ArchiveCategory Archives for "Society"
Analysis relevant to a majority.
Analysis relevant to a majority.
Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, can be seen saying that we must brainwash people in order to eliminate the “gun culture”. Now any honest person knows he was intentionally conflating the gun culture of the inner city with America’s liberal founding principles, all of which, were his real target … because today’s American liberals are not actually liberal. They are progressives.
Then, just recently, a liberal acquaintance with a PhD, who is surrounded by other PhDs, and who insists she is different because she wants smaller government and individual liberty (which would constitute a real liberal) succumbed to peer pressure. She lumped me in with the “gun culture!” when I mentioned the importance of an armed citizenry for acquiring and maintaining individual liberty. Also, she had previously expressed concern upon seeing me (legally) wearing a sidearm. Hence the need for this article.
Let’s use the “liberal” term “gun culture” against them because guns are indeed of great value to any noble culture and to anyone else in touch with reality. Let’s distinguish inner city (criminal) gun culture from concealed carry, which is a second kind of gun culture, and which is directly concerned with the basic right of defense from individuals who initiate force (e.g. criminals); whereas, America’s founding principles are defended by a third gun culture, which is directly concerned with defense from governments, which are themselves the fourth gun culture.
The most useful definition of government is: A monopoly on the right to initiate force within a geographical boundary. Such a clear definition makes it self-evident that a people must be prepared to defend themselves from any government – not just from those governments who are already known to especially like initiating force (e.g. progressive governments). That’s why a progressive like Obama has always wanted our guns.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or self-defense. Those rights are self-evident and also not a direct threat to governments anyway. Hunting and self-defense are thus covered by the thousands of rights protected by the Ninth Amendment, which says that everything is a right except for the very few limited powers explicitly granted to the government by the Constitution. Of course, that is the opposite of how the government interprets the Constitution today, which means that almost everything the government does is unconstitutional, but let’s not get sidetracked.
The Second Amendment, the basic right of the people to form militias, is thus a special case of the even more basic right of self-defense against individuals who initiate aggression.
Let’s look at the reality of inner city gun culture, concealed carry culture, America’s founding gun culture, and government gun culture, which includes police, FBI, BATF, DHS, CIA, and the military. Each of these four gun cultures is on one of two sides. On the progressive side, we have the gun cultures of the inner city and of the government, which both use guns to initiate aggression. On the freedom and dignity side, we have the gun cultures of concealed carry and of America’s founding principles, which use guns to prevent initiations of aggression.
Inner City Gun Culture
Inner city culture is well known already – in spite of attempts by the “liberal”establishment media to whitewash it and thereby cover up the atrocity of government dependency that they have perpetrated on the black community. Also, 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?
Some in the black community are starting to figure out that the inner city is the new plantation, and that “liberals” put them there. Such enlightened black men call themselves Runaway Slaves. They are among my personal heroes.
Concealed Carry Culture
If I am driving in a city or cross country, I will usually be wearing a sidearm because I may need the ability to prevent an initiation of aggression. That is also why I lock my car doors.
I lock my car doors – not to protect me from any first time criminals outside – but to protect any first time criminals outside … from me.
Concealed carry permit holders are a culture beyond reproach, which is probably why even the discredited “liberal” establishment media doesn’t go there.
Consider that cops are convicted of crimes 600% more often than concealed carry permit holders. When one also considers that cops are above the law vs. ordinary citizens, then we can safely assume that a cop who committed a crime, at least against an ordinary citizen, is 600% less likely to be indicted and convicted. Therefore, we should assume that the average cop is 36 times more likely to commit a crime compared to the average concealed carry permit holder.
Government Gun Culture
Everyone has seen videos of cops brutalizing and framing the people, and former cops tell me that one cannot work in any jurisdiction for more than three years without at least being an accomplice to such abuse. One even told me that he cannot count the times he had to walk away from other cops who were about to frame someone. He did not want to be a witness and he would not lie in court, but he could not testify against other cops either – because they would have killed him.
The purpose of government gun culture is obviously to manufacture the kind of obedient sociopaths who will not hesitate to kill innocent people in their own homes. Of course, it is hard for government to manufacture as many obedient sociopaths as they think they need, which is why government likes drones. We can see the government agenda in Obama’s unconstitutional new power to assassinate Americans with drones, even on American soil.
We can see the government agenda in how they perpetrated 9/11 to justify more of a police state, such as the Patriot Act.
America’s Founding Gun Culture
Freedom without guns is unsustainable.
Tyranny with guns is unsustainable.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend the rest of them.
The British population has less gun deaths than the American population.
Slave populations have less gun deaths than the British population.
Prison populations have less gun deaths than slave populations.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”
― Patrick Henry
Beware of strong drink.
For it can make one shoot at kings …
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
Does Europe regret letting the globalist elite disarm it yet?
Many of the mass shootings in Europe were black ops.
They were a pretense used to disarm the people.
Does Europe know it has been played?
Sweden (pop.10 million) now has 1 million Muslim immigrants.
They are mostly young men who are thus not refugees.
If a Swede says they are not refugees, he will go to jail.
Also, rape is up 1500%.
If a Swede says they are causing the rape increase, he will go to jail.
Do Europeans regret letting the globalist elite disarm them yet?
Do Europeans know they have been played?
Now the globalist elite see the armed American people as the last thing standing between them and their New World Order.
One either supports guns, or one supports rape, tyranny, and genocide.
One either supports the people, or one supports the globalist elite.
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.
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!”
Progressives are correct. The purpose of government is to implement good ideas. What progressives don’t understand is that big government is a bad idea. Therefore …
The purpose of government … is to prevent the creation of big government.
That is exactly what America did in 1776.
Progressives don’t understand that the best way for people to get along with each other is to mind their own business.
Progressives don’t understand that their ideas can only be implemented by force; whereas, libertarian ideas can only be implemented voluntarily.
Progressives don’t understand that progress doesn’t come from government. Progressive don’t understand that they are therefore holding back progress. Likewise, progressives don’t understand that they are holding back economic recovery.
Progressives don’t understand that they are less open minded than young earth creationists because they rarely have to defend their ideas.
Progressives don’t understand that libertarians and the Tea Party are more liberal than liberals.
Progressives don’t understand that they are motivated by a desire to conform. Progressives don’t understand that they are motivated by hate. Progressives don’t understand that their desire to control those they hate makes them useful to those Elites who want to control us.
Progressives don’t understand that all actions are performed by individuals, and that no action has ever been performed by a group. Progressives don’t understand that America is the least racist country in the world. Progressives don’t understand that they have destroyed the black community through government dependence, which is the new slavery.
Progressives don’t understand that they commit atrocities to the full extent that their power allows. Progressives don’t understand that they are – more than anything else – fascists.
Although Progressives control the media, academia, government, and organized religion, the Internet is helping Americans relearn that …
The purpose of government is to prevent the creation of big government.
The “new plantation” is government dependency and a victim mentality, and 95% of the black community is on the plantation, but C. L. Bryant has made a documentary about how he and others had the strength to become “runaway slaves”. Now, they have formed a new underground railroad to help other black people escape from the plantation.
Government dependency is a fraud perpetrated on the black community by progressives … It is an atrocity … The most charitable analysis is that maybe some progressives had good intentions – in the past, but now, the evidence is overwhelming.
A progressive once asked me one of their most effective (and most dishonest) questions, which has thrown everyone off his game whenever I have seen it used,
In a free market, who would save a dying child from a poor family?
The most honest and most effective answer, in the context of the question, is …
In a free market … the child wouldn’t be dying …
How has our culture forgotten this wonderful truth … that in a free market, the family would be wealthier, the community would be wealthier, and the technology would be better and cheaper.
Government is not the solution.
Government is the problem.
Government dependency has failed.
The path forward is the free market.
In a free market, more people would be willing and able to help him.
In a free market, the child is not only more likely to survive … but is also more likely to thrive.
What you’re really asking is, “What can we expect for a dying child if we move towards more government dependency vs. moving forward to a free market?”
In a free market, competition without the burden of government maximizes quality, efficiency, and innovation – not just in the medical field, but in every field. In a free market, the people are thus safer and healthier, happier and wealthier, more productive and more empowered.
A cure would be very profitable if the inventor were allowed to profit from it, and thus the inventor could start a new company, so we should be seeing more and more new companies in a free-market, but we don’t because we don’t have a free market. We have heavy government intervention, and thus we see fewer and bigger pharmaceutical companies.
Not every company has a drug to treat (but not cure) a given disease, so why wouldn’t those companies release a cure both to profit and to hurt their competitor? The only possible reason is government intervention.
The problem is that government intervention exists to thwart competition. Of course, that is not how intervention is sold to the people, so the people demand more intervention. The solution to government is not “more government”. Government is a problem masquerading as its own cure.
Given free-markets, who would save a dying child?
Given free-markets, the child wouldn’t be dying.
Anyone who has kids and who loves their kids would choose the free market over government intervention
Those I’ve seen answer this question all failed because effective defenders of the free market are not allowed in the mainstream media. This is a self reinforcing strategy of the MSM. Consider that it is very difficult to become an effective supporter of the free market when we are inundated 24/7 with an inaccurate world view. The reality is that we do not live in a free market, big government has failed, and government is the tool by which elites manage innovation.
Only by thinking for ourselves, can we discover reality.
Freedom is the Promise of Reality.
Why do men and women seem to have such different goals, interests, and behaviors?
Both men and women often get mad or frustrated because they don’t get what they want from the other. They also get mad or frustrated with themselves for making choices that do not get them what they want.
The anger, frustration, and stupid choices men and women make are the source of most of our comedy and drama because, after thousands of years of recorded history, we still don’t seem to understand why men and women behave the way they do.
The reason men and women behave the way they do is really simple. It is evolution.
We are not the product of everyone before us. We are the product of only those before us who’s genes caused the most copies of themselves to make it into our generation. We are thus the product of those whose genes caused them to employ the most effective reproductive strategy, and the most successful reproductive strategy for men is different than for women because:
A woman can have about 10 kids, and a man can have about a hundred kids. The genetically programmed male strategy thus focuses on quantity, and the genetically programmed female strategy thus focuses on quality. Quality in this context means “most successful at reproduction”. This is the root all of the interesting differences between men and women.
The men who had the most kids in future generations were those who were able to impregnate as many women as possible – regardless of how or why they were able to impregnate more women. The women who had the most kids in future generations were therefore those who tried to reproduce with those men who were best at impregnating as many women as possible – regardless of how or why those women tried. We are thus the offspring of those men and women, and have the same impulses that got more of their genes into future generations.
It is true that a man’s offspring were more likely to survive and reproduce themselves if he stuck around and helped raise them, but some men also impregnated additional women and thereby tricked other men into raising their offspring, so they had far more offspring in future generations than the men they had tricked. We are thus not only the offspring of those men who tricked (cuckolded) other men, but we are also the offspring of women who favored those men – regardless of their reasons – and thereby got more of their offspring into future generations too.
It gets even more interesting than that. A woman needed a man to provide food and protection for her and her kids, but not every woman could have the biggest, strongest, smartest man. So the best reproductive strategy for a woman was to be as loyal, helpful, and sexually available as possible for her husband, and then once per month, she would try to put herself into a situation where an alpha male could impregnate her. Therefore, we are the offspring of those women who loved their husbands but still tried to get impregnated by an alpha male. Therefore, women today have the same genetically programmed impulses as those women.
Just as the female reproductive strategy was shaped by the male strategy, the male strategy adapted to the female strategy by optimizing for both the husband role and the alpha male role.
Both the husband role and the alpha male role had reproductive advantages. We are thus the offspring of those women who tried to have some children by men who excel at the husband role as well as some children by men who excel at the alpha male role.
This is a self reinforcing cycle that would only get stronger as we evolved.
Let’s look at some specific consequences.
A husband who let his woman be impregnated by an alpha male or a better husband would get fewer of his genes into future generations than a man who took measures to prevent his woman from being impregnated by other men. Therefore, we are the offspring of those men who took measures to prevent their woman from being impregnated by other men. Therefore, men today have the same genetically programmed impulses as those men.
Being a husband might seem like a good strategy because a prehistoric husband had 24/7 access to his woman, but evolution can be pretty sneaky. For example, an anti-husband mutation caused women to be more likely to get pregnant if they have an orgasm, which obviously was an advantage for alpha males who got fewer opportunities to impregnate any given woman but whose one try was more likely to induce an orgasm than any of the husbands’ multiple tries.
Another anti-husband mutation has enabled men to produce sperm that would form a rear guard and thus block other men’s sperm from reaching the egg. Therefore, when a woman became fertile each month, if she let the alpha male try first, then his sperm might successfully block the husband’s sperm for the period in which the woman was fertile that month.
Although some men are alpha males and some are husbands, both have the same strategy. The difference is that alpha males are more successful at implementing the male strategy, which is why we are the offspring alpha males and of those women who were most successful at being impregnated by an alpha male instead of their husbands.
Clearly, a woman must be one heck of an actor to pull off the female strategy. Therefore, the descendants of those women are good actors, but the women before us were more than just great actors. The most successful women would have been those who really did love their husbands but who still tried to be impregnated by an alpha male. Therefore, the descendants of those women really do love their husbands – and – they are good actors.
The dual nature of the genetically programmed female strategy is one of the reasons men think that women send mixed signals and play games, and why women will often agree and not be able to explain their behavior, but it is not a game or mixed signals. It makes perfect sense once you understand its evolutionary underpinnings.
Another reason men think that women send mixed signals and play games is actually a real game.
Consider that in prehistoric times, if a man was able to chase a woman, catch her, and impregnate her without letting her injure him with her feeble blows, and without injuring her, then that man must have had good genes, and good genes was exactly what she wanted. It would have been a good reproductive strategy for women to put themselves into a situation where a man she was certain had good genes would attempt to prove himself in this manor. Obviously, when the game went as planned by both parties, it was quite mutual in spite of the woman running and fighting. Women today are thus the offspring of women who employed such a strategy and thus feel the impulse to engage in this strategy themselves.
Now the game would have been great fun for both the alpha male and the woman, but what if the woman was wrong and the man was weaker than she thought and he failed to block some of her feeble blows. The woman might then suddenly decide that the game was over because she could do better in this menstruation cycle, although she would have reserved the right to change her mind later that day – just in case there were no better males available. Therefore, given that a woman can only have a few kids, and so every one must count, a mutation would thus have succeeded in pre-historic women so that when they were already trying to get pregnant by a given man, they might suddenly think that being impregnated by that man was horrible based on any one of many possible ques.
Hence, a woman today might really change her mind at the last minute for any one of many reasons that may be mostly subconscious, but which are real from a previously evolutionarily optimum perspective. Of course, this would seem really insulting to a man as well as making him think the woman was shallow and irrational, but if both parties understood the evolutionary forces at work, then they would be more likely to enjoy themselves as well as being more likely to part amicably if evolution throws them a curve ball at the last minute – and more likely to try again later.
The political elite use our genetic programming to manipulate us all the time. Just one of those manipulations relies on the fact that evolution has caused women to feel like they need a husband more than just about anything else. For many women, a priest has subconsciously served as a surrogate husband, and now politicians like Obama are also subconsciously seen as a surrogate husband by many women. Now that women are in the workforce, their boss and/or company can serve as a surrogate husband. Of course, government itself can serve as a surrogate husband too.
Religious and political surrogates, in addition to trying increase their own competitiveness with real husbands by playing a role or sometimes actually giving stuff to women, also try to reduce the competitiveness of real husbands. One way priests and politicians manipulate women is by raising women’s expectations for real husbands, so that women will be perpetually disappointed. Another way they manipulate women is by reducing the effectiveness of real husbands – consider how many black men are in jail.
Never forget that we each have a brain, which can override any genetic programming – especially if we are aware of that programming. Also, remember there is certainly no reason to get mad about our genetic programming.
The newly formed Republican party wanted to abolish slavery; whereas, the already existing Democratic Party wanted to promote slavery. Therefore, we see that the rhetoric of both parties is consistent with their history. The Republicans have always claimed that no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor; whereas, the Democrats have always promised the fruits of other men’s labor to whoever would vote for them. A majority of those who want something for nothing will thus prefer the Democratic Party.
The mainstream media, academia, and the government actively promote the Democratic Party, and actively oppose the Republican Party. A majority of those who do not think for themselves will thus prefer the Democratic Party.
Of course, those who think for themselves and who take the time to investigate, know that, regardless of which party is in power, the overall trend of government is higher taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more corruption, more wealth redistribution, more violation of the Constitution, more propaganda, more political factions, more fear, more hate, and more regulation of your life and your business.
It is almost as if both parties were merely front men for the same elite interests, and for some issues one is the good cop and the other is the bad cop; whereas, for other issues, it is the reverse. It is almost as if most politics, news media, and academic studies were never intended to find or solve real problems, but were actually intended to incite fear of each other, fear of nature, and fear of the unknown, so that we will empower them to control others, control nature, and control the unknown.
What politicians really need is not just fear, but conflict, and fear leads to hate, and hate leads to anger, and anger leads to action, which is why politicians prefer to motivate us directly by inciting hate instead of fear. Of course, it is very difficult for politicians to sell themselves as the solution to the very hate that they themselves are fomenting, and some politicians, such as Bill Clinton, are almost that skilled, but even such a master politician must choose the faction that controls the media, so that the media will give him the cover he needs. Democrats are thus able to promote the New Hate because they have sufficient cover from the media.
Let’s look at a recent example.
The media and the Democrats incited hatred in the black community and in the politically correct community while suppressing dissent, which resulted in more votes for the Democratic Party.
Innovation must be managed. Innovation can empower the little guy and make him think he doesn’t need those of us having superior genes to make decisions for him.
Innovation can make the serfs uppity – in the vernacular, as it were. For example, the Internet Reformation makes many serfs feel like they are just as smart as (or smarter than!) we are! Therefore, we can’t have unbridled innovation, or else we might get another Internet Reformation before we can stop it. We have yet to complete our control of the Internet itself, so we certainly can’t allow another black swan event like that.
It is true that unbridled innovation would be necessary to support the exponential growth in serf population, but there were already too many serfs anyway. The earth has limited resources, and only those having superior genes deserve to inherit the earth. Slower innovation will thus reveal the urgent necessity of our final solution, which will thus become more acceptable to those elites and useful serfs who were previously reluctant about what must be done.
Slower innovation is thus a good thing.
We elites are right wing extremists, but we spend much of our resources promoting progressivism, fascism, socialism, communism, collectivism, unions, and political correctness – not just because they make the serfs more dependent – and not just because they help us divide the serfs against each other – and not just because they always blossom into an oligarchy of the elite – but also because they slow down innovation. Our conscience is clear because a majority of serfs freely support us in our promotion of all flavors of collectivism.
The serfs have known that the free market works best for them for at least 400 years, and they still choose to sacrifice their children’s future for the short term trinkets we give them. It is their choice.
The free market is an abomination that punishes our superior breeding and rewards that greedy lower class mentality. The free market is anarchy. The success of the common man in the free market is thus proof of his inferior genes. That is why – that government is best, which regulates most.
The serfs have all the information they need to know that we cannot compete in a free market, but they still vote for regulation. It is their choice
When we promise them other people’s money, they have all the information they need in order to know that they are those other people. Therefore, if they are blinded by their greedy lower class collectivist mentality, then that is still their choice.
We promote equality. We support multiple factions because we cannot allow any one faction to be strong enough to unite the people against our good ideas. Likewise, we cannot allow any one person, company, or nation to be too strong, which is why we must take down America, or more specifically, the American people. Equality is thus a necessary evil towards the end goal of a healthy and natural hierarchy.
The American people overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic and Republican parties, and yet, Americans have all the information they need to know that both parties are controlled by our front men. Americans also have all the information they need to know that the Democratic Party moves our good ideas forward faster.
While it may seem like we already have enough control to implement our good ideas, we must also monitor every communication, every financial transaction, and every politically inclined meeting in order to detect and prevent the destabilizing effects of potential black swan developments such as whistleblowers and Zero Squads. Zero Squads are terrorist cells of 3 serfs each, known only to each other. Each cell will have chosen one of the smartest and most superior elites, and because of their inferior breeding, they will not hesitate to die if necessary to take out their target. If you see something, say something – and thereby prove your usefulness.
We reveal our plans because everyone must freely choose, and thus our conscience is always clear. We simultaneously offer powerful temptations that will only deceive those who willfully ignore reality and who thus have inferior genes.
We thus respect: those who know that when we are all on the same page, we all benefit, and those who know that we have the right to implement any good idea, and those who know the end justifies the means, and those who accept their place.
Conformity and hierarchy are thus not a necessary evil. They are a necessary good.
Some elites claim that our principles of conformity and hierarchy make us no different than the serfs, who we manage by appealing to their desire for conformity and hierarchy. What these elites seem to forget is that the reason we are superior is because we are smarter. Conformity among the serfs is only wrong because they are imitating those with inferior genes, and hierarchy among serfs is only wrong because they are following those with inferior genes.
Although we are the most highly evolved humans, a new theory posits that conformity and hierarchy are actually the Soul of Animals, and are thus the peak of animal evolution, and that the peak of human evolution is the Soul of Humanity.
Some elites accept these theories, but it does not change our plans because we are thus acting in self defense against the encroachment of the perverse evolutionary course referred to as the Soul of Humanity. Without conformity and hierarchy, the Soul of Humanity is incomplete and would lead to anarchy! One could thus summarize our goal as a crusade to kill the Soul of Humanity, although most of us just see it as killing off reactionary genes.
Some elites claim that the Soul of Humanity is very much like our founding principles, and that we have lost our way. Such elites have obviously been deceived by our own propaganda intended to pacify the masses.