their reputation while providing the best product for the price because otherwise the customer would go to a competitor. This spontaneous order all happens without government or regulation, almost as if there were an invisible hand guiding it – much like how evolution occurs without central planning, but on a much faster timeline. For example, as a resource becomes more scarce, its price goes up, and thus demand goes down. Spontaneous order and the invisible hand are beautifully explained in the essay, I Pencil, by Leonard Read. It is one of the best essays I have ever read.
The film not only takes “the invisible hand” out of context, but really overstated its case because no one thinks of the system (or the free-market) as God. It is ironic that the film makes the straw-man argument that advocates of a free-market see it as God; when it would in fact be far more accurate to say that socialists, progressives, and technocrats think of government as God. It is even more ironic given how the first film in the trilogy does such a good job at debunking religion in general (focusing mostly on Christianity BTW.)
Perhaps the greatest irony is how it continuously blames large systemic problems today on the free-market when in fact our system is nothing close to a free-market. We live in a collectivist technocracy with millions of pages of regulations where government and its experts have almost unlimited power, and these films want even more regulation and more redistribution of wealth. They want to double down on the failed, flawed, fatal policies of the past like central planning and regulation. I would say, “You know, that’s what insanity is when you keep doing the same thing over and over again even though it clearly doesn’t work.” However, these films said it for me!
This is yet another example of how the films claim that money is evil, and yet when they do, they are always talking about fiat money based on debt and printed out of thin air by a monopoly like the Federal Reserve. It never occurs to the film makers that money is a product and just needs competition to solve all of the problems created by such a monopoly, which is largely at the root of What is Wrong With the People. Unfortunately, competition is also evil according to these films.
Zeitgeist says: If you step back far enough, you will realize that the GDP … is mostly a measure of industrial inefficiency and social degradation, and the more you see it rise, the worse things are becoming with respect to personal, social, and environmental integrity.
Reality says: Rising GDP is primarily the result of more people and advancing technology. It is self evident that a person who can afford more advanced technology has a higher quality of life. GDP does measure economic activity even if it is the result of cronyism, and thus GDP can be misleading to that extent, but cronyism can only thrive under a collectivist government like what we have in every country in the world; whereas, an individualist free-market government would have little or no power to support cronyism, and thus a free-market can only exist under an individualist government (or under no government at all). Ironically, this film is attacking the free market instead of the collectivism that causes cronyism, and thus the film gets it backwards.
Zeitgeist says: You have to create problems to create profit. There is no profit under the current paradigm in saving lives, putting balance on this planet, having justice, and peace, or anything else.
Reality says: It is self-evident that you do NOT have to create problems to create profit. It is self-evident that a person would trade the fruits of his labor to save his life, to improve his environment, to have justice, peace, and everything else.
Zeitgeist says: There’s an old saying, “Pass a law; create a business.”
Reality says: “Pass a law; create a business.” would only be true under cronyism, which can only thrive under a collectivist government like what we have in every country in the world; whereas, an individualist government would have little power to create laws that would interfere with the free-market by causing the creation of unnecessary businesses, and thus a free-market can only exist under an individualist government (or under no government at all). Ironically, the speaker, Michael C. Ruppert, is attacking the free-market – not collectivism, and thus he gets it backwards – again.
Reality says: It is self-evident that competition causes some companies to compete against planned obsolescence by making a long lasting innovative product. For example, my Honda is going strong after more than 16 years while requiring only one modest repair in that time. Competition from Japanese car manufacturers forced American car companies to start innovating and to improve quality in order to compete with Japanese cars. The only reason American car companies weren’t already increasing quality and innovation was because of cronyism under a collectivist government. They had been a cartel because the collectivist government protected them from competition, which is the opposite of the free-market.
The preceding links should be sufficient to prove I am not making this up.
The second hour of the second film, Zeitgeist Addendum, is all about a “resource based economy” which is where no one would have to work and everyone would get everything for free in an economy that maximized innovation, efficiency, and sustainability in a society managed by experts. Most of the third film expands on that and occasionally contradicts it.
The film criticizes the market because it creates inequality, which is another straw-man argument because it is talking about inequality from unfairly acquired wealth. Whereas, any wealth differences in a free-market would be the result of voluntary transactions, and thus would be fair. It is the economy recommended by the film that is unfair because it is unfair to use coercion against the minority who are more productive and more innovative. Such an unfair collectivist society, ruled by experts, would be much like those societies under Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, or Hitler, which all produced rampant inequality and inefficiency, and which were all unfair … and … well … just mean. Centrally planned societies just creep me out.
This film, which advocates collectivist government and regulation, again blames the free market for the effects of collectivist government and regulation when it states the common fallacy that in a free-market no pharmaceutical company has an incentive to cure a disease because it is more profitable to treat it. The self-evident reality is that the absence of a cure would create an irresistible opportunity to create new companies to produce a cure as a way to outcompete those companies that already have a treatment. The only reason this doesn’t happen is because collectivist governments create regulations, and the real purpose of regulations is to protect cronies from competition. Zeitgeist gets it backwards again.
In spite of such embarrassing errors, this film goes beyond the usual claims that its authoritarian collectivist government will guarantee that everyone has the same amount of stuff, and that everyone will have abundance and the most advanced technology. The Soviets and others clamed that much (and we see how that worked out). This film goes even further by claiming that no one will have to work!
How would the central planning experts know what people want? They would take a survey!!!
So how can a centrally planned society work this time? Well, we are supposed to believe that none of them thought of using computers before and that no one cared about sustainability or the environment before, and that this time will be different.
The film keeps saying that it wants to apply science, and use only falsifiable ideas, and to abandon falsified ideas. Well … central planning has been falsified.
In the second film, everyone will be given two cars, a flying car, a high tech home, and ride around the world in 4000mph trains whenever they want, and it’s all free, and no one has to work, but we discover late in the third film that people will only be given what they need.
These films don’t mention how the officials and experts will have programmed their computers to place the needs of officials and experts above everyone else – much like how Soviet officials could drive in special lanes to avoid traffic, but that wouldn’t be corruption or elitism – because we wouldn’t call it that.
People would be so nice that they wouldn’t even label racists as bad. Racists would just need to be given treatment, which sounds like the rationale for reeducation camps, which are the most fascist thing ever created. Of course, they don’t mention how other kinds of people would also need treatment, such as anyone who doesn’t want to live under their system.
People would shop by checking out any product on the shelf in a store just like they would check out a library book, which assumes sufficient production, efficiency, resources, and volunteer labor that it would actually be on the shelf for you to check out, which assumes the last guy didn’t break it and didn’t possess it any longer than the time he was using it, but why would he care? It’s not his. Needless to say there would be a need for informants in such a society. Creeepy.
The film doesn’t mention how, in order to make things fair and trackable, everyone would have to each be given the same amount of resource credits that they could spend. Resource credits wouldn’t be “money” though … because we wouldn’t call it that.
Cars would be driverless. People can’t be trusted to drive.
The films never mention that they obviously would not allow people to have guns. If people can’t be trusted to drive then they certainly can’t be trusted with guns! Of course, their government would have guns, but they don’t mention that either. They never even directly mention that there would be a government.
Their thinking is captured succinctly in the American Progressive Manifesto.
Much later the film admits that some jobs would have to be done by a human. Would humans volunteer if they would get no more resource credits than before? America already tried communism under ideal conditions multiple times 400 years ago and it failed tragically every time because it was so incompatible with human nature because most people were shirkers. Then Denmark leaned the same lesson more recently.
What about innovators who would use extra resources if they had them to do research and create prototypes? Surely the computer would identify and allocate more resources to such individuals, so that would be yet another opportunity for corruption.
When they say their system would produce enough for everyone, they mean everyone in their ideal world, which would have far fewer people, but they don’t admit that directly. We have to deduce what they believe from two of their statements: 1) We should not use any oil, and 2) “It is only because of oil that there are 7 billion people on this planet now.” Therefore, we know they believe a much smaller population is a necessary and desirable requirement of their system, but it gets creepier than that.
Near the end of the third film, their actress smiles when she sees a news headline that says “Global protests shut down world economy.” Therefore, we know the film makers would like to see that happen. Now consider how that would kill off a lot of people and create a pretext for a global government.
In the next moment, everyone is protesting in the streets and they take all their money (trillions), which happens to already somehow be in paper form, and dump it in front of the World Bank. There is supposedly no violence or death around this time, and then magically we find ourselves in their utopia. I guess they forgot to mention the billions of lives lost and the global police state that occurred before the global government decided to implement their utopia a.k.a. “The Venus Project” …
This reminds me of the book “The Marching Morons” in which a small minority of smart noble people chose to breed only with each other while everyone else became more stupid and petty over the centuries (like in Idiocracy), so the smart noble minority had to work overtime to do all the real work to keep society functioning, but they were too noble to think of a way to get rid of everyone else, so they went with an inferior person’s plan to use mass marketing to trick everyone into boarding spaceships that would take them to utopia. Of course, the noble chosen people knew they were just sending the non-chosen into space to die, thus turning the Earth into a utopia for the noble chosenites. The fake utopia in space that lured everyone to their deaths was said to have been on Venus. Maybe that is why the centrally planned utopia ruled by experts to which Zeitgeist is trying to lure us is called … The Venus Project …
The reality is that Zeitgeist is promoting the New World Order agenda, and thus we see yet again …
Freedom is the Promise of Reality.
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 …
We American Progressives believe it is self-evident that government has the power (or should have the power) to implement any good idea, and that when we are all on the same page, everyone benefits, but now, let’s think for ourselves, and explain why.
Effective government is necessary for the health and prosperity of everyone today and for future generations. A threat to government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.
Government has some powers delegated from the power of individuals, such as the power to borrow and spend, and government also has unique powers that may not be legitimately exercised by individuals independently of government, such as the power to kill or to tax other individuals. Government thus has these unique powers, not because they were delegated by individuals who do not possess such powers, but because those individuals agreed to be bound by government.
We know that 97% of individuals, if given the choice, would agree to be bound by government rather than live without the benefits of government. Every individual instinctively knows that his life without government would be short, nasty, and brutish.
Although we would like to grant the 3% the right to live without government, many of those reactionaries would not get vaccinated, and many more would possess weapons. Therefore, it is self-evident that the health and prosperity of the other 97% dictate that all 100% of individuals must agree to be bound by government.
Everyone must be bound by government at all times, even when they disagree – especially when they disagree. Otherwise, Rule of Law would devolve into chaos and threaten the health and prosperity of everyone. No one can be above the law.
While we Progressives do not always agree with each other, we always accept the authority of government because effective government requires that 100% accept the authority of government. Anyone who does not accept the authority of government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.
We are glad government forces us to pay taxes because even the most noble progressive are only human, and we would not always voluntarily pay taxes if we could avoid it. We know that about ourselves because we are also the most in touch with reality, and yet, we are so noble that we want to be forced to pay taxes anyway because we must for the health and prosperity of everyone.
Some governments have committed atrocities in the past, but we will not let our governance commit atrocities. However, individuals and businesses will always allow themselves to be ruled, and thus, if Progressives do not rule, then a worse faction would rule. Any other faction would be less effective and may even commit atrocities, and thus a threat to our rule is a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone. In other words, we are the good guys, in the vernacular, as it were.
Given that we are the good guys, and that we know we are right, then if we think for ourselves, we can deduce many other self-evident corollaries, such as the fact that it is OK to lie to maintain our rule. Such action is not only OK, but it is indeed noble. It is the Noble Lie advocated by Plato.
For all these reasons, it is thus legitimate for progressives to take any action up to and including killing any number smaller than a majority in order to maintain our rule. Obviously, if we had to kill a majority to maintain our rule, then our rule would not have been legitimate. We are people of principle after all.
More important than maintaining our rule is defending government itself. Government would be justified in killing a majority rather than letting anarchy prevail. Then, at least, the surviving minority would have the blessings of government.
More important than maintaining government and defending our rule is defending the future. For example, defending the planet is the most critical element of defending the future, and thus we would be justified in killing all but a tiny remnant of individuals if that were necessary to stop a threat to the planet, such as Global Warming, but of course, if it were possible to save the planet by merely sterilizing (instead of killing) all but a small remnant of humanity, then we would do that instead.
Another threat to the future is bad genes. In order to improve the human gene pool, it could be necessary to kill and/or sterilize all but small remnant of humanity. It should be self-evident that any such eugenics program should begin with those reactionaries who are least progressive.
By now it should be clear that only by our rule can everyone experience the full blessings of government; and though we mean to rule with benevolence, make no mistake, we mean to rule.
I have spent years arguing with self-proclaimed American Progressives both face-to-face and online, and I have watched the words and deeds of many others. Therefore, I was able to write their manifesto, including all of their cognitive dissonance, logical fallacies, and self-delusion. They could have written it themselves if they were able to be that articulate and that honest with us and with themselves about their real goals and motives.
In other words … I can out them …
Never forget that most (maybe all) humans carry the Soul of Humanity and not just the Soul of Animals, so perhaps all Progressives can be saved from the wrong side of history if we appeal to the soul of their humanity and if we change the perverse incentives of our society that keep pressuring them to double down on the failed, flawed, and fatal polices of the past. Ironically, it is American Progressives who are doing the most to hold back progress and thereby delaying the next great leap forward for humanity.
To be clear, not every progressive is as ready as their elites, such as Obama’s progressive science czar, to perpetrate democide, genocide, and eugenics, but they would of course go along with their elites – some eagerly and some reluctantly. Those who would go along reluctantly simply don’t that about themselves yet.
Although Progressive elites see those dependent on government as useful idiots, they do not realize that they are the useful idiots for a higher elite. nor do they realize that American Progressivism is actually … fascism.
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?
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.