1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

The American Way: Mindless Pursuit

Discussion in 'Topical Discussions (In Depth)' started by searcher, Aug 27, 2017.



  1. HardTruth

    HardTruth Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2013
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Personally, I have found that I can often learn a lot from others whom vastly disagree with my opinions. This may be 1 reason why I have never joined in
    " cliques-groups" because doing that usually means you just surround yourself with others who agree with you on most things. I think religions are 1 of the biggest tax free money making scams on earth, yet many of my best friends are religious. Humans often seem to have this double standard where they claim they fully support freedom of speech and opinions, but if you firmly disagree with them on delicate subjects and can actually present a argument that exposes their beliefs may be faulty, then those people may want to see you banned from a forum or limit your freedom of speech and opinions.

    Humans that have had a certain set of beliefs for many years, do not generally like to admit that maybe their beliefs were wrong. Just another fault of the human character.

    Poster 917601 , is 1 of the main posters on this forum whom I have disagreed with for years but I would never dream of trying to shutdown his freedom of speech or opinions or see him banned from the forum just because we don't see " eye to eye" .
     
    Po'boy likes this.
  2. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,119
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first amendment is the most important.

    Lose that and any hope of a return to greatness for this country is over.
    Unless the debate over why the fed is allowed to continue fascism will continue and the results were predicted many years ago.
     
  3. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No One Would Choose to Live a Life Like This | SKWealthAcademy Vlog_006
    smartknowledgeu



    Published on Oct 2, 2017
    Please Like, Comment and Subscribe if you want NEW videos. Today, I discuss why so few of us ever question the pre-engineered currency, academic and corporate work systems into which we are herded, and raise the question if we would be much happier if we did.

    Follow me on snapchat and instagram: skwealthacademy
    We accept donations at patreon.com/skwealthacademy
    Coming Soon...skwealthacademy.com

    Download our SKWealthAcademy fact sheet here www.smartknowledgeu.com/pdf/SKWA.pdf

    our SKWealthAcademy brochure here: www.smartknowledgeu.com/pdf/smartknowledgewealthacademy.pdf

    Intro/Outro music provided by creative commons, license free track: Hiphop instrumental vol 4 by Mr. Aurimus
     
  4. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just a little food for thought...................

    An Act of Pure Evil

    [​IMG]
    by Cognitive Dissonance
    Oct 3, 2017 12:16 PM


    When I selected the name of my avatar here on Zero Hedge and began posting comments, then articles when I became a contributing editor, there was deliberate and conscious intent on my part to disturb the cognitive dissonance of the herd. Rarely do we personally grow unless sufficiently prodded with a poker.

    My intent with this article is NOT to stick a finger in the wound and cause more pain. Not in the least. But "We the People" have an extremely complex, some might say insane, relationship with murder/death/kill. To put it bluntly, we have been deeply conditioned to believe certain 'types' of killing are just and righteous, therefore 'legal'. More importantly, we believe that just about the only righteous killing can, and must, be conducted by the state and its duly appointed apparatchiks.

    To be even more blunt....that's screwed up. This article illuminates both the state's, and our, hypocrisy.

    WARNING!! Trigger alert. Do NOT read this if you wish to remain comfortable with your belief systems.

    This is being written the day after the mass shooting in Las Vegas and it in no way diminishes the horror and suffering experienced by all involved. I cannot imagine what it was like to be watching an outdoor concert and suddenly find myself under fire with nowhere to run and no place to hide.

    It was truly horrific, senseless and so very sad. Or as President Trump declared in his morning after address to the nation, this was “an act of pure evil”.

    There is no doubt over the ensuing days, weeks and months millions of words will be spoken and written about this singular act of violence perpetrated upon an unaware and unprepared crowd of dessert revelers. From arm chair psychologists such as this author to so called ‘experts’, we will be bombarded with one part insight to every hundred parts nonsense.

    No doubt the nonsense will prevail.

    I suspect some readers will not take kindly to me going off script so soon after what is being billed as a national tragedy. In my defense, the difference between me and your average sociopath politician is I am attempting to empower the reader by expanding our minds while they are trying to dis-empower the reader via carefully crafted propaganda and cognitive manipulation.

    They want you to refasten your blinders while I wish to tear them off.

    I absolutely guarantee you nearly every single political leader and wannabe is thinking only one thought at this precise moment. How can I use this situation to my political advantage? You cannot participate in modern day politics and not think in this manner, regardless of how good and honest you might claim to be.

    When you swim in the swamp, you employ the same techniques and thought processes as all the other swamp dwellers. At best it is an occupational hazard, at worst an all consuming disease. Unfortunately very few escape with their morals and dignity intact and none succeed in draining, or even changing the flow of the fetid swamp waters.

    But this isn’t the purpose of this screed at all. Either we fully recognize, and are repulsed by, the nature of the swamp and those who dwell within while taking concrete and purposeful steps to distance ourselves as much as possible from all that the swamp encompasses. Or we have learned to mostly ignore it, live with it, benefit from it or directly participate in it.

    I tell myself I’m somewhere in-between, but that just might be my ego talking.

    There are no innocents, only collaterally damaged individuals. But there are plenty who declare ourselves innocent, claiming the Sergeant Schultz defense of “I see nothing, I know nothing and I wasn’t even (t)here”.

    I do not dispute the fact that planning and preparing for, and then carrying out, an act of mass murder and mayhem is indefensible and inexcusable. I assume the reader feels the same way I do, that the person who perpetuated this bloodshed with forethought and malice was mentally deranged and possibly even ‘evil’, regardless of the details of motive and method.

    Where we might depart the same path is in how we characterize mentally deranged as defined by a nearly equally mentally deranged society. What, exactly, is the difference between a ‘crazy’ individual shooting from the 32nd floor of a hotel into a large crowd of people with conscious intent to kill and a nation’s military lobbing cruise missiles or dropping bombs onto an opposing nation’s population centers, occupied hospitals or upon other so called ‘innocents’ with the same conscious intent to kill?

    Now I am absolutely positive the reader’s mind is racing through the thousand and one excuses, reasons and rationalizations we have been programmed with, and conditioned to believe and repeat, in order to justify homicide, murder really, to ourselves and to our peers in the name of ‘war’.

    I get it. I understand. I am the product of the same conditioning and propaganda everyone else has been exposed to. But the question remains entirely reasonable and relevant. How is homicide by the state any different than homicide by an individual, whether on a mass or individual basis?

    Once we begin to delve into this thorny issue, the next question is why do “We the People” support one homicidal entity while vigorously condemning the other?

    Ever notice how violence conducted in an ‘offensive’ manner is decried as wrong and ‘illegal’, evil even, while violence employed purely in defense of yourself and those around you is accepted as reasonable and justified? After all, civilized people know there are rules to follow when conducting war. You can’t have people just killing and maiming each other willy-nilly with no rules, now can you?

    This is precisely why all nations frame war, before, during and after, as unavoidable and defensive in nature. And it’s also the reason why nations routinely engage in false flag operations in order to create plausible deniability and justification for homicide in order to gain, consolidate or hold on to power, wealth and control.

    I can drop 1,000 pound bombs on your head or direct a cruise missile through your kitchen window, but I can’t use poison gas, exploding bullets or other such ‘illegal’ methods of particularly gruesome homicide. As if being blown into bits and pieces by a bomb or missile isn’t particularly gruesome or horrifying.

    The fact remains we can rationalize away anything we wish to justify, first as individuals and then as a herd, by simply framing the discussion in ways that fit already programmed terms and conditions that justify our actions. Helpfully (thankfully, for we as ‘moral’ individuals might balk at doing so) the programming is already determined, then promoted and placed via state sponsored education and later via the deeply influenced, if not outright controlled, state propaganda arm called mainstream media.

    All that remains is for us to not only accept it, but endlessly repeat it back to others, the ultimate positive feedback loop of group-think that reinforces both our conditioning and the continuing acceptance of our conditioning. The base message is usually not that sophisticated, enabling infinite modification by each individual so that state sponsored homicide is not only acceptable, but in many situations desirable and even necessary.

    Once we are able to shoehorn distasteful nonconforming tidbits into our internal narrative, we sleep better at night. Never underestimate the lengths to which we will go to believe precisely what we want to believe.

    So there you have it. One ‘madman’ with several automatics and lots of ammo randomly, and rapidly, shooting at human fish in a barrel is bad, very bad. Of this there is no argument from me. But college educated chisel jaw all American hero pilots dropping 1,000 pound bombs on hospitals or strafing wedding parties is acceptable as long as he or she is following ‘legal’ orders and plays by the rules of war a la legal murder/homicide.

    And if there is some unfortunate targeting snafu or human error that leads to collateral damage, well…that's just the price others pay for our gloriously righteous war against the evil madmen enemy.

    I can’t wait to not only hear what the state will cook up to justify the next large scale war, but how it will be framed so you and I can swallow it hook, line and sinker, then order up pizza and beer just in time to watch the fireworks live on CNN.

    A spoon full of sugary rationalization helps the ugly murder and mayhem go down. After all we do have to live with ourselves, now don’t we?

    10/02/2017

    Cognitive Dissonance

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-03/act-pure-evil
     
    solarion and Someone_else like this.
  5. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
  6. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Survey Find Americans' Views on Free Speech is a Whole Bunch of Crazy

    [​IMG]
    by TDB
    Oct 14, 2017 2:38 PM

    Via The Daily Bell

    The biggest thing this survey proves is that Orwellian double-speak is working.

    If you are unfamiliar, doublespeak is a term from the novel 1984. It is speech intentionally meant to confuse, or obscure reality.

    What does free speech mean? What is hate speech? And what laws currently or should exist in regards to speaking freely?

    The answers from Americans prove just how successful the media and politicians have been in making Americans less grounded than a satellite.

    The powers that be have successfully confused and obscured any hint of rationality in beliefs. There seems to be little method and all madness. People simply make up their minds emotionally, instead of thinking critically. And that is how those in power like it.

    When people behave emotionally, they are more easy to control. A rational belief would be something along the lines of Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

    An irrational belief would be that anything that offends you should not be called free speech.

    Those who believe the latter fail to understand that practically anything can be considered offensive to someone. Under those circumstances, politicians could limit any kind of critical speech, claiming it promotes violence, offends, or is hate speech.

    Holding Two Contradictory beliefs

    The study found:

    An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that “it would be hard to ban hate speech because people can’t agree what speech is hateful,” …

    Yet a majority of Americans and a supermajority of African Americans believe that “society can prohibit hate speech and still protect free speech.” (To complicate matters, a quarter of Americans, 38 percent of African Americans, and 45 percent of Latinos erroneously believe it is already illegal to make a racist statement in public.)

    So even though most people don’t think you could properly define “hate speech,” they still don’t think banning it would violate free speech. That’s the magic of government for you! Some people will have speech that they do not consider “hate speech” limited, but somehow free speech will still be protected… okay.

    Who should get protection against hate speech? Forty-six percent would support a law making it illegal to say offensive things about African Americans…

    Forty-seven percent of Latinos, 41 percent of African Americans, and 26 percent of whites would favor a law making it illegal to say offensive things about white people in public.

    I thought this one was hilarious. White people aren’t interested in making it illegal to trash talk them, but other races are!

    Of course, where is the line? Who gets to decide what constitutes offensive? Obviously, the government.

    So is saying that African Americans are on average better at basketball than white people offensive? I’m sure some people think so. Should I be locked up in a cage for saying something like that in public?

    What about stating a simple fact, like Asian Americans are underrepresented in the prison system? What if I go further and comment on what I think that means; that the average Asian is less likely to be a criminal than the average white, latino, or black person?

    And don’t you dare say anything even remotely critical or trans-anything.

    Fifty-one percent of Democrats would favor a law “requiring people to refer to a transgender person by their preferred gender pronouns and not according to their biological sex.”

    Well, no surprise there. That is one of their favorite doublespeak topics. Progressives like to call the right anti-science, but there are few things more anti-science than pretending someone can change their sex. You can certainly mimic the opposite sex. But if you were born a man, you will never get pregnant. If you were born a woman, you will never get someone pregnant. Yet children are being allowed to make life-altering reproductive changes before puberty.

    And finally, let’s criticize the “opposite” side of the allegedly two-dimensional political spectrum.

    Republicans were most intolerant of speech and most likely to favor authoritarian laws to punish it on the subject of burning or desecrating the American flag: Seventy-two percent of Republicans believe that should be illegal (along with 46 percent of Democrats).

    The flag stands for freedom. That’s why you don’t have the freedom to speak out against it. Makes sense, right?

    Looks like there are easily offended snowflakes all over. If Americans had their way, there would be practically no free speech allowed whatsoever!

    And that is exactly the climate the media and politicians were trying to create this whole time.

    But it Wasn’t All Bad News! Right?

    There was one point of interest that seemed to offer a glimmer of hope.

    Large majorities agree that “a big problem this country has is being politically correct,” including 70 percent of Latinos, 62 percent of African Americans, and 72 percent of whites.

    Across partisan and racial divides, large majorities agreed that colleges and universities are not doing enough to teach young Americans about the value of free speech, and not doing enough to ensure students are exposed to a variety of viewpoints…

    So it seems people are indeed getting sick of having political correctness jammed down their throats. The only problem is that this feeling is still emotional and ambiguous. There are no hard rules or clear lines that people would ever agree on for when something becomes politically incorrect.

    And the very next line shows that again, people’s beliefs contradict themselves.

    …a small majority believes colleges “have an obligation to protect students from offensive speech and ideas that could create a difficult learning environment.”

    The survey was meant to be about free speech, but I think it proves something much bigger.

    America cannot have an intelligent conversation about anything because no one agrees on the basic meaning of words. People will keep talking in circles as long as the media convinces them that they can simultaneously believe two contradictory ideas.

    An environment now exists where people will just say and believe whatever they think will get them in the least trouble with social enforcers all around them.

    No one will grow intellectually when the media tells them to use their emotions to decide on issues. How can you make informed decisions when you can’t even comprehend an argument?

    And that is double-plus ungood.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-14/survey-find-americans-views-free-speech-whole-bunch-crazy
     
    solarion likes this.
  7. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anecdotes and Reminiscences

    -- Published: Friday, 20 October 2017

    Originally posted at http://www.plata.com.mx/enUS/More/331?idioma=2

    By Hugo Salinas Price

    A well-known story from yesteryear: when Venustiano Carranza was President of Mexico (1917-1920). Carranza issued a great quantity of worthless paper money, which caused much resentment on the part of the population. Someone (whose identity was never discovered) printed up some papers, and these were pasted one night on the walls of buildings in the heart of Mexico City; the papers had the following text:

    “The Mexican eagle is a very cruel animal: It eats only silver, and shits only paper.”

    President Carranza was furious on account of the insult, and his government offered a reward of $5,000 Pesos for information leading to the arrest of the culprit.

    The witty author answered with a new text pasted on the walls of downtown Mexico City during the following night:

    And with what is the payment to be? With what the eagle eats, or with what the eagle shits?

    Another tale from the time of Carranza: one good day, one of the humble peasant women selling vegetables in the great “Merced” market of downtown Mexico City refused to receive payment for her vegetables in paper money. She demanded silver coin in payment. Her example was swiftly followed by the rest of the women selling foodstuffs at the market. I have no further information on what happened after that, but I suspect that this refusal to accept paper money led to the end of Don Venustiano’s paper money scheme. In 1920, he created the 0.720 Peso (i.e. 72% pure silver) which was the money that Mexico used up to 1945, when the coin could no longer be minted because the price of silver in the coin became worth more than $1 Peso.

    I think it is interesting to know why the Mexican monetary unit is called the “Peso”. In 1535, the Mexican Mint in Mexico City began to mint silver coins that eventually became the most-used money in the world: the famous “Pieces of Eight”. (Under President Jefferson, the model of the Mexican “Pieces of Eight” was the model used for the US Silver Dollar.) After Mexican Independence, the “Pieces of Eight” minted under Spanish rule had to be modified in their facial characteristics, in accord with the new situation of independence from Spain. The world “peso” in Spanish, means “weight”. The new coin was called the “Peso”, because it contained the same weight of silver as its predecessor, the “Pieces of Eight”. This Mexican silver Peso continued to be the money of Mexico from 1812, shortly after Independence, up to the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution, in 1910. So the silver money established under Monarchy continued without change for nearly four centuries, from 1535 to 1910 – a notable case of monetary stability, perhaps only outdone by the gold Bezant of the Byzantine Empire.

    Venustiano Carranza was assassinated in 1920: some historians claim that he was assassinated because his policy did not accommodate the interests of the US, whose aim was to put an end to the great productivity of Mexican agriculture, at the time in the hands of the great landowners of the country. Don Venustiano was opposed to the “Agrarian Reform” that the US wished to impose upon Mexico.

    Perhaps the assassination of Don Venustiano also opened the way for the creation of a Central Bank in Mexico, which took place in 1925. Its organization was parallel to the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. We cannot know whether he would have favored the creation of a Central Bank, or not.

    Up to 1925 there existed in Mexico private banks which were well-managed, as for example the Terrazas Bank in the State of Chihuahua in northern Mexico, whose banknotes enjoyed an unblemished reputation as representations of wealth - that is to say, their banknotes were fully redeemable in silver money upon presentation to the bank. However, there were also some private banks that were not well-managed by their owners, who used their banks to finance their own ventures, which sooner or later led to their bankruptcy, to the detriment of their depositors and creditors, among which were the owners of the banknotes they had issued as money.

    One of the reasons given both for the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, and for the creation of Banco de Mexico in 1925, was that it was necessary to do away with “the bankruptcy of banks” – though the leaders of the move to create the Federal Reserve were the great bankers of the US, who wanted to create an entity that would protect them from their own mismanagement, by means of a guarantee of financial support of the Federal Reserve if and when they should run into a situation of insolvency.

    The result of the “Guarantee” on the part of the Federal Reserve was that all the banks associated to the banking system under the control of the Federal Reserve immediately proceeded to operate imprudently: if one bank acted imprudently without any risk, it would have a competitive advantage over its rivals; therefore all were compelled to act imprudently or get left behind. The mismanagement consisted in “borrowing short and lending long”, in other words using funds obtained either “at sight” or for a short period of time from depositors and investors, and lending them out for a longer term, which was more profitable. The same result obtains at present, in the Mexican banking system.

    Another reason given for the creation of a Central Bank in Mexico, was that the issue of banknotes would not be permitted to private banks, but would be a function enjoyed exclusively by the Central Bank, which would thus establish a sound and reliable monetary system in the country.

    However, what was achieved was a situation which was much worse: instead of having to suffer the bankruptcy of some isolated banks of private property, the establishment of Banco de Mexico became an entity which would collaborate with the government in the government's requirements of unlimited spending.

    The interests of isolated cases of private banks whose mismanagement continued until they reached insolvency and bankruptcy, were substituted by a Federal entity, Banco de Mexico, which can never go bankrupt and whose banknotes and digital money must be unquestionably accepted in payment of debts, notwithstanding their continual depreciation.

    Up until 1925, and practically since our Independence up to the present, with the exception of the revolutionary period (1910 – 1925) the Peso/Dollar ratio was always more or less $2 Pesos for $1 Dollar. Today, the Peso/Dollar ratio hovers around $19,000 Pesos for $1 Dollar – if we ignore the make-up applied to the Peso en 1993, when three zeros were erased from the ratio. And we all know that the Peso is in danger of falling to $20, to $23, to $25,000 or more – God only knows what is in store for the Banco de Mexico Peso!

    To make matters worse, we have to take into account the fall in value of the Dollar itself, during the same period - for the same reason, excessive money printing or creation of excessive digital money. It has been calculated that the US Dollar is today worth only 3 Cents or less of its value in 1925.

    One highly important result of the monetary system we are forced to endure, has been the progressive moral deterioration of society in general, both in the Mexico and in the US – actually in the whole world.

    The world’s thinkers turn a blind eye to the very strong link that exists between the prevailing morality in a nation and its monetary system. Honesty prevails where real money - of gold or silver – prevails. When a nation is forced to live with false money – paper or digital – honesty is compromised and vice booms; just one of the many symptoms of moral breakdown is the flight from a situation of uncertainty into the refuge of a drug-induced stupor, when how to act in order to provide for life becomes an unsolvable puzzle due to the forced use of false money. Apparently, the Catholic Church itself does not worry about false money. I once had a conversation with Cardinal Norberto Rivera, during which I suggested the support of the Church for my proposal regarding the silver “Libertad” ounce. Don Norberto yawned and said he knew nothing about monetary affairs.

    I close with a last anecdote:

    My father-in-law, Don Guillermo Pliego y Pliego, once told me of an experience he had: “I saw a truck in downtown Monterrey (Mexico) on its way to the refinery at American Smelting and Refining Company, loaded with 0.720 silver Pesos; the truck had a mishap and dumped its silver load into the street; hundreds of Pesos rolled down the street, but the people passing by gathered every one of them and returned them to the truck.”

    Can we imagine how people would react, in a similar situation, today?

    http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1508505000.php
     
    Po'boy likes this.
  8. Po'boy

    Po'boy Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,119
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like yours or mine?
     
    searcher likes this.
  9. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An outrageous proposal — or not



    -- Published: Wednesday, 25 October 2017

    By George Smith

    A cry could be heard from somewhere in the room.

    No one was surprised. This had been an unthinkable outcome for those in attendance, and a sense of quiet shock had overtaken everyone. This was not a G7 or a G20 summit. It was a meeting deliberately without a label. It would never again happen. It couldn’t.

    The leaders of the world’s states had gathered to find solutions to the problems they feared were threatening human life on earth. They were reminded of the incessant wars, the likelihood of a recession far worse than the last, the enormous levels of family, student, and government debt, the increasing deterioration of the world’s currencies, the immigration problems, the reciprocal relationship between money spent on eradicating problems and the results obtained, the vast, increasing corruption of government officials and the mainstream media, the failure of the public schools, the various racial, ideological, and religious hostilities, the increasing vulnerability to the planet from end-of-days scenarios, and so many more a sudden outbreak of headaches postponed further discussion.

    Later, when the subject of solutions came up, they were reminded that without solutions that worked governments would eventually have no one to govern. With no one to govern their laws and decrees would be meaningless. With no one to govern governments would have no source of revenue. With no one to govern it would be pointless to debauch the currency. With no one to govern the vast bureaucratic arrangement of government would churn to a halt.

    “With no one to govern our problems would be solved,” added one, to the amusement of the others.

    Immediately another replied, “Could it work the other way?” All heads turned to him. “What if we removed our institutions from society? What if we closed shop, as the Soviet Union did in 1991? What if we eliminate government from the face of the earth and leave people free to deal with the mess we’ve made? It’s their future that’s at stake. I think they’ll find ways to fix things peacefully.”

    And after debate that raged for six hours, this is what they — incredibly —agreed to do. Some no doubt had visions of instituting even stronger governments after the peons grew tired of robbing and killing one another.

    The long history of slavery — and government

    Robert Higgs opened his scholarly Crisis and Leviathan with these words: “We must have government.” Higgs, a libertarian, went on to document how crises, especially war, excused the rapid expansion of the federal government — never mind that the crises developed because of government meddling. When the crises ended the government retained some of the new powers it grabbed during the emergency. Next time you look at your pay stub and see the taxes withheld remember that withholding was passed as a “temporary measure” as well as an alleged benefit to taxpayers to fund US involvement in WW II. (See Rothbard’s comments here.)

    Later in life Higgs repudiated his opening statement about the necessity of government as he moved ideologically from a minarchist libertarian to an anarchist libertarian, explaining that

    "I believe it is wrong for anyone – including those designated the rulers and their functionaries – to engage in fraud, extortion, robbery, torture, and murder. I do not believe that I have a defensible right to engage in such acts; nor do I believe that I, or anyone else, may delegate to government officials a just right to do what it is wrong for me – or you or anyone – to do as a private person."

    He also brought attention to the long history of slavery and the even longer history of government “as we know it,” meaning “the monopolistic, individually nonconsensual form of government that now exists virtually everywhere on earth.” Proponents of slavery once had a list of arguments that went virtually unchallenged. Today almost no one respects those arguments. Yet they would be offered any day of the week in defense of government “as we know it.” Higgs:

    Slavery is natural.
    Government (as we know it) is natural.

    Slavery has always existed.
    Government (as we know it) has always existed.

    Every society on earth has slavery.
    Every society on earth has government (as we know it)

    The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves.
    The people are not capable of taking care of themselves.
    etc.

    Jim Powell in Greatest Emancipations: How the West Abolished Slavery offers these comments on slavery:
    "it had been around for thousands of years, hardly anybody had opposed it in all that time, and powerful interest groups—including established churches—supported it. . . The very idea of emancipation was widely viewed as a threat to the social order."

    Substituting “government” for “slavery” fits perfectly. Almost no one opposes it, it's supported by powerful interests, it's been around for thousands of years, and its abandonment would be viewed as a threat to the social order.

    Chattel slavery and government have much in common. There were brutal slaveowners. There were also slaveowners who treated their slaves decently, almost as if they were family members. Governments vary in their treatment of citizens as well. Some tolerate conditions of relative freedom, while others will murder or imprison anyone or any group perceived as a threat. Still, “kinder, gentler” governments have sent millions of young men to their deaths after conscripting them into the military. And they stand ready to do it again. Those same governments lose little sleep imposing on other states sanctions that cause civilian deaths, including the slow death of children.

    Political scientist R. J. Rummel has estimated that governments in the 20th century killed 262,000,000 people under their rule, with most of those occurring in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Nationalist China, and Nazi Germany. So-called democracies, where citizens exert a degree of control on government policies, are far less likely to murder its citizens. Democracies commit most of their murders against foreigners.

    Whether democratic or otherwise, government as an institution has two defining traits: It claims a monopoly of rule over a defined geographic area, and it secures this monopoly with the threat of violence. Within its domain it allows no competitors.

    With a superiority of force, governments as we’ve known them have secured their revenue through extortion, though under different names. It is not an exchange for services in a market sense. Governments may say they will do certain things with the revenue collected but that’s as far as it goes. There is no contract with the taxpayers. They are not customers government works hard to satisfy. There is no need to.

    Throughout history governments have always supplemented their tax revenue by debasing or counterfeiting the currency. In modern times the government’s central bank has made this process almost impenetrable, while the Keynesian-dominated economics profession has deluded the public into believing it’s in their interest.

    So, at base we have an institution that is violent, a monopoly, an extortionist, and a counterfeiter. It’s also a murderer, kidnapper, and a liar. And it’s running our lives.

    We ought to be able to do better.

    The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.”
    — Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Part Second

    http://barbarous-relic.blogspot.com/

    http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1508959860.php
     
    solarion likes this.
  10. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
  11. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Fragmentation of Society



    -- Published: Monday, 30 October 2017

    By John Mauldin

    The Fragmentation of Society
    The Future of Work
    The End of Cancer
    Angst in America
    Denver, Lugano, and Hong Kong

    Lately, my life has been completely packed with speeches, meetings, and in-depth, often lengthy, conversations. Plus ongoing research and writing, of course. It all culminated Thursday afternoon at the beginning of a business meeting with the leadership team from a firm that will become a significant new business partner. At the very beginning of the meeting, the head of the firm leaned over to me and asked, “What’s on the top of your mind? What are you thinking about?” The previous night we had a small group of about 15 people in my living room after dinner, and the question was similar, “What keeps you up at night?”

    It has become an emotional question for me, because the answer does not come easily, is complex, and can be more than a little unsettling. It is, however, evolving out of the research and writing I’m doing on my new book, The Age of Transformation. Whether audiences and readers agree with my answer or not, it is not a feel-good message, which is somewhat frustrating because I’m the biggest long-term optimist in the room. But I acknowledge that what I am talking about suggests that the ride between today and the long-term happy ending is going to be more than a bit bumpy.

    This week’s letter is going to be a passionate summary of my answer. In form, it will be something like a conversation between you and me, sitting in your living room or mine, or in a restaurant, maybe sipping an adult beverage, thinking through the future together, and wondering at how the world is transforming in front of our eyes.

    In part, the impetus for this letter was a video I did with Patrick Cox last week, one in a four-part series that Patrick is doing called “Riding the Gray Tsunami.” We had a candid conversation about the future that lasted an hour, though our outstanding moderator and editor Jonathan Roth, one of our team members, will likely edit it to about 30 minutes. Patrick’s other guests will be Dr. Mike Roizen, the chief wellness officer at the Cleveland Clinic; Aubrey de Grey, the chief science officer of SENS Research Foundation and one of the true experts on longevity science; and finally, our friend Jim Mellon, self-made British billionaire and avid biotech investor. You can sign up to participate here. You really don’t want to miss this. Now let’s jump to the letter.

    research to show that, on a global basis, the poor are getting richer faster than any other group. However, if you look around the US or Europe, that is not the conclusion you come to. But Africa or Asia? Absolutely. Let’s be clear: The Industrial Age and free-market capitalism, for all of its bumps and warts, has lifted more people out of poverty and extended more lives than has any other single development. The collapse of communism has been a great boon to humanity (even if it is still talked about favorably in Western universities).

    Because of where the emerging-market economies are in the development cycle, they have the potential for vast, rapid improvement in the lives of their people. But most of my readers do not live in the emerging markets. We live in the developed markets; and here, some of the outcomes of the Age of Transformation will not be so comfortable. Let’s start with this chart (hat tip, Downtown Josh Brown).

    [​IMG]

    Obviously, the rig count in US oilfields is rising rapidly – no surprise there. But distressingly, the number of oilfield workers is continuing to fall. How can this be?

    There is an answer to that conundrum in the long article that is the source of this chart and others I’ll use later. There is a new robotic machine called an Iron Roughneck that reduces the human labor required to connect pipe from a crew of 20 down to a crew of five. And those jobs were quite high-paying. Here’s a picture of this new robotic roughneck. Fifteen workers per site at well over $100,000 a year each? Does that machine look like it cost more than a few million? I bet it amortizes pretty quickly, and that’s why it is being rapidly adopted.

    [​IMG]

    Now look back at the chart. The amazing thing is that this transformation happened in two years; it didn’t take a generation or even half a generation. You were an oilfield worker with what you thought was potentially a lifetime of steady, well-paying – if dangerous, nasty, and dirty – work. And then BOOM! The jobs just simply disappeared. Your on-the-job experience doesn’t translate to any other industries very easily, and now you and your family are on the skids.

    I could actually spend this entire letter talking about the amazing transformation of the oilfield. Oil production is now a technology business. Computers and artificial intelligence are used in abundance in the oilfield. Future wells are going to be a magnitude more productive and less expensive. There are oilfield operators here in Dallas running around with pro formas, raising money, talking about how they can do very well at $40 and even $30 per barrel. And with oil at $54 and looking as though it could well go to $60, they are raising money and punching holes. Just with fewer workers.

    From the report on the Iron Roughneck we get the following alarming quote. (Note that the report is full of links to academic research. While I don’t like the author’s conclusions, his work is at least well researched).

    A landmark 2017 study [dismal reading – John] even looked at the impact of just industrial robots on jobs from 1993 to 2007 and found that every new robot replaced around 5.6 workers, and every additional robot per 1,000 workers reduced the percentage of the total population employed by 0.34% and also reduced wages by 0.5%. During that 14-year period of time, the number of industrial robots quadrupled and between 360,000 and 670,000 jobs were erased. And as the authors [Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo] noted, “Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, we do not find positive and offsetting employment gains in any occupation or education groups.” In other words, the jobs were not replaced with new jobs.

    It’s expected that our industrial robot workforce will quadruple again by 2025 [more troubling MIT research – John] to 7 robots per 1,000 workers. (In Toledo and Detroit it’s already 9 robots per 1,000 workers.) Using Acemoglu’s and Restropo’s findings, that translates to a loss of up to 3.4 million jobs by 2025, alongside depressed wage growth of up to 2.6%, and a drop in the employment-to-population ratio of up to 1.76 percentage points. Remember, we’re talking about industrial robots only, not all robots, and not any software, especially not AI. So what we can expect from all technology combined is undoubtedly larger than the above estimates.

    Automation has been happening right under everyone’s noses, but people are only beginning to really talk about the potential future dangers of automation reducing the incomes of large percentages of the population. In the US, the most-cited estimate is the loss of half of all existing jobs by the early 2030s.

    You can find people who estimate that technology will eliminate as many as two billion jobs, while also creating a large number of jobs – but nowhere near as fast. I don’t buy those extreme estimates, as I think they amount to sensationalism, but if you want to predict 30 to 40 million jobs lost in the US by the middle of the 2030s (that’s 17 years from now), I’m not going to argue with you. How many jobs will be created? We’ll get to that in a minute.

    report, concludes that 90% of all driving in the US will be TaaS (transportation as a service) by 2030, although that will utilize only 60% of the cars. The good news is that the average family will save $5,600 per year in transportation costs, keeping an extra $1 trillion per year in Americans’ pockets. Think of all the time that will be freed for activities other than driving, not to mention the traffic jams that will be reduced. The authors believe that freeing time now spent commuting to work, plus faster transport times, will lead to an increase in GDP of between $500 million to as much as $2.5 trillion. Public sector budgets will benefit because highway infrastructure costs will fall, and vast amounts of land will be freed from parking lots and publicly owned right-of-way properties next to highways. Of course, governments will lose as much as $50 billion in gasoline taxes as we shift from internal combustion engines to electric and other alternative forms of power systems.

    The really bad news is that a lot of people will lose their incomes.

    The report projects that the adoption of TaaS will come about in typical technological adoption fashion: slowly and then seemingly all at once. The authors talk about the end of individual car ownership. Why would you own a car if it was far cheaper and more convenient just to pick one up via an app on your phone? Not owning a vehicle frees a lot of garage and parking space and might even eliminate the hassle of picking up your kids and getting them to and from their various activities. Of course, the system will work much more effectively in urban and suburban areas than in the rural world.

    And it is not just the six million taxi and truck driver jobs that are threatened. Automated driving will save some 30,000 lives per year just in the US, which is something to be applauded. But it will also dramatically decrease the number of people going to emergency rooms from automobile wrecks, reducing the need for healthcare workers. Since cars won’t be in wrecks, the number of people required to repair them will be radically reduced. There are 228,000 auto repair shops in the country, employing some 647,000 workers (at a minimum – data from BLS). When a new car will last for one million miles and have fewer than 30 moving parts, those auto repair people are going to be like the Maytag repairman in the commercials of my youth: very lonely and increasingly unemployed.

    If driving is TaaS, then automobile dealerships are in trouble, as are most car salesmen and the 66,000 people who work in automotive parts and accessories stores. What about auto insurance salesmen? And all the gas stations that will not be needed? (When an automated car gets low on electricity, it will simply pull into a spot and replug – automatically, of course, aided by robotics.)

    The US auto industry employs 1.25 million people directly and another 7.25 million indirectly. Not all driving jobs will be lost, but the authors estimate that around 5 million will be, with a reduction in national income of $200 billion.

    And if we need fewer cars? That shift would put a lot of automotive manufacturing companies and their workers under severe strain. I’m not certain how the authors arrived at the number, but they estimate new-vehicle annual unit sales will drop by 70% by 2030, to around 5.6 million vehicles versus the 18 million that will be sold in 2020. Ugh. If we actually do see wholesale conversion to electric vehicles, US oil demand for passenger road transport could drop by 90% or more. Oil production companies may need to figure out how to make life work at $25 per barrel, if that’s the case.

    Personally, I think the report is a little over the top. (Well, maybe more than a little.) But if they stretch those projection figures to 2035 or 2040? Totally in the ballpark. And frankly, as I will note in a few paragraphs, whether it’s 2030, 2035, or 2040, the change will seem like it came overnight and totally out of left field – especially for the workers who no longer have work.

    Bexion Pharmaceuticals. The company is now 15 months into a phase I trial to determine the safety of a drug called BXQ-350, which is basically a full-on silver bullet for mass-tumor cancers. It has so far been a small trial in four medical research universities, with a limited but growing number of patients who have pancreatic cancer and brain tumors. The results have been very promising. Ray told me about one patient at the University of New Mexico who has a very rare form of cancer and who was given the drug. This is a cancer for which there is no treatment – it’s basically a death sentence. It occurs in adults but more frequently in children. Ray was initially concerned about treating this patient, as the study is about safety and you really don’t want to have any issues associated with a safety trial. But the patient’s doctor talked him into proceeding, and they began to administer the drug. It hasn’t been very long, but the patient is improving, and the cancer is regressing. He had lost partial use of his right side but is now walking and using that side again.

    Because it’s a phase I trial, we don’t really have much information about how effective the drug is, apart from anecdotes; and distressingly, the researchers must sometimes stop administering the drug because that’s part of the required protocol. The rules simply want to make me pull my hair out.

    In the US, one million people per year get cancer, and half a million die. Those are ugly statistics, but they could change drastically within less than 10 years. Cancer could become a nuisance rather than a threat to life. I lose more and more friends every year to cancer. We all do. I will be so glad if that stops. So will you.

    Full disclosure: I was a first-round investor in Bexion, and so I have a strong home-field bias in wanting BXQ-350 to succeed, but the reality is that its success will be extraordinarily good for humanity. And frankly, one of the main risks to my investment is not that the drug won’t actually work, but that any of several other companies that Patrick Cox and I are looking at will actually come up with a drug that is cheaper, better, and faster. Or maybe, as in treating AIDS, you end up with a cocktail of drugs to fight cancer.

    One way or another, cancer is going to go the way of measles and polio. You’ll be diagnosed by means of a simple blood test that will be part of your annual medical checkup, and you’ll be informed if you have cancer. Next you will undergo further tests to determine what type. And then, whatever the therapy is, it is likely that you will simply go to your doctor’s office for regular treatments. In the case of Bexion’s drug, treatment will (hopefully) amount to a few months or less of three visits per week, no side effects, and your cancer goes away. That is the extrapolation from mouse studies. We’ll know more after phase II studies are underway sometime next year. Since it is now public information, I can mention that John McCain will be given access to this drug at the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center. Randomly, McCain has one of the types of cancer that the phase 1 trial has focused on. And he also actually qualifies for the trial (which is not easy to do). With all Americans, I wish him the best.

    But let’s think for a minute about the impact of the success of a drug of this type beyond the many lives that will be saved and the significant reduction of pain and suffering. I couldn’t determine the number of healthcare workers specifically associated with the treatment of cancer, but it has to be in the hundreds of thousands, and they have relatively high-paying jobs. Then there are all the hospital beds filled by cancer patients – easily many tens of thousands. Plus all the ancillary workers that are associated with the care and welfare of cancer patients. The good news is that with the rising need for healthcare workers, those workers will be able to relatively quickly moved to an associated field. And let’s not forget the estimate Kyle Bass gave me, that at least $500 billion of market cap in big Pharma will be destroyed by a cure for cancer.

    So there are just two examples of major disruptions to employment that will be caused by near-future technological change. We haven’t even gotten into the brick-and-mortar retail jobs that online sales firms like Amazon are taking away. And warehouse workers? The list could go on and on of whole job classifications that are endangered species. These changes are going to disrupt our lives and the social cohesion of our country. And of course these shifts are coming not just in the US, but in the entire developed world. And even technology centers in the developing world are going to find themselves at risk of employment dislocations.

    Just so that I don’t appear to be a total Gloomy Gus, let me quickly note that the very technologies that are destroying job are also going to result in tens of millions of new and in many cases better jobs. Many of them will be high-paying, more life-fulfilling, and far less dangerous than the occupations they replace. I’ll write a letter in the near future in which I’ll talk about where those tens of millions of new jobs will hopefully come from.

    The glib answer to the question, “Where will the jobs come from?” has always been “I don’t know, but they will.” That is what has always happened in the past. We went from 80% of laborers working on the farm in the 1800s at barely subsistence-level incomes to 2% producing far more food today. As these farm workers became redundant, they moved to where the jobs were. And with a lot of ups and downs, we managed over time to find jobs for nearly everyone. But that transition took place over 200+ years – 10 generations. There was time for people to adjust and for markets to adapt. Even when whole industries appeared and then disappeared again, it happened over generations. Everybody bemoans the loss of US manufacturing jobs, but few realize that we are producing almost as much as we ever have – just with fewer people. And this trend will continue. More production, with fewer workers. Just like we see in the oilfields.

    [​IMG]

    The transformations I am talking about are going to happen in one half a generation, or at the most a full generation. That is not much time for adjustment, especially for a country like the United States where 69% of families have less than $1,000 in savings. (I have seen the figure quoted that 47% have less than $400.) That is not enough to deal with the loss of your job.

    [​IMG]

    The classic Republican answer to this problem is that we need to unleash the entrepreneurial tide in the United States that has been dammed up by bureaucracy and excessive taxation. And there is a point to that. But for whatever reason – and this is a topic for another letter (and it’s one I have addressed in the past) – for the past five or six years the country has had more firms close than be created, and for the first time in our history.

    [​IMG]

    people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/ and pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/05/takeaways-on-americans-growing-partisan-divide-over-political-values/) since 1994, trying to discern political polarization. These three charts look at the years 1994, 2004, and 2017. Even as late as 2004, notice the broad crossover between the median Democrat and median Republican. And then notice how wide the divide is today.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Not only are the median positions of both parties further apart, but both parties have also shifted farther to their respective extremes in the last 13 years. The middle ground is much smaller, and to my eye it looks like the Democratic group is somewhat bigger than the Republican. You can see the same thing in the breakdown of the vote by states and counties; but since political commentary is not my genre, I’m going to avoid going any further down that rabbit hole.

    But I will say that the internet, social media, and the media we consume on TV have allowed us to live in echo chambers where we are not really hearing much from the other side. We talk to people who think like we do and who tend to confirm that we are correct in our beliefs. That constant cycle of reinforcement makes our positions even more hardline, to the point where we trivialize or disparage the other side. It has seemingly become acceptable for an American congressman to say that he doesn’t feel sorry for those killed in the mass Las Vegas shooting because they were likely Trump supporters and against gun control. And for white hate groups to blatantly and publicly espouse racist positions. Antifa groups can call for the random killing of white people, simply for being white. And fewer than 30% of Millennials think that democracy is clearly the superior system of government.

    And that is where we are today. Where are we going to be when unemployment is well over 12% and rising to 15%, the government is routinely running multitrillion-dollar budget deficits, state and local pensions are defaulting, and taxes are high and still rising?

    And all this is going to happen at a time when wealth and income disparity are going to rising even faster than they are today. It’s all there in the data if you take the time to look. I am working hard to document not just the technological changes but the social, demographic, and political changes, along with the economic realities we will face in the book I’m currently writing. My greatest challenge will be to keep it under 300 pages!

    And so, yes, when people ask what is in my worry closet, it is the fragmentation of society. As a country, we are going to have to begin to think the unthinkable. We really don’t know how to accurately measure GDP or inflation, and we certainly don’t have any way to statistically measure the improvements in lifestyle over the years. And we will need those tools. As conservatives and Republicans, we are going to have to think about something like universal basic employment, as opposed to universal basic income. Good work and participating in society give us meaning in life. Income just gives us a way to scrape by, but not personal life satisfaction or meaning, which is why we have an epidemic of opioid deaths, suicides, and rising deaths from alcoholism in the United States among white unemployed workers between 45 and 54. They have lost meaning and hope in their lives.

    The calls for a guaranteed basic income (like Mark Zuckerberg’s) are just beginning, but that is going to become a major political theme in our future. Like King Canute, we cannot stop the tides – but perhaps we could get creative and channel that tide. What do we think of shorter work weeks? Just as Roosevelt put men to work during the Depression, maybe we need to think about finding jobs around our communities that need to be done. Guaranteed basic employment. Mull that over….

    Yes, that offends every Hayekian neuron in my brain, but in a world of an unimaginable and unmanageable future, we are going to have start thinking the unthinkable.

    Voters are going to want politicians to solve their problems. Politicians can’t really solve the problems we already have, let alone the problems of the future, so I expect we are going to see shifts from one political extreme to the other.

    Let’s be clear, these problems are not all going to show up next year, and most won’t even start to be understood until the early 2020s. But they’re coming, and we need to begin to plan for them now, for our country, for our own and our families’ lives, and for our portfolios. I look forward to being part of your journey and hopefully helping you to plan.

    Denver, Lugano, and Hong Kong

    On November 7, I will be speaking to the Denver CFA Society. I’m going to try to go to the Rice University homecoming that the following weekend, because there will be a special reception for former editors of the student newspaper. Editing the Rice Thresher is one of my fondest college memories and was a tremendous learning experience. Understand, we had no journalism classes and no faculty oversight. The paper was entirely student-run. The size of the paper depended on how many ads we sold. We were still printing the paper on an old letterpress with handset type. I was told by the printers that I was the first editor in 50 years who actually knew how to come in and set the time, run the presses, etc. I grew up in a print shop setting type and still have ink in my blood. The third-generation owners of the printing company that produced our paper had been printing the Thresher for over 50 years. They possessed a wealth of historical knowledge. At homecoming there will also be a public lecture by Dr. Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate and one of my personal economic heroes. Maybe I can even wrangle an invitation to dinner.

    One week later I will fly to Lugano, Switzerland, for a presentation to a conference – and I’ll try not to push myself quite so hard on this next trip across the Pond. Shane and I will also be in Hong Kong for the Bank of America Merrill Lynch conference in early January.

    This week has been one meeting after another and one call after another, and I still have 437 emails in my inbox. This letter is already too long, so I am going to hit the send button and push out my plan to share my Thanksgiving mushroom recipe to a future week.

    One of the rarest commodities today is time to pay undivided attention to anything, and the fact that that you give me some of your attention is truly humbling. I know that most of you are just as busy as I am. I try to make my writing worth your time and to make you think. I know today’s letter has been a little on the dark side, but I tell you, we will figure out together how to Muddle Through. And I hope I can help you do much better than simply Muddle Through.

    Have a great week. Take somebody with a different political view to lunch and have a sensible and agreeable conversation. Listen to other people’s perspectives and try to grasp what they’re saying. Maybe they will pass on the courtesy. Have a great week.

    Your more optimistic about life and the future than ever analyst (even though the transition will be bumpy),

    [​IMG]
    John Mauldin
    subscribers@MauldinEconomics.com

    Copyright 2017 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved.

    http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1509368820.php
     
  12. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This and That Vol 3 – Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire

    [​IMG]
    by Cognitive Dissonance
    Oct 29, 2017 9:59 AM


    Lots of original work available exclusively on my Patreon blog. For as little as $3 a month you can support my creative work and access all content. Please consider doing so at https://www.patreon.com/CognitiveDissonance


    There are a couple of phrases I often use to neatly describe the personal and social dysfunction exploding into view these days. On the personal side, my “We are only as sick as our deepest darkest secrets” perfectly illustrates how personally damaging those things are that we hide from everyone, especially ourselves.

    Since a society is composed of, and accurately reflects, its individual citizens, it stands to reason this dysfunction would reverberate throughout society even if it manifested differently on an individual basis. It is entirely possible, and in fact a regular occurrence, for hundreds of millions of people to share a ‘secret’ by simply not talking about the root issues of our social dysfunction.

    We as a society will nearly always talk over, under and around the core issues that are slowly grinding away at our sanity. Therefore “What is not discussed is far more important that what is”. A perfect example of this is the recent silliness of mass righteous indignation about kneeling or not during an act of coerced/conditioned symbolism (the ‘national anthem’) when so many far more important things are ignored like monsters hidden under the bed.

    What is often lost by those on the sidelines, either participating in the drama or confused why there is so much ado about nothing, is that the drama IS necessary both for the participants and the viewers. It does not matter which side of the divide we lay on, only that we are engaged in not talking about the things we do not wish to talk about.

    To many people my statements above will ring as nonsensical, even ridiculous, because in their view we talk incessantly about everything. The internet sees to that, which is abuzz with endless conversations and dialogue. In my opinion this is a false view and a misunderstanding of what is actually occurring. And it is a perfect example of how the illusion is often just as effective as the real thing, and sometimes more so.

    Political correctness, also known as officially promoted self censorship, doesn’t just apply to political speech. We all moderate what we say (and think) in ways large and small depending upon a million variables too numerous to list here.

    While we would like to believe society at large determines what speech is acceptable and what speech is not, in practice a few key meme makers leverage their influence via the mainstream media megaphone to set the water mark the public is then coerced into following.

    You do not need to control the herd, just a few of the lead cattle. Even then ‘control’ is too strong a word, for nudge would be more in line with how directional bias is achieved by those who wish to command. This is done in part by subtly limiting subjects to be discussed, often but not exclusively via political correctness, but then encouraging everyone to engage in vigorous debate within these narrow confines.

    Yes, there are people who will draw outside the lines and talk about anything and everything, particularly on the Internet. But for the brainwashed masses, meaning those who wish to remain safely within their mainstream cognitive comfort zone, these people are easily marginalized and dismissed as kooks, misfits, conspiracy theorists, mentally unstable and mad-as-a-hatter fruitcakes.

    Never underestimate the lengths to which people (that’s you and me folks) will go to believe what they want to believe. Therefore all that needs to be done is to convince people they want to believe what they are told to believe. The glowing idiot box in the corner (and increasing in our back pocket) is the perfect vehicle for that task.



    [​IMG]



    Color me surprised, shocked even, that at the last minute the ‘government’ has withheld full and final disclosure of the last remaining documents related to the John F. Kennedy assassination, ostensibly because they needed more time to examine about 200 for possible (further) redaction.

    I don’t even know where to begin here other than to confess to my cynical sarcasm. I do not believe a single word uttered by any ‘intelligence’ agency or those who carry their water. From their perspective it is their job, their honor bound duty, to lie about everything and anything in order to protect and promote their power and control. It’s all about furthering American hegemony at all cost, including abusing any and all remaining rights not previously stripped from average Jane and Joe.

    Earlier in life I learned that once you begin to lie, even if you never lie again, additional lies must be created and promoted in order to support or supplant old lies. It’s a vicious circle that feeds upon itself and serves no purpose other than to maintain and support the status quo…especially our personal status quo.

    We lie to gain some type of advantage, even if the benefit is merely to maintain our own inner lies and denial. The same applies to nations, particularly when that nation maintains its dominant position via bullying, manipulation, falsehoods and various other belligerent behaviors including outright war.

    Ultimately the most egregious lies, thus the most carefully crafted and concealed subterfuge, is reserved for the thoroughly domesticated and conditioned native population.

    We the People” have benefited greatly from American hegemony in ways not readily apparent to those completely immersed within the grand illusion of American exceptionalism. Obviously it is to our general and personal benefit for the lies to continue so that the status quo remains in place. The ultimate lie is that present day conditions can, and will, remain in place indefinitely.

    They cannot, they will not, they have not. The financial, social and cultural rumblings currently echoing within the hollowed out shell of America are the precursor crumbling to the ongoing (slow motion) collapse. The lies promoted by the powers that be are intended to gain advantage over you and me, along with any one or thing still willing and able to lend the US money, power, prestige, faith and belief.

    The looting will continue until the middle class has been stripped of all remaining wealth.

    So why would they continue to lie about the JFK assassination? Because we want the lies to continue. It’s that simple. Daddy, tell me another lie so I can believe it’s the truth.

    If you were told the truth, whatever that truth may be, exactly what would you do about it? Not think, not bitch and complain, but actually do? For example, if you were informed that elements inside and/or outside the government conspired to kill the President of the United States, then they, along with agencies of the government, acted in concert for decades up to present day to cover up this fact, what would you do?

    The answer is mostly likely little to nothing. But that is not the point.

    The secret sauce to keeping America limping along and the looting on track is your faith and belief things are not as bad as your average 3rd world banana republic. Undeniable evidence things might actually be equal to, or worse than, a Central American banana republic would propel a tidal wave of fear and disillusionment among the general public, quickly followed by a loss of faith and belief in our leadership and ourselves.

    Deep down inside in places we dare not look, we know this to be the truth. We also know without a shred of doubt that not only are we sleeping with the enemy, but we are entirely dependent upon the sociopaths and their skewed and rigged socioeconomic system to maintain our own (declining) lifestyle. And that lifestyle depends upon our continuing faith and belief in both the sociopaths and the system.

    We ARE the system. We support the system. Without our faith and belief the system rapidly collapses. This is called a positive feedback loop in that the faith and belief system is self reinforcing to the greatest extent possible. But nothing lasts forever, in this case simply because more and more parasites are sucking the lifeblood from the nation.

    We know this. It’s obvious. But we are desperate to believe it’s fixable (with little to no ‘cost’ to us) when it is not. To admit to ourselves this inconvertible truth means we must confront the fact the end is near. And quite frankly, we’ve grown accustomed to having our cake and eating it too. Or at least to the prevailing illusion this is the case.

    And so we lie to ourselves and expect, even demand, our leaders continue to lie to us even as we claim we wish to know the truth.

    There is no doubt that, with regard to most ‘truths’, we really do want to know the truth. For example we want to be told when a government official has embezzled money, misallocated funds or lied to benefit others, for these truths do not threaten our fundamental belief in democracy and the rule of law.

    But to discover, or be told without a doubt the government was involved in what essentially would have been a coup of the Presidential office of the United States which was, and continues to be, covered up to this day would rock people’s faith and belief in the foundation of so-called democracy.

    If this were to occur, we might actually have to start asking serious questions about other ‘events’ in the recent past. Worse, we would then begin to feel obligated to do something about it. At the very least it would threaten our own relatively comfortable status quo.

    Can’t have that, now can we? If nothing else we demand (the illusion of) law and order from our keepers in exchange for remaining mostly quiet and compliant.

    The durability and believability of a lie is in direct proportion to the number of people who benefit from the lie or who would be hurt if the lie were exposed and acknowledged. For many, the primary disadvantage, at least initially, is simply the assault upon our ego that we swallowed such a big lie for so long.

    The bigger the lie, the easier it is to keep it going once swallowed whole by the public. Our subservient devotion to a higher authority and its paternal hierarchy helps to initially cement the lie in place, then to keep questions at bay while the cement cures and hardens.

    Even those who remain skeptical or refuse to believe the lie are diminished and isolated by the tyranny of the majority opinion who (desperately) wishes to believe the authority, particularly when doubt is present. Of course, doubt is always present because only the authority can proclaim something as true or false.

    See how that works?

    At best the most recent JFK disclosures are part and parcel of an ongoing, and ever evolving, psychological operation directed at the American people. How do you control a large group of people that far outnumber those who wish to control the group? Divide and conquer is the age old method used consistently and successfully to distract, divert and divide the restless herd.

    We ain’t seen nuttin’ yet! Stay tuned for more of the same technique applied with increasing force and less subtly.



    [​IMG]



    I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention that all of the above is not exclusively an American problem. While lying and denial are decidedly human traits, “We the People” seem to take it to extremes in our mindless pursuit of conspicuous consumption.

    And what is the number one American export? That would be the American culture of mindless consumption and overall excess. More is always better, even when it isn’t.

    This uniquely American export is an absolute requirement if the practice of non sustainable excessive consumption is to be maintained to the bitter end. When running a Ponzi, new marks must constantly be found and exploited if the status quo is to be maintained for those who ultimately benefit from the Ponzi, usually the founders and/or those at the top of the food chain.

    This is a disease, a mind virus, an aliment of the spirit that will ultimately kill many of its hosts if only from an early death caused by disease and decay due to the excessive consumption. The obesity epidemic spreading throughout the western world is a perfect example. Everyone is looking for a single source, such as overeating, for what is causing the problem when it is the cumulative effects of a dysfunctional way of life that is destroying us individually and collectively from within.

    If we do not recognize, acknowledge and then own our personal participation in this dance of self destructive insanity, nothing will change. How can we possibly expect others to change if we are not willing to do so ourselves? It all begins within.



    10/29/2017

    Cognitive Dissonance

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-29/and-vol-3-–-where-there’s-smoke-there’s-fire
     
  13. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    THE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA | #BreakfastWithBrandon
    Brandon Tatum



    Published on Nov 6, 2017
     
    Son of Gloin likes this.
  15. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Living with the Exponential - I



    -- Published: Thursday, 16 November 2017

    By George Smith

    Before the middle of this century, the growth rates of our technology— which will be indistinguishable from ourselves— will be so steep as to appear essentially vertical. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the growth rates will still be finite but so extreme that the changes they bring about will appear to rupture the fabric of human history. That, at least, will be the perspective of unenhanced biological humanity.

    Kurzweil, Ray. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, September 26, 2006

    Massive debt is sealing the fate of governments and central banks. As the cards collapse, radical developments in diverse areas of technology, combined with free market entrepreneurship, will destroy and rebuild the existing social order.

    Smith, George Ford. The Fall of Tyranny, the Rise of Liberty, January 21, 2017

    My purpose in "Living with the Exponential" series is to get our thinking oriented to the supercharged future that awaits us. One sample of this future has already arrived when it was reported a month ago that AlphaGo Zero defeated AlphaGo in the game of Go, 100 games to none. A few months earlier AlphaGo had topped the best human player. Unlike AlphaGo, AlphaGo Zero taught itself to play Go.

    In 2011, IBM's Watson computer defeated the two best Jeopardy! players. Watson has since gone to medical school to assist doctors in their diagnoses.

    Chess programs that run on desktop computers or even smartphones routinely beat human grandmasters.

    The tech industry has spawned billionaires by selling to the masses. Tech titans aim to eliminate disease itself, including aging.

    But the radical future isn't limited to digits, as we're seeing with Brexit and Catalonia.

    The world is changing fast, and it will change much faster in the years ahead. Let's try to stay on top of it.


    Medicine

    Gene Editing

    “We cut your DNA, open it up, insert a gene, stitch it back up. Invisible mending,” said Dr. Sandy Macrae, president of Sangamo Therapeutics, the California company testing this for two metabolic diseases and hemophilia. “It becomes part of your DNA and is there for the rest of your life.”

    It’s like sending a mini surgeon along to place the new gene in exactly the right location.

    The experiment was done Monday in California on 44-year-old Brian Madeux. Through an IV, he received billions of copies of a corrective gene and a genetic tool to cut his DNA in a precise spot.

    Signs of whether it’s working may come in a month; tests will show for sure in three months.

    See AP Exclusive: US scientists try 1st gene editing in the body (11-15-2017)


    Surgical Training using Virtual Reality (VR)

    We wiil need to double the number of surgeons by 2030 to meet the needs of the developing world.

    Dr. Shafi Ahmed wants to train them simultaneously using VR.

    "Ahmed made a splash back in 2014 when he reached 14,000 surgeons across 100 different countries by using Google Glass to stream a surgical training session. In 2016, Ahmed took this a step further by live-streaming a cancer surgery in virtual reality that was shot in 360-degree video while he removed a colon tumor from a patient."

    He also streamed Twitter's first live operation.

    Ahmed: “Forget one-to-one. My idea is one to many. I want to share knowledge with the masses.”

    See Virtual Reality Is Reshaping Medical Training and Treatment (11-12-2017)


    Treating babies born with jaundice

    About 60 percent of babies are born with jaundice—a yellow tint to the skin and whites of the eyes.

    The color is a sign that the baby’s blood has too much bilirubin—a byproduct of the body replacing old red blood cells.

    The liver normally flushes bilirubin out of the body, but a newborns’ organ often can’t get the job done efficiently.

    Newborns being treated for jaundice must often lie naked under therapeutic blue light for hours at a time.

    New light-emitting pajamas could give parents a more comfortable, portable option for their babies.

    See Light-Up Pajamas to Treat Babies With Jaundice (11-8-2017)


    Reversing Aging

    A team led by Dr. Dongsheng Cai from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine pinpointed a critical source of aging to a small group of stem cells within the hypothalamus.

    Like fountains of youth, these stem cells release tiny fatty bubbles filled with mixtures of small biological molecules called microRNAs. With age, these cells die out, and the animal’s muscle, skin and brain function declines.

    However, when the team transplanted these stem cells from young animals into a middle-aged one, they slowed aging.

    In a groundbreaking paper published in 2013, Cai found that a molecule called NF-kappaB increased in the hypothalamus as an animal grew older. Zap out NF-kappaB activity in mice, and they showed much fewer age-related symptoms as they grew older.

    The animals also better preserved their muscle strength, skin thickness, bone and tendon integrity.


    See Breakthrough Stem Cell Study Offers New Clues to Reversing Aging (8-6-2017)


    Artificial Intelligence

    Ray Kurzweil:

    [When] a girl in Africa buys a smartphone for $75, it counts as $75 of economic activity, despite the fact that it's literally a trillion dollars of computation circa 1960, a billion dollars circa 1980. It's got millions of dollars in free information apps, just one of which is an encyclopedia far better than the one I saved up for years as a teenager to buy. All that counts for zero in economic activity because it's free. So we really don't count the value of these products.

    Technology is always going to be a double-edged sword. Fire kept us warm, cooked our food, and burned down our houses. . . It's only continued progress particularly in AI that's going to enable us to continue overcoming poverty and disease and environmental degradation while we attend to the peril.

    I'm a believer that the Turing Test is a valid test of the full range of human intelligence. . . I've been consistent in saying 2029 [will be the year an AI passes the Turing Test].

    See Ray Kurzweil on Turning Tests, Brain Extenders, and AI Ethics (11-13-2017)


    Integrated Circuits

    Most wearable electronic devices that are currently available rely on rigid electronic components mounted on plastic, rubber or textiles. These have limited compatibility with the skin, are damaged when washed, and are uncomfortable to wear because they are not breathable.

    University of Cambridge researchers have developed a process that is scalable and according to the researchers, there are no fundamental obstacles to the technological development of wearable electronic devices — both in terms of their complexity and performance.

    The printed components are flexible, washable, and require low power — essential requirements for applications in wearable electronics.

    The technology is being commercialized by Cambridge Enterprise, the University’s commercialization arm.

    See Integrated circuits printed directly onto fabric for the first time (11-10-2017)


    Government

    The United States was founded upon the concept of secession. Not once, but twice. First, in 1783, when colonies seceded from the British Empire. Second, in 1788, when states seceded from the United States.

    Within eight years of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the first secession movement arose.

    It flared up, again, in 1800 when Jefferson was elected the third President of the United States.

    And, again, in 1803 when President Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon.

    New England States would seek secession from the United States again in 1811 over the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union, and again in 1814-1815 over “Mr. Madison’s War.”

    In the 1850s, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, called “the middle states”, represented 40 percent of the U.S. economy. A powerful secessionist movement arose in these states calling for them to form a separate country.

    When the seven “Deep South” states seceded in 1860-61, many Northern newspapers upheld their legal right to secede and advocated a peaceful separation.

    Secessionist movements continue in the United States to this day.

    See Secession is as American as apple pie (11-6-2017)

    http://barbarous-relic.blogspot.com/

    http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1510842672.php
     
  16. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    America the Unserious

    How can an "exceptional nation" be so polarized by trivial matters?
    By Patrick J. BuchananNovember 21, 2017




    How stands John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” this Thanksgiving?

    How stands the country that was to be “a light unto the nations”?

    To those who look to cable TV for news, the answer must at the least be ambiguous. Consider the issues that have lately convulsed the public discourse of the American republic.

    Today’s great question seems to be whether our 45th president is as serious a sexual predator as our 42nd was proven to be, and whether the confessed sins of Senator Al Franken are as great as the alleged sins of Judge Roy Moore.

    On both questions, the divide is, as ever, along partisan lines.

    And every day for weeks, beginning with Hollywood king Harvey Weinstein, whose accusers nearly number in three digits, actors, media personalities, and politicians have been falling like nine pins over allegations and admissions of sexual predation.

    What is our civil rights issue, and who are today’s successors to the Freedom Riders of the ’60s? Millionaire NFL players “taking a knee” during the national anthem to dishonor the flag of their country in protest of racist cops.

    And what was the great cultural issue of the summer and fall?

    An ideological clamor to tear down memorials and monuments to the European discoverers of America, any Founding Father who owned slaves, and any and all Confederate soldiers and statesmen.

    Stained-glass windows of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson have been removed from the National Cathedral. Plaques to Lee and George Washington have been taken down from the walls of the Episcopal church in Alexandria where both men worshipped.

    But the city that bears Washington’s name is erecting a new statue on Pennsylvania Avenue—to honor the four-term mayor who served time on a cocaine charge: Marion Shepilov Barry.

    Whatever side one may take on these questions, can a country so preoccupied and polarized on such pursuits be taken seriously as a claimant to the status of “exceptional nation,” a model to which the world should look and aspire?

    Contrast the social, cultural, and moral morass in which America is steeped with the disciplined proceedings and clarity of purpose, direction, and goals of our 21st-century rival: Xi Jinping’s China.

    Our elites assure us that America today is a far better place than we have ever known, surely better than the old America that existed before the liberating cultural revolution of the 1960s.

    Yet President Trump ran on a pledge to “Make America Great Again,” implying that while the America he grew up in was great, in the time of Barack Obama it no longer was. And he won.

    Certainly, the issues America dealt with half a century ago seem more momentous than what consumes us today.

    Consider the matters that riveted America in the summer and fall of 1962, when this columnist began to write editorials for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. What was the civil rights issue of that day?

    In September of ’62, Governor Ross Barnett decided not to allow Air Force vet James Meredith to become the first black student at Ole Miss. Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent U.S. Marshals to escort Meredith in.

    Hundreds of demonstrators arrived on campus to join student protests. A riot ensued. Dozens of marshals were injured. A French journalist was shot to death. The Mississippi Guard was federalized. U.S. troops were sent in, just as Ike had sent them into Little Rock when Governor Orville Faubus refused to desegregate Central High.

    U.S. power was being used to enforce a federal court order on a recalcitrant state government, as it would in 1963 at the University of Alabama, where Governor George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door.

    As civil rights clashes go, this was the real deal.

    That fall, in a surprise attack, Chinese troops poured through the passes in the Himalayas, invading India. China declared a truce in November but kept the territories it had occupied in Jammu and Kashmir.

    Then there was the Cuban missile crisis, the most dangerous chapter of the Cold War.

    Since August, the Globe-Democrat had been calling for a blockade of Cuba, where Soviet ships were regularly unloading weapons. When President Kennedy declared a “quarantine” after revealing that missiles with nuclear warheads that could reach Washington were being installed, the Globe urged unity behind him, as it had in Oxford, Mississippi.

    We seemed a more serious and united nation and people then than we are today, where so much that roils our society and consumes our attention seems unserious and even trivial.

    “And how can man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?” wrote the British poet Thomas Macaulay.

    Since 1962, this nation has dethroned its God and begun debates about which of the flawed but great men who created it should be publicly dishonored. Are we really a better country today than we were then, when all the world looked to America as the land of the future?

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/america-the-unserious/
     
    Son of Gloin likes this.
  17. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is Life All About? Spoken Word | SKWealthAcademy
    skwealthacademy



    Published on Nov 22, 2017
    Today, I question certain accepted systems, including the academic and corporate career systems, into which most of us voluntarily partake of, without ever questioning if they offer the best utility for our time and effort.

    The philosophy of questioning society's systems, and whether they are truly implemented to control us rather than liberate us, is a significant element of our coming SKWealthAcademy.

    Follow me on snapchat: skweatlhacademy for daily financial and wealth building talk M-F, and for life philosophy Sat-Sun

    Visit us at our soon to be launched website
    skwealthacademy.com (not yet up and running)

    Download the SKWealthAcademy factsheet here:
    www.smartknowledgeu.com/pdf/SKWA.pdf

    Also please follow me on SnapChat to help us crowdfund the final development of SKWealthAcademy through a coming IndieGoGo campaign

    Intro and outro music is creative commons music, free to use commercially: Hiphop instrumental vol. 4, by Mr. Aurimas

    All images used on creative commons license and/or the Fair Use act for the transformative purpose of teaching and making a point
     
  18. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let that sink in a minute...
     
    searcher likes this.
  19. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    132,158
    Likes Received:
    38,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Public Are All Alone: Understanding How The Enemy Of Your Enemy Is Not Your Friend

    [​IMG]
    by Tyler Durden
    Nov 23, 2017 10:15 PM


    Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    In political matters, the public are taught to believe that some political Party is ‘good’, and that the others are “bad”; but the reality in recent times, at least in the United States, has instead been that both Parties are rotten to the core (as will be clear from the linked documentation provided here).

    [​IMG]

    Belief in this myth (that the opposition between Parties is between ‘good’ ‘friend’ versus ‘bad’ ‘enemy’) is based upon the common adage that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

    One side is believed, and ones that contradict it are disbelieved - considered to be lying, distorting: bad. But, maybe, both (or all) Parties are deceiving; maybe all of them are enemies of the public, but just in different ways; maybe each of them is trying to control the country in the interests of (and so to obtain the most financial support from) the aristocracy, while all of them are actually against the public.

    Can it really be false that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend?”

    Not only can be, but often is. And no one is able to vote intelligently without recognizing this fundamental political fact.

    It’s true between entire nations, too - not only within nations.

    For example: Hitler and Stalin were enemies of each other, but neither of them was a friend of America (except that Stalin did more than anyone else to defeat Hitler, and thereby saved the world, though the U.S. — far less a factor than the U.S.S.R. was in defeating Hitler — still refuses to acknowledge the fact that Stalin did more than anyone else did to prevent the entire world’s becoming dictatorships; so, whatever democracy exists today, is a result of that dictator, Stalin, even more than it’s a result of either FDR or Churchill).

    What about internally, then?

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump became enemies of each other, but neither of them had ever really been a friend of the American public: both of them were instead liars who would, and did, do everything they could to grab control (on the aristocracy’s behalf, who financed their respective campaigns) over what is supposed to be our Government, in a democracy. That’s just a sad fact about reality, which both of America’s political Parties deny (because they both need those voters, not merely those mega-donations; they need the public to believe that the Party cares about them).

    Most of the American public have been successfully deceived by the ‘news’media, and by the ‘history’-books (likewise published by agents for the aristocracy), to believe that the U.S. Government serves the public-interest, and not the interest of the centi-millionaires and especially billionaires, who finance political campaigns. But it’s no truer than it’s true that the enemy of your enemy is necessarily your friend: both enemies of each other can be your enemies, too. The difference here is that the enmity between the aristocracy and the public is basically intrinsic, whereas the enmities between (Republican versus Democratic, or any other divisions between) aristocrats, are basically personal — these are matters of business, instead of matters of state. They are, in a sense, different business-plans — competing business-plans. But they are all assisting the aristocracy, to control the public, so as to advance the interests of the aristocracy. They’re all competing for the aristocracy’s support, and deceiving for the public’s support. Two blatant recent examples displaying this were America’s invasion in 2003 that destroyed Iraq, and America’s invasion in 2011 that destroyed Libya. Did either of those invasions advance the interests of the American public? But the owners of Lockheed Martin and other ‘defense’ contractors blossomed after 9/11. In fact: U.S. arms-exports are at record highs.

    The now-proven reality in America is that the U.S. Government really does represent those billionaires and centi-millionaires, and not the public. It’s a now-proven reality, that the U.S. isn’t a democracy but a dictatorship - albeit, a two-Party one, with a real competition between billionaire and centi-millionaire Republicans on the one hand, versus billionaire and centi-millionaire Democrats on the other. But all billionaires and centi-millionaires are takers (that’s how they came to be super-rich, even the ones who didn’t inherit it from their parents), who (notwithstanding any ‘charity’ they may establish to avoid taxes while extending their control) receive from the public far more than they give to the public; and, so, there is actually an intrinsic class-war — not at all like Karl Marx famously said, between the bourgeoisie (including small-business owners) versus the proletariat (including some centi-millionaires and billionaires who became super-wealthy from being movie-stars or athletic stars and who don’t necessarily actually control any business at all, and so they’re “proletariats”), but instead between the aristocracy versus the public: the ancient and permanent class-conflict. It’s the entire aristocracy-of-wealth (which is maybe half of the nation’s wealth) that’s arrayed against the public (the poorer 99+% of the people). (In fact, Marx — the promoter of the view that the bourgeoisie are the public’s enemies — had aristocratic sponsors, and he would have remained obscure and died poor, if he had instead blamed the aristocracy, not “the bourgeoisie” — which is mainly the middle class — as being the exploiting-class. Marx, too, was an agent of aristocracy. He succeeded and became famous because he had aristocratic sponsors. Otherwise, his name would have simply been forgotten.)

    Anyway, the American public are now alone. No Government represents our interests. It’s now been proven that America’s Government doesn’t represent us; and it’s not even the business of any other Government in the world to represent us; so, no foreign government does, either. No Government represents us.

    In order to understand any aristocracy, one must understand what gives rise to almost all wars, because almost all wars throughout history have been between contending aristocracies - between the aristocracies of different nations. Each aristocracy needs to be able to fool its national public, to believe that they’re fighting against the foreign public, when, in fact, they’re fighting against the foreign aristocracy, and they’re fighting for the home-nation’s aristocracy - they are, almost always, fighting for one aristocracy, against another aristocracy. Any public who would know that this is the reality, would just as soon commit a democratic revolution, against the local aristocracy, as go to war for the local one, against the foreign ones. This is the reason why, in every dictatorship, the local centi-millionaires and billionaires buy up all of the ‘news’media that inform, or (on essential matters) misinform, their audiences about international relations, and about who did what to whom and why. They hire only ‘reporters’ who comply with whatever deceptions the owners feel to be necessary, in order to be able to attract sponsorships from other aristocrats’ corporations and ‘charities’. But, the aristocrats themselves are actually all in this together, because their mutually shared enemy is the public. Without deceiving the public about essential matters, no national news-medium would be able to attract the sponsorships it needs in order to grow, or even to survive.

    The public thinks it’s fighting an international war, when, in fact, they’re fighting for the local aristocracy (and its allied aristocracies), against foreign aristocracies (and their allied aristocracies). This has been true since the dawn of human civilization. Only the weapons are bigger now, and the alliances (in the World Wars) are now global. (But, of course, if there is another World War, then all of human civilization will immediately end, and not long thereafter, all human and most other forms of life will also end.)

    An excellent example of the real class-war, and of its international nature, is James Bamford’s 3 April 2012 masterful and pioneering article in Wired, “Shady Companies With Ties to Israel Wiretap the U.S. for the NSA”. He documented that even very high-up people in America’s NSA were kept out of the loop when joint U.S.-and-Israeli intelligence-agencies and private corporations were creating the present 1984-ish, “Big Brother” reality, in (at least) those countries (but, actually, the Sauds, and probably a few others, were also on the inside — the aristocracies not merely of those two countries, U.S. and Israel, are in the alliance).

    The “Deep State” isn’t merely one nation’s aristocracy and its agents; it is basically a form of actually international gang-warfare. That’s what got us into invading and destroying Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, Ukraine (by coup 2014), and so many other nations. It wasn’t done in order to serve the America public’s interests. That’s just the standard lie — and it keeps going on, and on. Maybe until we invade Russia.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...standing-how-enemy-your-enemy-not-your-friend
     

Share This Page