A couple ideas today struck me as ideas worth writing about - so I decided to just make one post for all of them.
Why are we trusting the people we are complaining about to manage our complaints?
This is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. The "White House", "Congress", and "Supreme Court", together, have held the reins as our society drove off a cliff into near-extinction of life on Earth, and we are still supposed to trust them to handle our complaints about society? They have taken their ability to shape our society, have turned it into a battle between the rich and the poor, have accepted the gifts of the rich for doing so, with the understanding that they would vote and campaign on their behalf - and now they speak to us about democracy?
Everyone who voted on these petitions blindly vouched their support for a system - and that system was designed only to nullify the dreams of the people, and provide them with the illusion that the people they trust with deciding the direction of society are somehow accountable to them. That was proven through the responses to the petitions alone, as if it weren't proven a thousand times before, through human history. The largest concerns of the people were silenced, laughed at, and dismissed. The rulers do not serve the common interest, and never have. They merely understand that the common interest exists, and that they must pay lip service to it in order to survive in the political world.
Mentally grasping the evils the rulers of society have committed throughout history practically motivates one to envision some kind of demon creator god, although in truth, it appears to be only their own stupidity and blindness that has created this evil. Humans simply did not assemble their knowledge highly enough in the past, to see past this insanity, where the rulers see truth in greed and gluttony, and their subjects see truth in the lies of their rulers.
This is the ultimate lesson of anarchism - it is the strongest mark of a fool, to trust another man to rule you. If you could verify that they had your best interests at heart, and meant only to guide you into safety, then you would not need to be ruled at all, because you would know already how you should live.
That brings us to the next point:
Consider the following definition of a moral philosophy:
not engaging in actions until their positive morality has been verified
What consequences does this have for the individual subject of a government system? It means that they cannot support the state. You cannot pay tax to the state, act as an agent of the state, or even speak in favor of the state until you have verified that your actions are moral, and that your claims are accurate.
Attempting to verify that support of the state, verbal or physical, is moral, will not succeed, because the state, by definition, depends on violent coercion of non-consenting parties to achieve its goals - the single clear dividing factor between state institutions and the so-called "private sector". This violent coercion involves confiscating the means of survival of those parties - including those who are already relatively disadvantaged in a society - and is thus inherently immoral.
Ergo, a moral philosophy, given the prior definition, cannot include support of "the state", i.e., "government".
I saw dozens of police today - more than I'm used to, even living in an urban environment. I took this opportunity to conduct anthropological study on them.
Urban police in America have accepted that they are doing evil. Their entire being rests on a sense of false pride in what they believe to be their "Social Darwinism"-style superiority over the "plebs" or "common people", and a corresponding malice and attitude of "anything goes", considering the knowledge they possess, that they can (at least for the time being) commit violent acts without serious danger of being subject to them.
This is the attitude of any dominant violent gang. Remarkably, these dominant gangs, throughout the world, have taken on extremely similar characteristics - uniforms (usually black), badges, identification numbers, nightsticks, guns, radios, pepper spray, electrocution devices, zebra-striped cars, and "exploded" rim hats. This suggests a common denominator between the common "police" of the world - even if you reject the hypothesis of a single entity providing their excuse for organizing as "police" (which you shouldn't, since it is almost entirely accurate), there is still a very defined reasoning behind their choice of uniforms and tools.
Police uniforms and tools are chosen to simultaneously provide the illusion of authority to people who have not realized that the police are malevolent, and to provoke fear in people who have realized it. Their uniforms are designed specifically to maximize both of these goals.
It is possible that some suburban or rural police are not bad at heart. I don't recall ever meeting one, but that could just be my bad luck. However, urban police have been shown the true reality of their work - they defend the upper class, that have constructed the mammoth cities of the world (as testament to their own insecure sense of self) against the lower class, that the upper class have robbed.
The police - who, often, are the most "conservative", in the sense of "FOX News", beings on this planet - simply believe the lies they are fed about the people that they are oppressing, such as that they're violent, prone to crime, lazy, or otherwise inferior to them, but nonetheless take delight in causing them harm and misery.
It is thus that "police" are manipulated, have their hearts blackened, and are torn from the reality they live in, so that they can serve the purpose of blackening the world, into the pure nothingness of the misery of sentient beings - the ultimate, insane goal of the "ruling class" being to grant themselves bliss from the misery of others. The police are simply trained, just as dogs are trained, to act as agents of destruction.
This goal of being happy by making others miserable, naturally, does not actually work. Attempting to do so inevitably sows misery in yourself, and the enjoyment of life that the "upper class" pursues, at the expense of others, is wrought with guilt, paranoia, misery, distrust, evasiveness, and the total absence of love.
The police I saw today were great examples of these same symptoms at work, to a lesser degree. They "shot the shit", "chewed the fat", and "dicked around" with each other - recognizing each other's humanity, with some added distrust - but not recognizing the humanity of others, presumably because to do so would make them confront their own reality, something too painful for them to accomplish.
I sat and stood about ten feet from them for nearly twenty minutes, but not one of them would look me straight in the eye. If they noticed I was looking at them in a way that demonstrated my understanding of what they were - with a judgmental look - they would begin to cow in shame, hang their heads, and avoid eye contact with me. After all, as it's been said, the "eyes are the windows into the soul". They are too embarassed about what was behind the window, to leave the blinds open.
They also did not provoke me once I had done this, as one might expect, even though they clearly displayed the understanding that I was judging them negatively. Apparently the thought didn't even enter their heads - they were left simply to ruminate on their own shame, so deeply that they did not think to strike back at me, the person that provoked that feeling of shame in them. This to me is proof that even black-hearted oppressors still possess "humane" attributes, and kindness, albeit in an extremely suppressed place, buried into a corner by their own pain and insecurity. It should also serve as evidence that calm demonstration of one's own understanding is the safest way to react to an oppressor - at least, assuming a conflict has not elevated. [edit: I'm having a lot of trouble remembering what events I was talking about here, but long story short, I'll still tell you NYPD are a complete psychological freak show.]
Moving on to an even more horrifying topic...
I knew O'Reilly was horrible, but I never realized he had done this:
On the October 23 edition of Fox News" The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly presented viewers with a host of misinformation regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to baselessly claiming that "the Bush administration has won a victory in Afghanistan," O'Reilly also asserted that "10 years ago, nobody [had] even heard of" Iraq, despite the fact that the United States led a coalition against Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. O'Reilly further stated that while most of the problems in Iraq are "the Iraqis" fault" because they "are the ones that are killing each other," what is "America's fault, the Bush administration's fault" is that "[w]e thought ... [w]e were going to be greeted with flags, as conquerors." Vice President Dick Cheneyfamously predicted U.S. Troops would be greeted in Iraq as "liberators," not "conquerors." Additionally, O'Reilly's guest, Fox News political analyst and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), baselessly asserted that support for "unilateral withdrawal" of U.S. Troops in Iraq, which Gingrich attributed to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, "would get about 25 percent of the vote." In fact, polling has consistently shown that a majority of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the position Dean and Pelosi favor.
O'Reilly also claimed during the program that he was "not a partisan as far as telling anybody who to vote for. I think you're [his viewers] smart enough to know who to vote for." As Media Matters for America has noted, O'Reilly has suggested that both North Korea and Iran "want to influence the November election" and want Americans to "vote in the Democrats."
During a discussion with Sarah Sewall, director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, O'Reilly claimed that "we were successful in Afghanistan"; that it is "a myth" that "Afghanistan's going backwards," as Sewall claimed; that "[t]here's always going to be a Taliban insurrection" in Afghanistan; that "[e]very military analyst working for our team says most of that country is pacified"; and that "[o]ur information is that there's no danger at all of the Taliban reclaiming that country, none. They'll be annoying. There'll be guerrilla warfare." When Sewall tried to argue otherwise, O'Reilly declared her to be "just parroting the left-wing line that America doesn't know what its doing." Sewall replied: "I'm parroting conversations with commanders who are in uniform serving bravely in Afghanistan."
Who hired O'Reilly to spit these vile, war-mongering lies? He supports a military invasion of a foreign land, and has the gall to accuse them of "killing each other"? In his viewers" minds, who sat by and believed him, the evils of imperialism were still present - they still believed the myth that the non-white-people races of this planet are simply "uncivilized". This is really the worst blindness that can be cast on people - the blindness that stops them from seeing the light common to virtually all animals, not even just all human beings.
At face value, one might accept that it was Rupert Murdoch, or other News Corp executives - his immediate employers, that charged him with spitting this mass murder propaganda. But who ultimately controls News Corp?
As many people know, Roger Ailes was directly commissioned by Nixon to craft FOX into the monstrosity it is today. However, few people have seen a move like this, demonstrating who's calling the shots as News Corp - here, introducing a motion for Rupert Murdoch's removal:
Shareholders from the US, UK and Canada filed a resolution on Tuesday, calling for News Corp to appoint an independent chairman. A similar resolution attracted strong support at the media company's annual shareholder meeting last year.
The proposal was introduced by Christian Brothers Investment Services (CBIS), which manages $4.6bn for Catholic institutions worldwide. [emphasis added] It is backed by the UK's Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, with assets of £115bn ($178.9bn), and British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, one of Canada's largest institutional investors.
That would be the Catholic Church.
Who can even imagine why they have invested in News Corp? The people charged with carrying the message of peace are invested in the company that does more than any other company on the planet, to promote the message of war.
And Bill O'Reilly, in desperately trying to pursue his own lusts and satisfactions, put that message on national TV, and assisted in extinguishing what some people estimate at a million lives - which the government's own leaked figures (surely underestimates) placed above 100,000 lives. He fed the American "right" the lie that so-called "Iraqis", who he depicted as sub-human, needed to be violently "civilized", and that the horrible misery unleashed in the wake of this insanity should be blamed on them.
It gives me no pride to criticize him, or anyone else, but this serves as the most clear proof available of the media disinformation mechanisms required to sustain tyrannies. The television media for our so-called "nation" had to be corporatized, centrally monopolized, and then used to disseminate false reasoning to make the beings of our planet forget their roots, and attack each other, in a form of externally induced mass suicide.
A myth has been disseminated for years, that the Iraq War happened because of an honest mistake on the part of the Bush administration, that made them mistake metal tubes, of which they had satellite pictures, for materials to create so-called "weapons of mass destruction", and of a supposed anthrax attack threat, and of a supposed association between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
These myths are easily proven completely false, and the criminal intent of the "government" cartel under Bush and Cheney are thus easily demonstrated.
First, it is inconceivable that the entire so-called "security apparatus" and upper "executive branch" - including Bush and Cheney themselves, who had both previously worked at oil companies - would fail to envision any alternate use for metal tubes than to create nuclear weapons or chemical weapons.
Second, the other justification for the war - the anthrax attacks, that had been used to create a mass fear of chemical weapons attacks, which Colin Powell presented to the "United Nations" as evidence of chemical weapons production in Iraq - have been known for years to originate from within the U.S. Government. The vials were eventually found to have been stolen from a government lab, a scandal which clearly culminated in the murder of Bruce Ivins.
Third, the other justification for the war, the claimed association between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (which were lied about to the public by Bill O'Reilly, as described in the above Media Matters article)...
O'REILLY: OK. And I agree with that. But it is the Iraqis" fault. The Iraqis are the ones that are killing each other. The Iraqi militias in the south have allied themselves with Iran. The Iraqis are harboring Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda couldn't exist in the country without Iraqi complicity.
...were never actually supported. John Kerry called upon Bush to support the claims of an association between Hussein and Bin Laden, at a presidential debate, but Bush failed to do even this.
Thus, all three primary justifications for the Iraq War were simply lies. The only logical conclusion is that Bush and Cheney were simply ordered to create the war, in order to satisfy the co-conspirators that had engineered their election victory in 2000 (a task they could not possibly accomplish independently). It is only the next logical step to conclude that the Afghanistan War was engineered similarly, especially considering that the Bin Laden guilt theory is easily disproven through forensic analysis of the WTC attacks, through the suspicious fact that the Bin Laden family had previously had business dealings with the Bush family, and through the fact that heroin output from Afghanistan - I believe their most profitable export - continued uninterrupted during the U.S. Military occupation of the country, while this specific drug trade has long known to been an illicit undertaking of not only the American empire, but also its predecessor, the British Empire before it (remember the Chinese "Opium Wars"?).
Anyway, I may cover the 2000 election fraud at a later date, although I doubt it, since I don't think I can improve on what's already been said about it - it's enough to point out that the Supreme Court intervened and called the election for Bush, in the middle of Florida's highly irregular, tampered-with recount, which was occurring under the watch of election commissioner Katherine Harris, Bush's campaign manager, and under the watch of governor Jeb Bush - Bush's brother.
It's no less significant that the company charged with security at the World Trade Center complex, as well as the Dulles International Airport, United Airlines itself, and even the Department of Defense - the company Securacom - had Bush's other brother, Marvin Bush, on its board of directors, and was owned by the Bush-affiliated Kuwait-American Corp.:
It isn't even subject to debate at this point, the evidence is so settled. The heads of "government" engineered the attacks on September 11th in order to terrorize the population and make them desperate enough to support a multi-trillion dollar set of wars, from which they had already engineered methods to profit.
They created false justifications for the wars, monopolized the investigation of the attacks that prompted the wars, tampered with the evidence in the investigation of those attacks, and created an "enemy" mythology around the attacks - based on religious division (warning sign of religion being used to create war!) - while the available evidence conclusively demonstrated their own guilt.
Even today, after the supposed ("supposed" because no evidence has been released for it) death of Osama Bin Laden, the "government" is still militarizing itself and trying to orchestrate attacks to keep the division between the Christian and Muslim worlds alike, as proven by the Boston Bombings (see my half dozen previous posts on those attacks for info on that), which they have already tried to use in order to promote new fears of "radical Islam" as some kind of "national threat".
Previous incidents with proven FBI affiliation include the "Somali Christmas Tree Bomber", the "Oakland Bridge Bombers", and the "Underwear Bomber" - all of whom had been led along and even supplied fake weapons by the FBI, if not framed entirely.
If they go that far, how can we believe that they didn't simply frame the entire scenarios to begin with? This is precisely where we are called upon to trust them - even though this same organization, laughably called a "Bureau of Investigation", has such ugly marks on its history as covert surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon, and Malcolm X, who [edit: to varying degrees] most people consider to be heroes.
It takes no stretch of the imagination to see why all three of those men, who had dedicated their lives to spreading messages of social uprising, humanity, and resistance against oppressors, were then assassinated.
I digress. Moving back to the Christian/Muslim politics of division promoted by the government - these division politics are the only politics that can be used to create war - and, besides to confuse and distract, they really serve no other purpose at all. Conflicts do not naturally polarize people in such a sustained manner - they actually tend to resolve themselves in favor of truth, as evidence piles up to show that the division is unwise, and to show what the ideal resolution of the conflict is. It takes the deliberate obfuscation of the truth to sustain the conflicts beyond that natural cycle.
Thus, that politics of division are even present in our society is a warning sign that we're being controlled. It is the case that the truth about the conflict between American (ostensibly, Christian) society, and Middle Eastern (ostensibly, Muslim) society, has been obscured in favor of an artificially promoted narrative of fear and inherent division. We are simply ushered away from our common humanity, and made to believe that either "side" is inevitably bound to attempt to oppress the other "side".
Moving on to the #1 financial mechanism for profiting from war:
For a given period of time in a budget (let's say a year), the federal government is mandating that its expenditures (output), x, are a fraction of the economy's total expenditures for the year, y (about equal to GDP). The fraction of the spending in the economy that takes place on account of the government is thus x/y.
No matter where the government gets its revenue (input), z, it commits itself to being in control of that fraction of the economy, for the budget period in question.
So let's assume the government runs a deficit for a budget period:
d = x-z
Here are its options for funding the deficit:
1) Borrow the money by issuing government securities. This creates a repayment obligation equal to d, plus the exponentially-increasing interest that d accrues, f - which is pocketed by the lenders.*
2) Raise taxes. This amounts to a tax of amount d on the population.
3) Inflate the currency the government produces. This amounts to a slightly time-delayed tax of amount d on the population (such time delay being the amount of time it takes for the artificial imbalance in money ownership to disseminate). This is the case because, in a supply-and-demand based monetary economy, the value of the money in the economy mirrors the goods that money must purchase - ergo, an increase in the supply of money by multiplicand i means that the average value of goods purchased with that money will, post-adjustment, increase by i, where i is defined as i = (m+d/m), where m is equal to the monetary supply of that money's economy.
This all assumes constant population size, although population growth is essentially negligible in these equations, given how small it is compared to the time scale of these events. The same goes for market growth and other various confounding variables.
It is implied in the government's methods, that we are to believe that d+f, paid over time, is superior to d paid at once. That is immediately questionable - what is the amount f, which increases as long as d has not been paid back?
F has been increasing non-stop for a century, give or take 3-4 years. The system is arranged so that the government pays f continuously, while running a nearly-constant deficit d, so that d, the deficit, is constantly added onto debt D - which has recently passed 16 trillion dollars.
Accordingly, the annual interest on that debt has grown exponentially as well - last I checked, it's equal to about $220 billion dollars per year. An annual payment of $709 for every human subject to "United States" schemes. The debt of 16 trillion (an under-measurement, which doesn't even measure the massive outstanding obligations of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and others) is equal to roughly $50,000 for every person in the country.
If the borrowing time-delay burden, including the cost of interest, was less than the inflationary time-delayed burden, then it would be justifiable (note: when I use the word "justifiable" in this section of the article, i'm pretending my earlier criticisms of the inherent immorality of the "state" don't apply).
However, as we can see, median family income has only doubled between 1955 and 2005 - a 1.395% annual increase for the median family (50th root of 2) - while the interest on the debt paid itself...
...is actually increasing at 2.18% every year (24th root of (359,796,008,919/214,145,028,847)).
So the interest burden is actually increasing faster than our median income is increasing. Furthermore, our median income is leveling out, while our income burden is accelerating its increase. Therefore, this situation is less comfortable for us.
So this is clearly not even a strategy of absorbing unexpected expenses by borrowing money, in which the government's debt-inducing deficits could be rapidly balanced with surpluses - where this borrowing strategy could hypothetically be justified. Rather, it's a strategy of creating a scam out of constantly generating new government debt - debt that the public, in theory and in government "law", is supposed to be on the hook to pay.
So, the borrowing of money to pay deficits is clearly the least preferable approach, because it involves the unnecessary involvement of a third party profiteer. The only way it could possibly be rationalized is if a sudden extreme expense needed to be incurred, that would be too large to be supported unexpectedly by the population, through either taxation or inflation - but which, somehow, could be supported by the tiny portion of the population rich enough to lend that money to the government.
And yet, that is what happens - conclusively establishing that the government's budgeting system is designed around serving "special interests". Since natural disasters do not incur increases in government expenditures of this magnitude, the government is forced to manufacture disasters, as discussed previously in this post, in order to satisfy the demands of the money lending lobby - which wants the government to justify massive expenses to the public, which they will gladly lend money to cover - with interest.
If it's not clear enough from the statistics that this is the case, it should be even more clear from how the "Presidents" and "Congressmen" of this cartel continually accept huge bribes from the investment banks in this debt market, and appoint their former executives into positions of control over this system - such as the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, turned Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson. Literally, the guy who used to be CEO of the company that bought the government's debt, put in charge of the agency selling government debt to his old company.
But it doesn't even end there. The government is not only relying on this insane, corrupt system to handle its deficits - it's actually selling the securities that represent its debts to private organizations, and then buying it back from them. As if things couldn't get any more corrupt. Yes, the Federal Reserve actually buys the debt that it sold, at a loss. Back, and forth, and back, and forth. And the worst part about it? None of the organizations involved are obligated to release statistics about it. The 1.6% of our economy we're paying in interest on the national debt appears to not even be a fraction of the robbery we're being subjected to - we can't even measure how much money is being leaked out through these unaudited "discount window" transactions.
And who are these organizations buying this debt?
The biggest investment banks on the planet - the first name that comes to mind is Goldman Sachs. The Treasury reports that private banks only hold a small fraction - about 5% - of the outstanding debt of the government, but honestly, you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The actual holders of the debt are all confidential, so why would they even tell you? We're talking about an integrated criminal cartel - they're not under any obligation to release their records. All we can do is look at the skyrocketing inequality in our economy, the huge market shares possessed by banks, the tallest buildings in our cities, and see how it all seems to stem directly from the center of this system.
And, so, that's how the federal government's accounting system works. Time for an alternative, huh?
The only way we could even salvage this mess, and keep a monetary economy, would be to have a debt jubilee (nullification of debts), and a serious "moment of silence" nationwide to think about who actually should own our real, physical property, including the actual physical dollar bills we have in circulation**. It's definitely not the people the government says have the rightful claim over these things.
*This debt has not been cleared for at least a century, and so the interest has been accruing constantly since - partial payments, to pay off the interest on the debt, have guaranteed that the government debt business has grown exponentially more profitable for an entire century.
**$1.028 trillion, or $3,275/person. There's that whole "fractional reserve banking" issue, too, where debt instruments are used as the reserves for more loans, which is why it seems like there's actually way more money in the economy (about 50x more, at around $55 trillion).
Oh, and none of those dollars are actually worth anything outside of our imaginary social protocol economy, because they're just stupid looking pieces of paper we've been brainwashed into valuing. Ask anyone who lives off of the earth - dollars are only worth as much as their myth.