Tuesday, October 22, 2024

“The Loss Of Dignity”

“The Loss Of Dignity”
by The Zman

“If you step back and think about it, the normal man can probably list a dozen things he cannot say in public that he grew up hearing on television, usually as jokes. Then the jokes were no longer welcome in polite company and soon they were deemed “not funny” by the sorts of people who worry about such things. The same was true of simple observations about the world. Somehow noticing the obvious became impolite, then it became taboo and finally prohibited.

The reverse is true as well. Middle-aged men can probably think of a dozen things that were unimaginable or unheard of, which are now fully normal. Of course, normal is one of those things that is now prohibited. It implies that something can be abnormal or weird and that itself is forbidden. The proliferation of novel identities and activities that demand to be treated with dignity and respect is a function of the old restraints having been eliminated. When everything is possible you get everything.

The strange thing about all of this is there is seemingly no point to it. The proliferation of new taboos was not in response to some harm being done. In most cases, the taboos are about observable reality. The people turning up in the public square with novel identities or activities demanding respect did not exist very long ago. If they did, not one was curious enough to look into it. The public was happy to ignore people into unusual activities, as long as they kept it to themselves.

Of course, none of what we generally call political correctness is intended to be uplifting or inspirational. The commissars of public morality like to pretend it is inspiring, but that’s just a way to entertain themselves. These new identity groups are not demanding the rest of us seek some higher plane of existence or challenge our limitations. In fact, it is always in the opposite directions. It’s a demand to lower standards and give up on our quaint notions of self-respect and human dignity.

In the "Demon In Democracy", Polish academic Ryszard Legutko observed that liberal democracy had abandoned the concept of dignity. This is the obligation to behave in a certain way, as determined by your position in society. Dignity was earned by acting in accordance with the high standards of the community. In turn, this behavior was rewarded with greater privilege and responsibility. Failure to live up to one’s duties would result in the loss of dignity, along with the status it conferred.

Instead, modern liberal democracy awards dignity by default. We are supposed to respect all choices and all behaviors as being equal. There are no standards against which to measure human behavior, other than the standard of absolute, unconditional acceptance. As a result, the most inventively degenerate and base activities spring from the culture, almost like a test of the community’s tolerance. Instead of looking up to the heavens for inspiration, liberal democracies look down in the gutter.

Dignity comes from maintaining one’s obligations to his position in the social order, but that requires a fidelity to a social order. It also requires a connection to the rest of the people in the society. In a world of deracinated individuals focused solely on getting as much as they can in order to maximize pleasure, a sense of commitment to the community is not possible. Democracy assumes we are all equal, therefore we have no duty to one another as duty requires a hierarchical relationship.

In the absence of a vertical set of reciprocal relationships, we get this weird lattice work of horizontal relationships, elevating the profane and vulgar, while pulling down the noble and honorable. The public culture is about minimizing and degrading those who participate in the public culture. In turn, the public culture attracts only those who cannot be shamed or embarrassed. The great joy of public culture is to see those who aspire to more get torn down as the crowd roars at their demise.

The puzzle is why this is a feature of liberal democracy. Ryszard Legutko places the blame on Protestantism. Their emphasis on original sin and man’s natural limitations minimized man’s role in the world. This focus on man’s wretchedness was useful in channeling our urge to labor and create into useful activities, thus generating great prosperity, but it left us with a minimalist view of human accomplishment. We are not worthy to aspire to anything more than the base and degraded.

It is certainly true that the restraints of Christianity limited the sorts of behavior that are common today, but he may be putting the cart before the horse. The emergence of Protestantism in northern Europe was as much a result of the people and their nature as anything else. Put more simply, the Protestant work ethic existed before there was such a thing as a Protestant. The desire to work and delay gratification evolved over many generations out of environmental necessity.

Still, culture is an important part of man’s environment and environmental factors shape our evolution. It is not unreasonable to say that the evolution of Protestant ethics magnified and structured naturally occurring instincts among the people. With the collapse of Christianity as a social force in the West, the natural defense to degeneracy and vulgarity has collapsed with it. As a result, great plenty is the fuel for a small cohort of deviants to overrun the culture of liberal democracies.

Even so, there does seem to be something else. Liberal democracy has not produced great art or great architecture. The Greeks and Romans left us great things that still inspire the imagination of the man who happens to gaze upon them. The castles and cathedrals of the medieval period still awe us. The great flourishing of liberal democracy in the 20th century gave us Brutalism and dribbles of pain on canvas. The new century promises us primitives exposing themselves on the internet.

There is something about the liberal democratic order that seeks to strip us of our dignity and self-respect. Look at what happened in the former Eastern Bloc countries after communism. Exposed to the narcotic of liberalism they immediately acquired the same cultural patterns. Fertility collapsed. Religion collapsed. Marriage and family formation collapsed. These suddenly free societies got the Western disease as soon as they were exposed to western liberal democracy.

The reaction we see today is not due to these societies being behind the times, but due to seeing the ugly face of liberal democracy. It is much like the reaction to the proliferation of recreational drugs in the 1970’s. At first, it seemed harmless, but then people realized the horror of unrestrained self-indulgence. That’s what we see in the former Eastern Bloc. Their leaders still retain some of the old sense of things and are trying to save their people from the dungeon of modernity.

That still leaves us with the unanswered question. What is it about liberal democracy that seems to lead to this loss of dignity? It is possible that such a fabulously efficient system for producing wealth is a tool mankind is not yet equipped to handle without killing ourselves. Maybe we are just not built for anything but scarcity. Want gives us purpose and without it, we lose our reason to exist. Either way, without dignity, we cannot defend ourselves and the results are inevitable.”

"Helpless People"

"Helpless People"

“Almost all Americans have had an intense school experience which occupied their entire youth, an experience during which they were drilled thoroughly in the culture and economy of the well-schooled greater society, in which individuals have been rendered helpless to do much of anything except watch television or punch buttons on a keypad.

Before you begin to blame the childish for being that way and join the chorus of those defending the general imprisonment of adults and the schooling by force of children because there isn’t any other way to handle the mob, you want to at least consider the possibility that we’ve been trained in childishness and helplessness for a reason. And that reason is that helpless people are easy to manage.

Helpless people can be counted upon to act as their own jailers because they are so inadequate to complex reality they are afraid of new experience. They’re like animals whose spirits have been broken. Helpless people take orders well, they don’t have minds of their own, they are predictable, they won’t surprise corporations or governments with resistance to the newest product craze, the newest genetic patent - or by armed revolution. Helpless people can be counted on to despise independent citizens and hence they act as a fifth column in opposition to social change in the direction of personal sovereignty.”

"A Parade Of Fools..."

"Humanity is a parade of fools,
and I am at the front of it, twirling a baton."
- Dean Koontz

"We All Do What We Can..."

“All sins, of course, deserve to be treated with mercy: we all do what we can, and life is too hard and too cruel for us to condemn anyone for failing in this area. Does anyone know what he himself would do if faced with the worst and how much truth could he bear under such circumstances?”
- Andre Comte-Sponville
Joe South, “Walk A Mile In My Shoes”

"How It Really Is"

 

"From High Inflation to Hyperinflation: How Close Are We?"

Yeah, the FED has a sense of humor after all...
those are the actual colors on the money.
Too bad the jokes on us, as always.

"From High Inflation to Hyperinflation:
 How Close Are We?"
by Nick Giambruno

"The Federal Reserve is now entering a monetary easing and rate cutting cycle in an environment of elevated inflation. The last time this happened was during the 1970s, a decade that saw inflation spiral out of control.

The 1970s: An Optimistic Scenario: In the early 1970s, under Chairman Arthur Burns, the Fed faced rising inflation and concerns about economic growth and unemployment. Despite elevated inflation, the Fed cut interest rates multiple times until 1972 to stimulate economic growth. Inflation soared to over 12% in the months that followed. In response to the rising inflation, the Fed raised rates aggressively in 1974, pushing the federal funds rate from around 5.75% to 13%.

However, as the economy entered a deeper recession, the Fed began cutting rates again in 1975 despite inflation remaining elevated at around 9%. By the end of the decade, inflation had reached double digits again at over 11% in 1979 and peaked at 13.5% in 1980. The raging inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s is a stark illustration of the danger of cutting interest rates in an environment of elevated inflation… such as the one we are in today.

However, as bad as the 1970s inflation was, I believe it’s an optimistic scenario. That’s because the out-of-control inflation then was only tamed when Paul Volcker hiked rates above 17%… an option that is not available to the Fed today because of the skyrocketing federal interest expense. In fact, the Fed could only raise rates to about 5.25% - less than a third of what Volcker had to do - before capitulating recently. In other words, the higher the debt load, the less room the Fed has to raise rates because of the interest expense.

As the debt pile and accompanying interest expense grow exponentially, I am skeptical of their ability to hike rates to even 5.25% again; forget about higher than that. Imagine what could have happened in the 1970s and early 1980s if Volcker could have raised rates to only 5.25% instead of over 17%. This is the environment the US now finds itself in.

Rate Cuts Amid Elevated Inflation: Other Examples: If the 1970s in the US is the optimistic scenario, Brazil and Argentina in the 1980s offer other possibilities. Both countries were cutting interest rates amid elevated inflation at the time, resulting in eventual hyperinflation. The same thing happened in Zimbabwe in the 2000s when the central bank cut interest rates amid elevated inflation, culminating in hyperinflation. In the 2010s, the Venezuelan government kept interest rates artificially low despite skyrocketing inflation. The result was hyperinflation.

These examples highlight the dangers of cutting interest rates or maintaining low rates in an environment of elevated inflation. In each case, the central banks’ actions, often influenced by political pressures, exacerbated inflation and led to severe economic crises. While those examples are insightful, the US is not in the same class as Argentina, Brazil, or Zimbabwe. It’s the most powerful country in the history of the world, leader of the current world order, and issuer of the world’s premier reserve currency. So, it will take a lot more to push the US into hyperinflation.

I’m not saying that hyperinflation in the US is inevitable or imminent, though it remains a growing possibility. That is especially true as World War 3 plays out and a multipolar world order potentially emerges that could change everything. In the meantime, I believe ever-increasing currency debasement potentially worse than what the US experienced in the 1970s - though not necessarily imminent hyperinflation - is an unstoppable trend you can bet on."

"The Other End of the World"

"Declaration of Independence" by John Trumbull, painted 1818

"The Other End of the World"
Jefferson's break-up note and a 
quarter-millennia trip back through time...
by Jeff Thomas

“What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector?
 The taxidermist takes only your skin.”
~ Mark Twain

"When Thomas Jefferson sat down to compose that most eloquent break-up letter to King George III, known more commonly as The Declaration of Independence, he opted against the pithy “It’s not us; it’s you.” And a good thing, too.

Swarms of Officers: Nothing if not thorough, the aggrieved party enumerated a “history of repeated injuries and usurpations” such as are (or at least ought to be) well-known to any first year civics student. Along with having “plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people,” the jilted monarch stood accused of a comprehensive list of obstructions, deprivations and impositions such as would make even the most errant philanderer blush.

As it turned out, the freedom-loving men and women living in the “thirteen united states of America” were none-too-keen on their king having “kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.”

Nor were they thrilled at his cutting off their trade with other nations around the world... depriving them of the right to trial by jury... or imposing taxes without consent. And that’s to say nothing of the king’s having “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

In short, the king’s subjects had had enough. So when, leaving little room for niggling ambiguity, Mr. Jefferson declared..."That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

...he did a service not only for his newly realized compatriots – whom we might call “freed citizens” – but for their progeny, too... as well as for lovers of liberty on foreign shores. A pivotal moment in history, the Declaration was not merely the birth of one nation, but a signal to individuals living under tyranny in all nations, both then and since.
No Means No!

To frame it in a way that our younger, socially-enlightened readers might understand: America’s "Declaration of Independence" was a bit like the #MeToo movement, only for citizens and subjects suffering abusive power differentials under touchy tyrants, casting couch authoritarians and other such prehensile swindlers calling themselves “governments” the world over. The American Declaration gave others the courage to say to their own would-be overlords, “No means no!”

It is no mere coincidence, for example, that "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" was published in France only thirteen years after America’s very public sovereign divorce, during the height of the French Revolution. (Jefferson himself even helped with the wording, which was drafted first by the Marquis de Lafayette and finished, mostly, by Abbé Sieyès.)

That document gave the world the idea that “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” (Article I); that such rights, “natural and imprescriptible,” are “liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression” (Article II); and that “liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others” (Article IV). It also asserted the principle of popular sovereignty, in contrast to the divine right of kings.

All of which brings us back to our subject at hand... man’s natural rights, his complicated and ever-evolving relationship to the state, and the precedents set by those brave souls who went before him.

Consider for a moment the lines in the sand Messrs. Jefferson et al. drew under “taxation without consent,” the “right to property” and “sending hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” Prior to their independence, American colonists paid between 1-1.5% in mostly indirect taxes, far below the 5-7% the crown levied upon their British cousins and a frightfully long way below the ~25% average Americans pay today. According to historian Alice Hansen Jones, at the end of the colonial era, Americans also enjoyed the highest annual income in the western world: £13.85.

Fast Forward a Quarter-Millennia...Today, America’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employs nearly one-hundred thousand officers to gouge hardworking citizens a percentage of their income that would have been unimaginable in Jefferson’s own time. And yet, even after sending forth an army of tax collectors to harass its people, at a non-trivial expense north of $16 billion annually, the appetite of the Leviathan is such that the pilfered lucre falls well short of satiation.

According to figures released by the US Treasury Department last Friday, the Biden-Harris administration rang up the single highest non-Covid budget deficit in history last year, with a shortfall topping $1.833 trillion. That was up 8%, or $138 billion, on last year’s number. Had it not been for the Supreme Court overturning President Biden’s student loan forgiveness scheme (~$330 billion), that figure would comfortably have sailed beyond the $2 trillion mark.

Per Treasury figures, the deficit came despite record tax receipts of $4.9 trillion, a number well short of the $6.75 trillion the government squandered on the various schemes, scams and boondoggles it calls “work.”

More concerning still, a critical driver of the deficit growth was skyrocketing interest on the national debt, which at $1.16 trillion for the year surpassed the trillion dollar mark for the first time in history. The national debt itself now stands at $35.7 trillion, an increase of $2.3 trillion from the end of fiscal 2023. Servicing the debt now costs more than the nation’s entire military defense budget.

Runaway debts... eye-watering deficits... an army of officers sent forth to eat out the substance of a nation… the growth and growth of an insatiable blobocracy... One is almost tempted to ask, What would Jefferson do?"

Gregory Mannarino, "Everything Is About To Change, We Are Being Destroyed From Within"

Gregory Mannarino, 10/22/24
"Everything Is About To Change, 
We Are Being Destroyed From Within"
Comments here:

"Scott Ritter: Israel on the Brink: IDF Morale Collapsing Amid Escalating Chaos!"

Dialogue Works, 10/22/24
"Scott Ritter: Israel on the Brink: 
IDF Morale Collapsing Amid Escalating Chaos!"
Comments here:
o
Dialogue Works, 10/22/24
"Col. Larry Wilkerson: Israel Falling Apart:
 Is Iran & Hezbollah About to End It All?"
Comments here:
o
Stipendium peccati mors est, Israel, and it's coming...
Robert Palmer, 
"You're Gonna Get What's Coming"

Dan, I Allegedly, "40% of Restaurants Can't Pay Rent - The Ugly Reality"

Full screen recommended.
Dan, I Allegedly, 10/22/24
"40% of Restaurants Can't Pay Rent - 
The Ugly Reality"
Comments here:

Bill Bonner, "Revolt of the Masses"

"Revolt of the Masses"
A ‘time bomb’ is only useful if it blows up. And a crime must have a victim.
 People, not wanting to get blown up, seek shelter. 
This is the problem the Fed’s researchers were trying to solve.
by Bill Bonner

Baltimore, Maryland - "The most obvious narrative for future economic historians is probably something like this...In the early 21st century, politicians lost control of spending. Debt rose much faster than GDP. Then, inflation made it much harder for the Fed to continue ‘printing’ money. But as soon as inflation moderated, in 2024, it went back to its old habits - lowering interest rates and inducing more and more people to borrow and spend.

By then, lowering interest rates was no longer an option; it was a necessity. The feds needed low rates to finance and re-finance their runaway deficits. But investors became reluctant to lend more money to a borrower who was clearly going broke. Interest rates rose, and the only recourse was to ‘print’ money – trillions of it. The result was more inflation - the defining feature of the 2024-2034 period.

Pretty straightforward. Simple. Maybe too simple? ‘What are we missing,’ is the question we left you with yesterday. Today, we explore one possibility, coming to us in a startlingly candid research report published by the Minnesota Fed a few days ago. Entitled ‘The Unique Implementation of Permanent Primary Deficits’ the paper gives a hint of what the feds might have up their sleeves. You can read the report yourself. Or this handy summary from the authors (emphasis added is ours):

In an economy with incomplete markets and consumers who are sufficiently risk averse, we show that the government can uniquely implement a permanent primary deficit using nominal debt and continuous Markov strategies for primary deficits and payments to debtholders. But this result fails if there are also useless pieces of paper (bitcoin for short) that can be traded. If there is trade in bitcoin, then there is no continuous Markov strategy for the government that leads to unique implementation. Instead, there is a continuum of equilibria with distinct real allocations in which the price of bitcoin converges to zero.

And there is a balanced budget trap: continuous government policies designed for a permanent primary deficit cannot eliminate an alternative steady state in which r - g = 0 and the government is forced to balance its budget. A legal prohibition against bitcoin can restore unique implementation of permanent primary deficits, and so can a tax on bitcoin at the rate -(r - g) > 0.

Some background...The IMF reports that governments are creating a “$100 trillion fiscal time bomb.” When government bases its fiscal policy on large quantities of ‘printed’ money, the system becomes unstable. That is, there is no ‘Markov strategy’ that the feds can use to defuse the bomb. In plain English, if they continue printing more and more dollars, people will soon want no more dollars. They’ll look for alternatives. They will find Bitcoin, for example. And gold.

But before we see where this leads... let’s try to understand what inflation does for the feds and why it is so important. A ‘time bomb’ is only useful if it blows up. And a crime must have a victim. People, not wanting to get blown up, seek shelter. This is the problem the Fed’s researchers were trying to solve. Inflation is a form of theft. But it only ‘works’ as a federal policy so long as someone gets robbed. The feds ‘print money,’ pretend it is valuable, distribute it to people... who are then ripped off by it. In 1971, for example, a saver might have worked hard his entire career to lay aside $100,000. By 2024, his money would have been devalued by about 90%. In other words, he was cheated out of $90,000.

That’s why an inflationary system is unstable. People try to protect themselves. And if they succeed, the policy fails. Or, to put it differently, inflation is just an underhanded way to tax people. But it only works as long as someone ‘pays’ the tax.

So, let’s imagine a ‘revolt of the masses.’ Alert to the scam, and seeing more and more debt... and more and more ‘money printing’... consumers might switch to gold... or bitcoin, instead. Then, government is forced into the ‘balanced budget trap,’ because it can no longer borrow at reasonable rates... and no one wants its ‘printed’ currency.

This time a year ago, Argentina was almost there. People had gotten so fed up with inflation, and so savvy about how to avoid it, they were switching to dollars as fast as they could. Almost all substantial real estate prices were quoted in dollars, not in pesos. Machinery and equipment, most of it imported, was priced in dollars, too. On-line remote workers were paid in dollars…or Bitcoin. And cab drivers... waiters... and hairdressers, were happy to get dollars whenever they could. The elites were beginning to realize that they could no longer exploit the masses with inflation. Then, it was almost as if they wanted to lose the election and leave the mess to someone else to clean up.

And what about the US? The rich can easily switch out of dollar-dependent assets and into stock, commodity, gold, or property funds. But what about consumers? Could they just move to Bitcoin... and avoid the inflation tax? What’s to stop them? And then, would the feds be ‘trapped’ into balancing the budget? We’ll look more at that, tomorrow."

"Alert! Israeli General's Insane WW3 Warning; Russian Subs; Ukraine Nukes"

Canadian Prepper, 10/21/24
"Alert! Israeli General's Insane WW3 Warning; 
Russian Subs; Ukraine Nukes"
Comments here:

"This Is Horrific, The Worst Disaster I Have Ever Seen; Historic Devastation, Towns Wiped Out"

Full screen recommended.
Jeremiah Babe, 10/21/24
"This Is Horrific, The Worst Disaster I Have Ever Seen; 
Historic Devastation, Towns Wiped Out"
Comments here:

Monday, October 21, 2024

Musical Interlude: Supertramp, "Take The Long Way Home"

Full screen recommended.
Supertramp, "Take The Long Way Home"

"A Look to the Heavens"

"The beautiful Trifid Nebula is a cosmic study in contrasts. Also known as M20, it lies about "5,000 light-years away toward the nebula rich constellation Sagittarius. A star forming region in the plane of our galaxy, the Trifid does illustrate three different types of astronomical nebulae; red emission nebulae dominated by light from hydrogen atoms, blue reflection nebulae produced by dust reflecting starlight, and dark nebulae where dense dust clouds appear in silhouette. But the red emission region roughly separated into three parts by obscuring dust lanes is what lends the Trifid its popular name.
Pillars and jets sculpted by newborn stars, below and left of the emission nebula's center, appear in famous Hubble Space Telescope close-up images of the region. The Trifid Nebula is about 40 light-years across. Just too faint to be seen by the unaided eye, it almost covers the area of a full moon in planet Earth's sky."

"Never Regret Anything..."

 

"The Political Party Illusion"

"The Political Party Illusion"
by Jeff Thomas

"It has been said that every great nation has its rise and fall; that its rise occurs as a result of the population (in general) becoming determined to work hard to create a better life, and that its fall occurs when the population becomes spoiled, then complacent and then finally, apathetic. Much of the First World has reached this latter stage, all (to varying degrees) at the same time. Unfortunately, from a historical standpoint, the period of apathy is almost invariably followed by a period of bondage – a marked social and economic decline in which the people of the nation become little more than serfs of the state that rules them.

While most readers would agree that this describes the First World in its present state, they would likely argue that this time around, bondage will not be the end result. While reason might tell them that this is exactly the predictable (and historical) outcome, the idea of bondage is too frightful to consider as being a possibility. While a few seem to be railing against this eventuality, the great majority simply open a beer and turn on the TV. A very comfortable form of apathy, but apathy just the same.

Feudalism, Past and Present: So, are there any differences this time around? I would say that there is one major difference, and that is that the packaging is more sophisticated.

In days of yore, the Sheriff of Nottingham and his men rode into your village and demanded what few silver pennies you may have earned recently. This was clearly a dictatorial government – one which was ruled by force, so that the people were clearly serfs and had no real say. Punishment was simple: If you did not pay, your hut was burned, your possessions confiscated, and you were thrown in prison to remain until the debt had been paid. (Nobles fared a bit better: In the 15th century an ancestor of mine, Lord James of Dartmouth, spent several months in the Tower of London until he could pay King Henry IV a sum of 2000 pounds, literally a "King’s ransom" – in spite of the fact that Lord James was said to have been a favorite of the King.)

Now, of course, things are entirely different. Today, the Sheriff does not ride into your village demanding your money. You are required to send it in yourself. If you fail to pay, your house is not burned. It is confiscated, along with your other possessions, and you face prison. Increasingly, people are ruled by force just as in the 15th century. But in spite of this, citizens of many First World countries still claim to have free elections – the last bastion of the democratic system.

The Democratic Process: The idea of the democratic process is that the people may elect their leaders and thus control their destiny. However, running for office is quite expensive, and this means finding donors. Understandably, anyone who provides a donation does not regard it as a gift. He seeks something in return. In national elections, this means very large donations, translating into very large compensations. Those who contribute the most (Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banks, the Military Industry, etc.) can demand quite a bit in return.

In any "democracy" that has been in existence for a long enough time, the relationship between donors and candidates has become circular; that is, after the candidate is elected, he repays the donor, by providing either tax dollars or rights to operate that others do not enjoy. Once the circular relationship is fully cemented for a period of time, the returns to the donor grow to far exceed the donations. As a result, voters are, unwittingly, actually paying the donors and the government to dominate their lives.

Not surprisingly, donors come to regard these tax dollar infusions as a regular source of revenue and seek to have them grow regularly. (If voters could understand this circular relationship, they would be less surprised when their legislators – whether they be conservative or liberal – consistently fail to diminish the government need for tax.) So we are left with the remaining advantage of democracy: the ability to vote for those who will protect our freedoms, as we see them.

The Two Party System: In the majority of First World countries, there are a host of political parties (America is a notable exception), each claiming to represent a specific point of view. Most of the parties are fringe parties, and voting generally comes down to the two main parties: liberal and conservative. Liberals claim to champion the social freedoms (gay rights, abortion, etc.) whilst trying to limit economic freedom. Conservatives claim to champion the precise opposite.

Most voters seem to see the system as alternating between the two parties. For example, first the liberals win and increase the social freedoms of the country. Then after awhile they are voted out and the conservatives have their turn, increasing the economic freedoms. Described in this way, it would seem that the "two-party system" provides an ideal balance, moving ever-forward with increased freedoms for all.

However, if this attractive image were the case, liberal voters would not be filled with disappointment at the end of a liberal term in which their social freedoms somehow had not increased. (Their party somehow "needed to compromise" with the evil conservatives.) However, if the liberal party was successful in diminishing economic freedoms, this distraction would serve to keep these voters loyal to the party.

At the end of a conservative term, it is the reverse. While their stated objectives for regained economic freedoms somehow failed to come to pass (again, "compromise" was somehow necessary), the leaders still managed to limit social freedoms in some way. (The Patriot Act in America is perhaps the most extraordinary example.)

What voters seem to miss is that, along the way, far from increasing one type of freedom under one party, then increasing the alternate type of freedom under the other, the net effect is the exact opposite. Under a liberal government, economic freedom is diminished, and under a conservative government, social freedom is diminished. Freedom, in general, therefore, ratchets downward with each term. It does seem that voters throughout the First World are beginning to recognize that they are getting short shrift no matter which party is in power, and that their country is headed inexorably downward (while the leaders seem to be doing rather well.)

Will the voters ultimately rebel? Will the minor demonstrations of discontent evident now in the First World escalate into something more organized and more violent? What do the politicians think is likely to happen? Whilst they are not commenting on the subject, we should be able to guess their predictions based upon their actions. If they plan to increase freedoms in the future, they would be providing a calming effect to the present frustrations. However, if their true goal is a return to a kind of modern serfdom, they would be preparing for it by increasing their controls, both economic and social. In much of the First World, the latter seems to be the intended direction. Nowhere is this more evident than in America, with the renewal of the Patriot Act, and with the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Modern Day Feudalism: As stated above, the main difference between the feudal system of five hundred years ago and the feudal system that is developing in the First World today is that the packaging is more sophisticated. Instead of having identifiable kings whom we may all hate, we have the distraction of two political teams that we may "choose" between. While we praise the good guys (our preferred political party) and hope that they will vanquish the bad guys (the opposing political party), they are in fact one and the same, and they both work for the kings."

The Daily "Near You?"

Ellijay, Georgia, USA. Thanks for stopping by!

"Violence: The Starting Point Of Civilization"

"Violence: The Starting Point Of Civilization"
by John Wilder

"Violence is something that society has been built to avoid. Historically, violence has been much higher – I recently wrote about the Yanomami people and how half of their men died in combat up until recently. This is an ugly fact.

One of the myths that has been force-fed to us is that native peoples are nice and peaceful and reverent. I had heard that people like the Blackfoot tribe “used ever part” of the animals they killed. But that same tribe would kill them by making a herd stampede over a cliff, mashing themselves as they fell – it’s what’s called a “buffalo jump”. Yes, I imagine they used a lot of the buffalo, but I’m fairly certain that practice resulted in a lot of waste just by the sheer nature gravity and the rocks below. Likewise, the Aztecs were worse: they sacrificed 4,000 actual humans for one party in 1487.

Yet, now the world is much safer, though places like the United States are getting less safe by the day. Why? Not enough violence. At least, not enough violence in the right places.

While Western Civilization certainly didn’t start the idea of laws, they’ve been embraced wholeheartedly since laws work. Although the number of laws in our current system far exceeds the number we need for a functioning society, laws are still important. But laws are just words. Ultimately, enforcement of the law means that someone has to be willing to employ violence to follow up on the law, up to and including killing the violator. That’s where the sheer number of laws gets silly. Should we really face imprisonment for a broken taillight?

Yes, I know that’s not the penalty, but try not paying the fine and see what happens. Eventually, people with guns will come and put you in jail and if you resist, they will shoot you. The reason I think we should consider very carefully what laws we as a society have is that ultimately the threat of violence is what underpins them all. The Feds ended up putting dozens of people to death at Waco over novelty paperweights. That is, of course, a ludicrous overuse of force, done by bureaucrats so that they could justify their funding at the congressional level.

I think we can agree, though, that laws are necessary. And laws gain power through their enforcement. If a law isn’t enforced, it loses all of its power. If the penalty is too small, then the law will be ignored. As I read once, “If a law is only punishable by a fine, that means it’s legal for a price.” Likewise, if attempted murder is punishable by six months in the slammer (I recently read about a murderer who was out after that length of time for attempted murder), the penalty is less severe than the fifteen years that a man received in Iowa for burning a pride flag.

If there is no penalty for crossing the American border and then taking over apartment buildings in Aurora, Colorado, why, people will do exactly that. And why stop at one apartment building? Martha Raddatz of ABC® seems to think that five is a perfectly acceptable number of apartment complexes to be taken over by criminal Venezuelan gangs.

This is the outcome of the propaganda that “violence is never the solution”. Violence, or the threat of violence is often the only solution to many problems. An example is if a thief is attempting to break into my house and do Heaven knows what. My answer isn’t to politely state that what the thief is trying to do violates the laws.

Nope. In order to protect my house and family, I may have to use violence at that point. Certainly, it will be a reluctant use, but the reason why homes don’t experience much burglary around here is because people have guns and burglars know that, and also know that juries around here are made of people just like me.

The law doesn’t keep houses in Modern Mayberry safe, the threat of violence keeps people safe. But all the world isn’t Modern Mayberry. Places like Chicago or Baltimore have ongoing violence levels that are at multi-decadal highs. Why? The criminals have gotten the message that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want. And if someone tries to step in and protect citizens? Well, like the Marine Corps veteran Daniel Penny, who restrained a potentially dangerous man in a way he thought would keep everyone safe, they’ll be put on trial. Yes, and the trial is expected to take six weeks. At $1,000 an hour for lawyers, that’s $40,000 a week. Or $240,000 for all six. Maybe he’s got a coupon?

Regardless of if Penny is found guilty or not, his trial sends the same message as New York has always sent to its citizens: you’re not allowed to protect yourselves. Criminals threatening violence have the upper hand. Just ask Bernie Goetz, who decided he refused to be a mugging victim again.

We’re at the point where the criminals will start using violence – not because they have any political objective, but just because no one is stopping them, and those who would attempt to stop them are punished very visibly.

The way forward is obvious. At some point, decent people will have no other place to flee, and will have to stand and fight. When I review history, the pattern is pretty clear that civilization does return, though it does take the reestablishment of violence to get us there, and probably a few more buffalo jumps.

And it’s been 200 years since the last organized buffalo jump, I hear. I guess that makes it a bison-tennial. And maybe Penny can get an Aztec lawyer – they get right to the heart of the problem."
Full screen recommended.
Steve Cutts, "A Brief Disagreement"
"A visual journey into mankind's favorite pastime throughout the ages."

There's just something profoundly wrong with the DNA...

"It Strikes Me..."

“It goes against the American storytelling grain to have someone in a situation he can’t get out of, but I think this is very usual in life. There are people, particularly dumb people, who are in terrible trouble and never get out of it, because they’re not intelligent enough. It strikes me as gruesome and comical that in our culture we have an expectation that man can always solve his problems. This is so untrue that it makes me want to cry - or laugh.”
- Kurt Vonnegut

"Life Is An Illusion: Playing Your Part "

"Life Is An Illusion: Playing Your Part "
by Madisyn Taylor, The DailyOM

"Having the wisdom to know that life is but a dream does not mean that we ignore living. As children, most of us sang that mesmerizing, wistful lullaby that ends with the words, 'Life is but a dream.' This is a classic example of a deep, sophisticated truth hiding, like an underground stream, in an unlikely place. It winds its way through our minds like a riddle or a Zen koan, coming up when we least expect it and asking that we consider its meaning. Many gurus and philosophers agree with this mysterious observation, saying that this world we perceive as real is actually an illusion, not unlike a film being projected on a screen. Most of us are so involved in the projection that we don't understand it for what it is. We are completely caught up in the illusion, imagining that we are in a life and death struggle and taking it very seriously.

The enlightened few, on the other hand, live their lives in the light of the awareness that what most of us perceive as reality is a passing fancy. As a result, they behave with detachment, compassion, and wisdom, while the rest of us struggle and writhe upon the stage in the play of our life. Having the wisdom to know that life is but a dream does not mean that we ignore it or don't do our best with the twists and turns of our fate. Rather, like an actress who plays her role fully even as she knows it's only a role, we engage in the unfolding drama, but with a little more freedom because we know that this is not the totality of who we are.

And life is more of an improvisation than it is like a play whose lines have already been written, whose end is already known. Like an improviser, we have choices to make and the more we embrace the illusionary quality of the performance, the lighter we can be on the planet, on others, and on ourselves. We can truly play with the shadows cast by the light of the projector, fully engaging without getting bogged down."
"We are game-playing, fun-having creatures, we are the otters of the universe. We cannot die, we cannot hurt ourselves any more than illusions on the screen can be hurt. But we can believe we're hurt, in whatever agonizing detail we want. We can believe we're victims, killed and killing, shuddered around by good luck and bad luck."
"Many lifetimes?", I asked.
"How many movies have you seen?"
"Oh."
"Films about living on this planet, about living on other planets; anything that's got space and time is all movie and all illusion," he said. "But for a while we can learn a huge amount and have a lot of fun with our illusions, can we not?"
- Richard Bach,
Moody Blues, "Land of Make-Believe"

"How It Really Is"

 

"Economic Market Snapshot 10/21/24"

"Economic Market Snapshot 10/21/24"
Down the rabbit hole of psychopathic greed and insanity...
Only the consequences are real - to you!
"It's a Big Club, and you ain't in it. 
You and I are not in the Big Club."
- George Carlin
o
Market Data Center, Live Updates:
Comprehensive, essential truth.
Financial Stress Index

"The OFR Financial Stress Index (OFR FSI) is a daily market-based snapshot of stress in global financial markets. It is constructed from 33 financial market variables, such as yield spreads, valuation measures, and interest rates. The OFR FSI is positive when stress levels are above average, and negative when stress levels are below average. The OFR FSI incorporates five categories of indicators: creditequity valuationfunding, safe assets and volatility. The FSI shows stress contributions by three regions: United Statesother advanced economies, and emerging markets."
Job cuts and much more.
Commentary, highly recommended:
"The more I see of the monied classes,
the better I understand the guillotine."
- George Bernard Shaw
Oh yeah... beyond words. Any I know anyway...
And now... The End Game...
o

Dan, I Allegedly, "We Are Running Out Of Money"

Full screen recommended.
Dan, I Allegedly, AM 10/21/24
"We Are Running Out Of Money"
"Hey everyone, it's Dan from I Allegedly, and today we're diving into a topic that's hitting home for many: the bleak truth about this shopping season. With money running out and consumer debt climbing, it’s shaping up to be a challenging few months. Retailers are feeling the squeeze, and experts are finally acknowledging the financial strain on everyday people. From hacking scandals to consumer debt traps, it's a wild ride. Please join our email list and follow us for real-time updates on this unfolding economic saga. We're talking about everything from consumer debt to the struggles of retailers, and even some shocking fraud stories that will make you double-check your bank statements. Don’t miss out on why experts are urging us to be cautious this season."
Comments here:

"Interest Payments Top Defense Spending For First Time In History - Thank You Kamala"

"Interest Payments Top Defense Spending For 
First Time In History - Thank You Kamala"
by I&I Editorial Board

"SUNNY HOSTIN: "Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?"
KAMALA HARRIS: "There is not a thing that comes to mind in terms of - and I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact."

"On Friday, the Treasury Department released a report showing the kind of impact Harris is talking about. If nothing else does, it should cost her the election. The latest monthly Treasury report shows spending and revenues for the full fiscal year 2024, which ended in September. Among the terrible results: The federal deficit topped $1.8 trillion in 2024 - the third highest in history and eclipsed only by the two COVID-19 panic spending years.

That’s not for lack of revenues, which were up by nearly half a trillion dollars this year. Spending under Biden-Harris this fiscal year climbed more than $617 billion – a 10% increase. But the real shocker is the explosive growth in interest payments on the national debt. These payments hit $882 billion in FY 2024, the Treasury report says. That’s a 35% jump from last year. And it’s $8 billion more than we spent on National Defense.
This marks the first time in our nation’s history that interest on the debt has exceeded defense spending. And the gap is on track to rapidly widen – with the government spending $200 billion more in interest than in protecting America from her enemies by 2029.

Why the massive run-up in interest costs? Blame Harris’ tie-breaking votes (something for which she routinely brags). Because of them, Biden-Harris added trillions in new spending at a time when the economy had already fully recovered from the COVID-19 panic. That sparked a huge increase in inflation, which in turn drove up interest rates. More debt and higher interest rates meant a sharp increase in the cost of financing that debt.
How do we know Biden and Harris are to blame? Before they took office, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected net interest payments for the next decade, based on the policies that Donald Trump had in place. The CBO said that, had Biden not spent us to the poorhouse, interest payments on the national debt this year would have been only $284 billion. (See chart above.) In other words, Harris and her tie-breaking votes are responsible for a 210% increase in interest costs this year alone.

What would Kamala Harris do about this terrible state of affairs if she were elected president? No one has bothered to ask her. But we do know that she wants to do exactly what she and Biden have already done: add trillions of dollars of inflationary spending, impose economically ruinous tax hikes, and pile on still more growth-killing regulations. Harris is right about one thing. It is time to turn the page - before it’s too late."