Author: White Whale

Yes, I know that tagline alone will get me labeled a nut. Please follow me for a bit, and draw your own conclusions.

Building 7 was a 47 story building that spontaneously collapsed 7 hours after the collapse of the World Trade Center. It was not hit by a plane, and was only slightly damaged by the collapse of one of the other WTC buildings. Several floors seemed to be on fire for many hours, though, which is what the semi-official, post-conspiracy theory, investigation concluded. Here is the official explanation offered by Popular Mechanics:

WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires.

Evidence in favor of the consensual reality is that the building was plainly damaged by the collapse of the World Trade Center, and that there was plainly fire coming out of the windows for many hours, as both filmed and seen by many firemen on site.

Here is some video of that. If you go to about three minutes, you see fire coming out almost as if it were being projected. It is inconceivable to me that much fire could come from the combustion of office furniture and the sorts of papers people keep on their desks, but that is what we are told was the cause.

According to a “truther” debunking site

“WTC 7 contained 10 transformers at street level, 12 transformers on the 5th floor, and 2 dry transformers on the 7th floor.” – FEMA report

Transformers are filled with oil and can blow up. Did those large transformers blow up taking out the floors below? Remember that the building was on fire for hours.

This sounds plausible on the face of it, but the final report indicated that diesel fuels were not involved.

Here is what the NIST report, issued in 2008 after that many years of research, said:

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what’s known as a “progressive collapse”–that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

Keep that in mind as you watch this video of the collapse.

Here is the other side of the story, where he focuses on the Twin Towers, but it would apply equally–actually more–to Building 7.

Further, the report claims

the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure “would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile.” Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

This is not accurate. There were in fact apparently reports of hearing an explosion.

Here is some testimony from a man claimed by the website to have been an NYC cop on site

.”I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest.”

Yes, it’s Prison Planet, but one can safely assume they believe what they believe because they think they have the evidence to back it up. This guy could be reinterviewed by other people, as could others who offered similar reports.

Edit 2: I have left out testimony by two senior New York City officials since I was unable to contextualize it within a plausible narrative. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess were relatively senior members of Guiliani’s administration, particularly Hess. They went to the Emergency Command Center in WTC7 after the first plane hit, since they were a part of the Disaster Response Team. When they got there, they said everyone had left, and when they started to leave, an explosion blocked the stairwell they had intended to use, stranding them.

The evidence is inconclusive, since NIST claims the “explosion” was really the collapse of the South Tower. Theorist one presents timeline 1 that supports their view, theorist 2 does the same.

However, I would like to offer an interesting, to me, hypothesis: what if the actual target of United 93 was WTC7, which contained, among other things, the command center for emergency response, which is why Jennings and Hess were there in the first place? That plane took off from Newark. If the hijack went down something like it was portrayed in the movie, they missed their window of opportunity due to indeciveness, but would that not have been quite spectacular, hitting three adjacent buildings, one after the other?

To my mind, this scenario makes sense. Assuming explosives were used, no good mind would have failed to realize that buildings don’t just collapse on their own.

Given the foregoing, therefore, here is my preliminary assessment (I say preliminary, since I only make final assessments when I need to make a decision; in this case, I don’t need to make a final decision): I am no engineer, but it makes NO sense to me to claim that office furniture burning brought a 47 story skyscraper straight down–particularly when all skyscrapers have building codes, complete with fire walls, and the use of relatively incombustible materials. I can imagine jetfuel burning hot enough to cut through steel. I cannot imagine office furnishings doing so. This makes no sense.

Edit: I would like to expand on this a bit. Imagine in your mind a typical office building floor. I’ve worked in many of them. In a contracting capacity I’ve watched them go up many times, from demo to occupancy. On the floor you have a thin carpet, which is flame rated. On the carpet you have furniture workstations, plastic or metal garbage cans, and chairs. Both the chairs and workstations likely would have been flame rated, and depending on the age of the furniture, if they had the most popular brand, Steelcase, the panels would have been made of steel. If they weren’t, they would have come with a Class A fire rating.

On the workstations you have computers, overhead compartments with a variety of thick binders and books. Pinned to the walls you have a variety of personal pictures, sarcastic or sweet pictures, and maybe a few ideosyncratic curios to identify yourself as an individual in a cubicle forest.

In the offices, you might have wooden desks and woodern cabinets. In file rooms, you might have rows of metal file cabinets, or possibly libraries filled with books.

In the bathrooms you would have toilets, sinks, paper towels. In the break areas you would have a refigerator, paper towels, cabinets, food, a coffee pot, maybe some styrofoam cups, some seats and tables, some magazines and maybe a TV.

Above this would be a drop ceiling. Typical ceiling tiles are Class A fire rated, as here. What this means is not that they don’t burn, but that they don’t burn easily or well, or hot.

The supporting steel beams would in all likelihood have been sprayed with a fire retardant, which normally contained asbestos when WTC7 was likely built. I am in ceilings in office towers all the time, and they always spray the joints where beams come together.

Above the ceiling also would have been data and phone cabling, ductwork, air handlers, and plumbing.

What we are to believe is that from the above mixture of components, a fire was created which caused a collapse of a 47 story steel skyscraper at the same rate which would have been expected if it had been intentionally taken down the normal way, with explosives attached to key points.

Let us dilate on that for a moment. We have all seen the pictures of the guys sitting on the steel beams, eating their lunches, or pretending to play golf. Skyscrapers are built–to point out the painfully obvious–to not fall down. To withstand high winds, and to withstand fires. The method used is simple: weight distribution. Vertical and horizonal steel I-beams are connected one to another such that any single point of failure–even at the base–will not bring down the structure, and in every construction I have personally seen, those points are specifically targeted for added protection from fire.

Let us think of this as a Tinker Toys structure, in which the wooden pieces are glued into the slots, and every level contains 20 or so supporting beams in both directions, which are connected one to the other as a web in the middle. Let us suppose the whole thing is built such that we have cardboard cutouts workout to anchor everything together, which in the real world would be the concrete which was used to build the floors, which would likely have been concrete in pan, where corrugated metal is put down, then concrete poured on top of it.

Cut 10 sticks at random places, in your mind, one at a time. Does the whole thing collapse? I don’t think so, but let’s suppose you disagree. If you think it collapses, does it not tilt over, one way or the other? Does it not slowly fall over, like the Titanic sinking? Do we not hear creaking as overwhelming pressure builds, tearing lose connections, such that it gradually falls over, clumsily, crookedly and probably incompletely?

OK, let’s make the cardboard lead sheeting. Let’s triple the weight on the structure. Now does it collapse? I still don’t think so. If you go back to the Popular Mechanics link above, they have both the layout of the beams in a static picture, and a computer rendering of the collapse that still have multiple beams failing at the same time, and which terminates before we see anything like what was seen in the actual video.

Further, if one determined in advance that fires must have been responsible, then one could simply create a model of the building, and reconstruct the implosion of the building. Key beams would disappear when needed due to the fire, so “reconstructions” are scarcely evidence.

And to the point–in order to grant that ANY beams failed, we have to grant that the materials I listed created sufficient heat to sever an I-Beam. Remember, the official investigators, the people responsible for quieting the rumors of a conspiracy and coverup, said in their final report, after presumably exhaustive analysis, that diesel fuels did not contribute, and that the whole thing in their view could only be due to the combustion of office materials, which I have inventoried.

Presumably they said this since they knew where the diesel fuels were stored, and had a pretty good idea from videos in which order the beams gave way, and were unable to connect the dots. By logical extension, and leaving aside the explosives hypothesis, this left only one option: the one they pronounced as the definitive cause of the collapse.

I would like you to put yourself in the shoes of these investigators, as well. If they had said that the fires and known structural damage could not have accounted for the collapse of WTC7, what does that imply?

First it implies that WTC 1 and 2 were likely brought down by explosives too. The setup would have been simple: fly the planes into the Towers, get 1,000 cameras on them, then demo them in full view of everyone.

Second, that the conspiracy was much larger than the men who hijacked the planes and those who trained and directed them. The logistics of getting explosives into the places where they could do their work would be enormous. It would require a huge amount of planning and funding.

Third, that had the buildings not collapsed, it is quite possible that we might not have waged war on Afghanistan, although it was still likely, just as war with Iraq was also likely, for different reasons. Certainly, the sheer extent of the damage was burned into all of our collective minds, and if explosives were the principle cause of the collapses, then casualties ought properly to have been in the hundreds, not thousands.

Fourth, it would have opened up the Pandora’s Box of conspiratorial confusion, and given critics of Bush more ammunition to continue to paint him as a would-be dictator.

Fifth, it would have taken much more moral courage than the investigators appear to have possessed to draw the obvious conclusion that if this skyscraper was brought down by the combustion of office materials, it would be the first one in history and it would have done so in direct contradiction of the design of the buildings, whose structure and the materials within which were explicitly intended not to burn.

Let’s try this another way. Do this experiment in your mind. If you’ve been in an office building, imagine walking into there with a flame-thrower, and torching the place for a minute or so. This is not what is claimed to have happened, to be clear. We have the image of the jetfuel burned in our heads, but no jet fuel hit WTC7, and NIST does not believe on-site diesel fuels to have played a role, so somehow fires were started simply by falling debris. That doesn’t sound very plausible, but let’s run with it. In the real world our flame thrower was a thousand chairs on fire, set on fire by the jetfuel.

You torch the place. The plastic melts and catches fire on the workstations and computers. The ceiling catches fire briefly then goes out. You burn the carpet but it doesn’t catch fire. The only fires to be seen minutes after your “attack” are from still simmering fuel from the gas/oil mixture in your weapon, and smoldering plastic things scattered around. You don’t get a 7 hour burn from this. You don’t get heat that melts steel I-beams. In WTC 1 and 2 we had 24,000 gallons of aviation fuel.

I can accept the idea that that much fuel would melt steel, and that the pancake effect could bring down a building. There are those who deny it. Frankly, I’m not qualified to comment.

But in WTC7 we had neither a jet airliner crashing through, nor a fuel fire. With only slight exaggeration we had burning chairs and paper towels.

This is the story we are expected to believe. But I don’t believe it.

If, then, I accept in principle that one building was brought down by explosives, which seems the only plausible alternative for Building 7, then I must accept that–potentially at least, and this is not a necessary conclusion, but a necessarily possible one–they were ALL brought down that way.

Now, here is where I am going to differ from the Truthers. I see no reason to doubt that the planes were in fact hijacked and were in fact flown into both World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. We have much evidence of all of this. I see no reason not to believe that Osama Bin Laden played a role in it. I see no reason to believe that George Bush or Dick Chency DID play a role in it.

Given these caveats, what is a plausible scenario? What was going on in 2001? We had balanced the budget, ended the Cold War, and were in a relatively steady state situation, even if we were in a recession. Who would benefit from tipping us in the direction we went?

As I see it, not George Bush. This has always been a sticking point for me, since I think he was and is a fundamentally a decent person. In general, I am a good judge of character, and that is my assessment. Yes, he did want to put an end to the games Saddam Hussein had been playing with the UN and America for the better part of a decade, but it is simply inconceivable to me that he would or could have chosen those means to facilitate that end.

In the end, who benefited? First of all, the Saudis. They would have known that sooner or later we would deal with Saddam Hussein, and more generally the Al Quedists that were and are plagueing them as well. They also benefit from loaning us the money we use to fund the deficit.

Second of all, and likely the more important suspects, would be Wall Street and global financial interests, who want us to be in debt forever. Who earns the $400 billion in interest we pay every year on our national debt,much of it accumulated in the Bush years as a direct or indirect result of 9/11? We really don’t know, but much of it goes to large banks, and much of the funding for the debt is created ex nihilo by those same banks, as I understand the issue. They create money from nothing, then earn interest on it. This is not a bad place to be, sort of like winning the lottery every day of your life.

So often fringe ideas that are utterly unacceptable can become acceptable with minor alterations. Do we need to believe that all Presidents have to kowtow to a shadow elite to get elected? No. Does that mean a shadow elite does not exist? No. Plainly, there are a lot of billionaires out there, with ample funds to affect national and international politics, and they don’t get to be billionaires by being stupid. To assume they play no role in politics is silly. Bill Gates, as one example, is quite active. He is relatively open about it, but not everyone need be.

In particular, do we need to believe in a fabled global Jewish financial elite? That’s where right-wingers usually wind up. That’s John Birch territory. Answer: of course not. Some of them are likely Jewish, most of them are likely not. If you look at any professional field, say academics, physics, law or medicine, Jews are represented disproportionately. This is because their culture is one which values achievement through hard work. As a group, they are one of the most diverse imaginable, ranging across the political spectrum, but generally passionate wherever they wind up. In aggregate, they have been an enormous blessing to humankind, having earned an inordinately disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes over the years, and being very frequently involved in very sincere philanthropic work. To the point, it would make sense that they would be overrepresented in the financial world as well for no reason other than demographics.

In the end, all causes are led by individuals, who have their own history, their own beliefs, and their own goals. It is impossible and undesirable–except when absolutely necessary, and I can’t imagine how that would come about–to reach final conclusions about any heterogeneous group in aggregate.

Net: if one admits that the combustion of office furnishings seems inadequate to account for the precipitous and vertical collapse of a 47 story steel skyscraper, one must admit that many parties were involved that day.

Most plausible to me would be a covert alliance between Bin Laden and some men in suits with chauffeurs. How far beyond that it went, it’s hard to say. Even if one is unwilling to accept Bush’s complicity–and I’m not willing to accept it–then one must still assume that not each and every member of our Defense establishment is beyond accepting the gifts which the nearly infinitely rich would be able to offer.

Sherlock Holmes would say that you have to accept the necessary conclusions from the evidence available, wherever it leads. I agree with this. I have long postponed posting my views, but today it seemed appropriate for some reason.

I won’t lose any sleep over this, but I do feel it’s important to tell the whole truth, and all the truths which come to you. Nothing good comes from avoiding unattractive ideas and facts simply because seeing them would cause you emotional or intellectual discomfort.

I have been arguing for years that the fastest path to scientific progress is not focus on what we “know”, but in the effort to falsify the paradigms within which we operate. For my own purposes, I often use martial metaphors for what I call my “attacks” on knowledge. Imagine a great dark place before you, and you are the commanding general. How do you take it? How do you illuminate it? It is pregnant with the danger of error and obsession.

What is done most days in most universities is what I would term a frontal attack. They assume that the “front” they are attacking is in the shape it appears to be, and that–as an example–deconstructing the DNA of 1,000 species represents 10x the knowledge we had when we had deconstructed the DNA of only 100. I disagree. Unless something profoundly unexpected is found, almost nothing useful has been accomplished.

The focus, in my view, needs to be on anomalies, on the apparently small details that don’t fit within the mix, for example the ability of salamander parts, when severed to become multiple things, depending on when and where they are reattached. It appears to depend on a magnetic field, a field which can be measured. That sort of thing is interesting. It offers up the possibility of a profoundly new conception of life.

In my own view, “Intelligent Design” happens every time any life form comes into being. We know exactly what proteins combine with what other proteins, in what order, how cells come into being, etc. Yet if, as Haeckel posited, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”, then we are forced to include some sort of extracorporeal, extramaterial agent of organization, since the proteins organize themselves.

The standard explanation given amounts, in effect, to the claim that this process fell into place, and has been falling into place for millions of years in roughly they same way. This seems to me patent nonsense, particularly since it seems impossible to me for the process to fall together long enough by chance for natural selection to enter the process.

The interesting question, to me, then (and I don’t want to delve too deeply here) is this: what facts can we find which do NOT fit in the existing paradigm? This is where the focus should be. If we return to the military analogy, this is the equivalent of marching through the night to attack the enemy–ignorance–where it least expects us and at an unexpected time. Such attacks can lead to enormous gains at little cost. Most of what we are doing is in my view wasted time.

To do an Arlo Guthrie, let me turn to what actually prompted this post. Rejection. Sad, sad me, told no again. Specifically, a piece that was turned down for publication. Now, failure is the inevitable result of trying anything. The ’72 Dolphins were perfect, but they weren’t in ’71 or ’73. Success, likewise, is often the result of trying things, particularly if you try hard enough, long enough.

What bothers me is that most would-be thinkers across the political spectrum appear to me to be stuck in qualitative ruts. Just as we need to pursue radically new paradigms within the hard sciences, so too do we need to be asking in what ways we can achieve the end of universal human happiness. This, in my view, is the final question. The maintenance of American political sovereignty is a means to this end, but I really do see us as leading the charge for global peace and prosperity. I think that was the vision of our Founders, too.

If you look at most websites and blogs, what you see is much of the same. Outrate at this or that human thing done by a human being. Hypocrisy, stupidity, unwarranted aggression, cowardice: you know the drill. And reiteration of much the same points: variations on social justice or free markets, demonizing the fat cats, or demonizing the demonizers and would-be autocrats.

We need to think big, and nobody seems to be doing that. Take the Tea Party. What do most of the bumper stickers say? Taxed Enough Already? Obama hasn’t really even raised our taxes yet. And if he does, it will be through allowing some portion of Bush’s tax cuts to expire. We all know we can’t afford to keep doing what we are doing, so tax increases are inevitable, but that isn’t the primary problem.

The problem is spending. We are bankrupt, clinically bankrupt, in that the sum of our debts, as they exist today–if we were to enter them into a ledger honestly–is much greater than our POSSIBLE income.

ALL the Tea Party and less passionate Republicans can do is slow the hemorrhaging. They can reverse Obamacare, stop the “stimulus”, and maybe even at some point do away with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, although that last would be in the current climate what Van Jones would call a “maximal” goal.

This does nothing, NOTHING, to address the interest on our national debt, or the unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities. That demographic wave is beginning to hit, and it is a decade or more long.

We can’t postpone telling the truth: as desirable as these things are, we can’t afford them.

In our current climate, that is a qualitative outlier, and making that case is, I assume, what got my piece rejected. I was accused of not citing sources, but that wasn’t accurate. I did cite sources: the Dept. of Defense website, in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called our national debt our top national security threat, and if memory serves bloomberg.com in which a professional financial analyst shared the good news that the IMF has officially declared us broke, unless we double our income tax rates for the next ten years or so, which is simply not possible. I self published the piece below.

In a fit of pique which I’m not precisely proud of, but which I think was warranted, I accused the editor of a failure of moral courage and imagination. What he heard was moral courage. What he should have heard was imagination.

Imagination can only be as broad and wide as your courage. To be able to think big thoughts, to dream big dreams, you have to have the stomach both to see heavens and hells. You have to be able to see both the demons and the angels, and most people want to live in a prosaic, well ordered world, in which nothing radically new is ALLOWED to walk through the door. You can shut such ideas out simply by not seeing them. Negative hallucinations–not seeing things that are there–is a common enough hypotic phenomenon, and if you are attentive, you will catch yourself doing it daily.

In times of heightened stress, people tend either to cling more tightly to their tried and true ideas, or search about far and wide for something better. This latter tendency is well expressed in the Tea Party movement, which looks rhetorically to the past, but which must in the end realize that what is needed is not something old, but something new. We must dream new dreams, based on the ideals–not the realities, but the ideals–of the past.

We were founded as a nation run by de facto aristocrats. We were founded as a nation which accepted slavery in its foundational document. These are historical facts. Yet, we are also a nation that, over and over, when pressed to hold close to its ideals, has chosen to do so.

We need to lead the way into the future. We can do so, if we learn to think.

This is the qualitative challenge people like Glenn Beck face: altering the style of our public dialogue. It is one thing to add new information. It is another entirely to add the qualitative idea that we are all responsible for the development of our own worldviews. People that accept that latter idea can be relied on, in aggregate and over time, to reach reasonable conclusions, if given access to a genuinely free market of information. This is the point of democracy and the protection of free speech.

Few thoughts.

It seems to me that free market economists have a job to do: they need to develop a model in which economic growth halts, and the system is in equilibrium. It is precisely the fetishization of growth, growth, growth which enables both sincere environmentalists and radicals who want to use environmentalism for other ends to demonize our system. Logically, we cannot all live in hilltop mansions. We cannot all have 25 cars, not at our present population levels. It would seem inevitable that growth must stop at some point, and for that reason we cannot at that point be depending on an economic model predicated on growth.

In my view, our Gross Domestic Product should be the same as it was in, say, 1912, in the dollars in use then. What should have happened is that our BUYING power reached a point where we could afford whatever we wanted, which presumably would include a great deal of leisure, once our basic needs were met.

For that reason, my financial plan, or something like (I have had some ideas and plan to tweak it, and certainly continue to welcome feedback) it, is not just necessary to get us out of the very dangerous financial straits we are in, but points the way towards an economically and environmentally sustainable future.

Please ponder this. This is a very important point. My first stab at it is here.

The Constitution states that the Senate has to ratify all treaties. Yet “treaties” entered in to by the Federal Reserve are not subject to any elected authority whatever. Consider this: The governing body for the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision reached an agreement a few weeks ago on the major elements of a new financial regulatory architecture, commonly known as Basel III. By increasing the quantity and quality of capital that banking firms must hold and by strengthening liquidity requirements, Basel III aims to constrain bank risk-taking, reduce the incidence and severity of future financial crises, and produce a more resilient financial system. The key elements of this framework are due to be finalized by the end of this year.

This sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Yet it is happening beyond the realm of democracy. It is literally the case that important decisions are being made, that will affect the lives of Americans in important ways, that we have absolutely NO control over. The Senate has no control. The President has no control. They could use the public stage to voice opposition, but legally they can do nothing. There is no counterbalance, no counterweight to the aggregated power of the Federal Reserve.

Every election cycle the economy is an issue, it seems. Yet no one talks about the Fed. This is lunacy. A credible case could be made that it should be brought within the direct control of Congress or the Executive Branch, but no case can be made that an entity which has the power to change all of our lives for the better AND for the worse should be given nearly complete control over our fiscal policy.

This is my response to the one person who has rendered an opinion.

Your sister told me you thought my plan would cause a global, ten year Depression. I thought about it, and decided you must be concerned about liquidity, about financing for new projects. Obviously eliminating debt does not immediately produce a surplus of investment capital. I have a solution to that: in some form or other, we create a surplus.

For example, we could deposit into the bank accounts of every person in America $10,000, which they could not withdraw for one year. During that year, the banks could lend it out, and the owner of the account would earn interest in the form of a CD. Once the year was out, this would serve as seed money for individual investments.

Or, since we would likely see immediate price inflation once the year was out, we could deposit the money, but require people to treat it as an IRA, only touchable upon retirement. That might be better. This would also take the place of Social Security, which will have to be radically altered one way or another, and which in my view should be abolished entirely, except perhaps for the charitable part of it.

As things stand, banks make money from nothing already, in the form of fractional reserve banking. This system would give them the money to lend, and make them financially bullet proof, as long as the loans they made did not go into mass default. As you likely know, our housing crisis would have been inconceivable without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In my view, we are going to see liquidity problems in any event. In the recent Basel talks, it was agreed that banks need to increase their reserves. This is necessarily going to constrict the amount of credit they can offer. Effectively, and without calling it that, the Fed and other central banks have raised the Reserve Requirement, which is always a tool of fiscal tightening. This will happen gradually, and at the same time as our national need for cash increases. I cannot see this resulting in anything but increased interest costs for our debt, which will create a feedback loop that will get us in hot water even faster than current predictions.

The situation is unsustainable. It might be fixed if we could fill Congress with true conservatives, but that will take years, and will likely not even be possible.

This plan appeals to people’s natural sense of greed and entitlement. The banks comes out OK, all governments come out OK, consumers with debt come out OK, corporations–large and small–come out OK.

I really do think that if somebody came out saying: I can make all your debt go away, then I can give you a bunch of money, that they would do well.

I wrote a proposal for a radical overhaul (at the bottom) of our financial system. The first feedback I have received is that it would “cause a global depression for ten years”. This I got second hand from a friend whose brother is a nationally known financial adviser. That’s all I got, though. He didn’t reply to my email, and apparently doesn’t meet people for beer.

Pondering what he meant, it must have been a crisis of liquidity, which is to say cash for investment. If that is the case, then it seems to me we could address that by creating extra money for all citizens. Every citizen of the United States could be given $1,000, to be used in an economic investment. Or $2,000. Or $20,000. Or access to that money, as a line of credit held by their State government. This money would be created prior to ending the Fed.

Perhaps that would be best. Each State is given, say, a $20 billion surplus in money, from which all members of the State can draw for business investment at no interest. This would democratize money, spur growth and investment, and economic progress.

The traditional alternative is for banks to do the same thing. They have a line of credit which ends, finally, in fiat money. Why should the banks be the sole conduit of financing, particularly if the money in the end comes either from a government run central bank (everyone else) or a semi-private, semi-public financial cartel like the Federal Reserve? It is anti-free market and anti-democratic.

We need only consider two items:

1) Tax payers will be paying around $600 billion in interest on the national debt by 2012, and that amount will overtake the annual Defense Dept. budget some time between then and 2020. This is money which is not only not economically productive, but which acts as a drag on our economy. It does enrich those who hold those bonds, though. Whether we fight wars on terror or wars on poverty, the same people benefit by lending us that money. Our loss is their gain, and thus represents a de facto transfer of power as well. Who those people are is irrelevant, but some are certainly the Chinese and the Saudis.

2) We have some $200 trillion in unfunded Social Security liabilities, and will within the next twenty years or so owe an amount every year equal to our Gross Domestic Product in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Self evidently, this means that the status quo cannot be maintained through increased taxation, since we cannot take the entire economic output of the nation to fund entitlements. Further, to the extent we try to do so, we obviously shrink that output.

This confuses some people, so I will make this simple. Social Security is and always has been an intergenerational wealth transfer program. The first Social Security recipient–Ida May Fuller–paid in $24.75, and received $22,888.92 in benefits. It’s not a program which takes from the rich and gives to the poor–although that element is there in part as well. It is a program in which the grandchildren pay for their grandparents benefits. If the number of grandchildren are equal to the number of grandparents, the math can work. Demographically, though, there were a LOT of babies born after WW2–the Baby Boomers–and that number dropped off subsequently, such that if what we would have paid was $1, now we have to pay $1.50.

To this must be added the frequent increases in benefits, so called “cost of living” increases. Prior to the Boomers hitting, these could more or less be managed by increasing the payroll taxes. Social Security only went into net negative cash flow this year. But every increase in benefits has meant an increase in the relative burden on those paying it, since those putting in to it could not have paid that money.

To be clear, in theory–which is to say according to the deceptive arguments used to convince a skeptical Congress–Social Security was just Uncle Sam making sure you provided for your own retirement. The funds would go to a special place, and nobody would touch them. Yet, the program takes some 62,000 people to administer, and they have to be paid. How are they paid? Payroll taxes. If you ponder this for a moment, you realize that if they did nothing but take your cash and pile it up, you would still lose, since they would have to deduct their overhead. Not only can you not earn interest, but you LOSE in the bargain, necessarily and unavoidably, and to this must be added the loss of the value of money as a result of inflation.

How is this fact masked? Unfunded cost of living increases, which is to say increasing the tax burden on each succeeding generation.

Broken down, here is the situation, then. We can project with a reasonably high degree of accuracy how much money will be taken in in payroll taxes in, say, 2025, and how many people will be receiving benefits, and how much those benefits will cost. We are, today, taking in less than we pay out. This amount will steadily increase, year after year. The deficit will be $50 billion, then $100, then $500 , then a trillion, then 2 trillion, and max out at about $4 trillion annually. We will pay out $4 trillion more than we take in, for a number of years. Then that amount will slowly decrease, as the Boomers pass on, and we will again reach a balance of payments some time 20-30-40 (the exact number doesn’t matter) years from now.

It does not take a great deal of intelligence to realize this situation, particularly added to our budget deficit and following debt and interest payments from all other causes (Obamacare, wars, pet projects, etc), will result in our destruction as a nation. The American Experiment will have failed, due to fiscal profligacy and profound, stupefying irresponsibility.

In my own view, it is much too late to simply cut the budget or raise taxes. We owe $13 trillion already, and that amount is increasing quickly. History is rich with nations inflating their way out of debt, but relatively poor with examples of nations paying off bills like this honestly. They normally just fail, and in effect become the vassals of another nation.

Consider the example of Weimar Germany. Most of us have seen pictures or films of the wheelbarrows full of money, but not realized how they came about. Money does not grow on trees. Money is printed by people with the power to do so. It costs them next to nothing to make, but it acquires worth the moment they spend it. The money that filled those wheelbarrows was printed by the German government as a means of paying off war debts. It was economically ruinous to the ordinary citizens of Germany, but it was hugely beneficial to the German government, and to large industrial concerns with debts. They inflated until they were done paying the war reparations, then they simply revalued the Mark, and went about their business. This was not precisely the plan–I don’t think there was a plan–but that is how it worked out. It was the global Depression which brought about Hitler, not the hyperinflation.

We can, and in my view should, do something like this, but openly and quickly, and in a way which benefits everyone. We further need to rectify the problems with our financial system. My proposal for how to do this is contained HERE.

A key component of this proposal that many people miss is that I have redefined what Capitalism is. This is not a small issue. People really need to ponder this, and grasp this, since in its own way this is as original a critique as those offered by Marx and Adam Smith; assuming my logic is sound, of course. I’m seeking critics and if you qualify, please comment.

Assuming my logic is sound, the beauty of this proposal is that it could also be used to pay off the debts of all developing nations, which have been lassoed by global financial interests. Developing the mechanics of that process here would take me too far off track, though. The net is simply that if you can write checks in any amount, you can pay any debt, and if the entity holding that debt disappears–as in my plan–so too does the debt.

Net, net: This is what a useful, peaceful revolution looks like. This would be Hope and Change.

If this makes sense to you–if this is information you think should be available to other Americans as they assess the plans of various political candidates–then please pass this link along to as many people as you can. Thank you!!!

He does make some sense. If we look at the Pledge to America it really does sound like it’s lacking in the brass balls we need to actually fix our problems. This is what happened in 1994, and why it is so positive that Tea Party conservatives are on ballots around the country, most with realistic chances of winning.

What he avoids, because he has to, is the admission that the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid systems simply are not sustainable in their present forms. Everyone knows this. He knows this, but in exactly the same manner that he accuses the Republicans of, he forgoes a rational policy discussion by simply demonizing the Republicans for wanting to secretly attack pet entitlements which he correctly assumes are important to many Americans.

To be clear, the question is not whether or not those programs are desirable. It would be desirable for me to have a nice country estate and trust fund so I could spend all day writing, but the question is what I can afford. And just as I can’t afford that, we can’t afford these programs.

Another vapid piece of fluff, that keeps the troops in line, points out the enemy, and offers no solutions or even adult discussion. He’s worse than worthless: he is an apologist for policies of decline and failure.

I don’t think a person can be useful if they are not periodically wondering if they are being stupid.

Most of the evil in this world is done by people who think that intelligence and knowledge are qualities you can possess, and not the outcomes of habits you cultivate.

This is a response to a challenge from someone who disliked some comments I made on Glenn Beck’s Facebook page.

First off, I should define my terms. I consider socialism, Communism, Marxism, and Leninism to be four different things.

Socialism is an ethical system founded on the idea that inequalities in economic outcome are necessarily the result of inequities in the system, and that the primary purpose of political organization is the eradication of inequalities.

Communism is a system of controlling populations based upon naked force, propaganda (which is to say a combination of deception and brainwashing), and a system of rewards and punishments, such that conformers are rewarded, and dissidents punished. It is a two tiered system in which Party members have all the power and the perks that go with power, and in which those outside the Party get whatever those in power choose for them, and which can be physically provided, given the productive limitations of Command economies. Communists do not recognize human rights such as the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to keep and bear arms, right to avoid self incrimination, security of personal property, due process of law, equality before the law, the right to a writ of habeas corpus, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, the right of the people to elect their representatives, personal economic freedom to produce and sell goods for a profit, to trade goods for a profit, or the right to the free exercise of religion.

If you abrogate everything contained in the Bill of Rights, and then eliminate the ability to live directly on the fruits of your own labor, you will not be far off.

The principle difference between Communism and what is normally called Fascism is the element of nationalism. Communism, in theory at least, is transnational and does not recognize national sovereignty or the right to maintaim individual cultural differences. Everyone is to look and behave the same, which is to say however the Party needs them to look and behave at any given moment in time.

Marxism is an economic theory which predicted the collapse of the Capitalist system as a result of a process by means of which–year on year–the owners of the means of production siphoned off the wealth of the workers, such that a point would be reached in which almost all wealth was held by a very few, and the many would be living in such egregious poverty that revolution was inevitable. His mistake was to fail to realize that excess income for ALL workers, if saved, becomes Capital, such that all members of society can become Capitalists themselves. This is the nature of the origin of the middle class. He further failed to realize that profit comes not from stealing from the workers, but rather from the process of innovation. Since this process is led by the owners of the means of production, they are themselves productive and not parasitic, as he argued. The parasites are the central banks, but that is another topic.

Leninism is a means of implementing Communism. It relies on stealth, deceit, and treachery. Lenin himself made all sorts of promises to all sorts of people. He used the so-calle Mensheviks (this term is illustrative: it means “minority party”, and Bolshevik means “majority party”, when in reality Lenin only led a small group when he coined these terms. The word “Bolshevik”, itself, is a lie) when he needed them, then when they learned what he actually planned, he waged a vicious war against them. The story was that democracy would be enacted, the feudal land system would be done away with, and that all the subject states in the Russian Empire–like Kazakhstan and Georgia–would be freed. He consolidated power, then reneged on all those promises. He developed a system of propaganda which is best summarized in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and he was using secret police to terrorize potential opponents well before he won the war with the White Russians.

To be clear, Lenin’s principle difference of principle and method from the other revolutionaries in Russia was that where they wanted to be democratic and inclusive, he only wanted a small elite of professional, full time revolutionaries, who would wake up in the morning and go to bed at night thinking about revolution. He had no room for anyone who was not committed head to toe, and for life.

Leninism is a type of cult. It is very literally a reason for living for those who adopt it. Most of them change their names. Lenin’s real name was Ulyanov. When he became a Communist, he changed it. Stalin’s (“steel” plus Lenin, in Russian) real name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili. Ho Chi Minh’s real name was either Nguyen Tat Thanh, or Nguyen Sinh Cung (I see differing accounts) which he changed to Nguyen Ai Quoc when he became a commited nationalist, and Ho Chi Minh when he became a Communist, some time around 1919. It is a little known but interesting fact that Ho was a founding member of the French Communist Party in 1920.

This brings me to a point which it is critical to grasp. Communists lie. They lie because they recognize no morality other than power. Marx himself had nothing to say about morality. Lenin commissioned some of the largest and most vicious crimes imaginable, all in the name of the revolution for “the people.” He didn’t like “people”, though. He showed that often.

Fast forward 50 years or so, and read Rules for Radicals. There is nothing in there about the difference between right and wrong. There is only room for success and failure, and deception and willful manipulation of the public dialogue was the primary means he advocated.

And one sees over and over and over very committed Leninists lying for years about their actual beliefs. Ho Chi Minh fooled people literally for decades. Fidel Castro said he was just a nationalist, and then when he took power, and began eliminating potential rivals who actually were nationalists, the truth came out.

An obscure but interesting example is Albert Pham Ngoc Thao, who was a commander in the Viet Minh, then claimed he had had a change of heart. He was made chief of military security for the South Vietnamese Army, and in that capacity was involved in several coups. It came out in 1975 that he had always been a Leninist, and had never renounced his old ways.

The two most prominent secret Leninists in the U.S. government were Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White. Hiss chaired the committee that wrote the UN Charter. White, along with John Maynard Keynes, was the architect of both the IMF and World Bank.

So if people tell you there were never any senior Leninists in our government, they are misinformed. People can and do pretend they are “normal”, while not just holding radical beliefs but acting on them.

And we see people turn from Leninism. Whittaker Chambers dropped the dime on Hiss in the late 30’s, and FDR literally told him to “Fuck off”. That is, I believe, a quote. Chambers had a radical transformation. He became a political conservative and ardent opponent of all forms of leftism. One of my heroes is Albert Camus, who was an open Communist–I will use that word, since he for a time thought the Soviets had built something worth a damn–but then very openly and publicly broke with the Party, which ended his friendship with Sartre.

Or take David Horowitz, who was a prominent leftist in the 60’s, and who–when he realized that you can’t change human nature without even trying to adhere to moral laws–switched to being a conservative.

Or take the Neocons, who actually are a group, although you’d never know it. Almost all of them were former Leninists or Trotskyists, who got “mugged by history”, and wound up on a permanently altered path.

When people awaken to what Communism means for the people in the countries which have it, they can never go back. There is a line which cannot be crossed twice.

Now, on to Jones. Let’s start with this quote: “I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ “I was a rowdy [black] nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.” This was 1992. On his own admission, and as evidenced clearly in their own publications, his group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement was Marxist in its economic outlook (in their self appraisal), and Leninist and Maoist in its political aims, which were the organization of (presumbly secret) revolutionary cadres to disseminate propaganda, organize people politically, and if and when the time came to take to the streets both in protest, and–perhaps–open violence. This sort of thing fills the writings of both Lenin and Mao, and he organized study groups for the writings of both men.

I would note, too, that Jones, in 2005, was wearing a t-shirt that said “Kanye was right”. Watch the video, and decide what that implies about his beliefs in 2005. That is what race baiting looks like.

On his own admission, Jones was a “Communist” in 1992, and spent the next ten years trying to organize revolutionary cadres.

From page 40: We were a cadre organization that was working to build revolutionary mass organizations and to lay the groundwork for a future revolutionary party (or parties) by building a broad revolutionary internationalist trend.

On page 2 you will note that although the authors are not listed, they included substantially all the members of the group when it broke up in 2002, and that the document itself was a sort of Maoist self criticism. Public self denigration was an essential part of the Maoist propaganda system.

So we have a self admitted communist, who for the last 8 years has been working to bring together the environmental movement, the civil rights movement, and the social justice movements. We don’t have him saying, again, “I am a Communist”. What we have is the admission that what he was going WASN’T WORKING.

I put the issues and constituencies first. I’ll work with anybody, I’ll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward…. I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”

Does that sound like a change of heart? Not to me. Those are his words, several years after the end of STORM.

Finally, we have this video from a talk in a setting friendly to him and his ideas, Berkeley, California. Glenn Beck, who we are discussing, has the audio here. You listen to Jones. I don’t have time to find the exact spot on the audio, but it is abundantly clear from his tone, his response, and his facial expression that not only is he still a Marxist, but that this is so well known that the question is ridiculous.

Note, too, that he calls his group the “Pro-democracy” movement. In his view, America was not a “democracy” under George Bush, and now it will be under Barack Obama. This is a ridiculous claim. Did Obama suddenly create the right to vote? Of course not. He is talking about something else.

Democracy and Republic are both codespeak for Communist tyranny: hence the People’s Republic of China, the German Democratic Republic, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviets, at one time, were the equivalent of, perhaps, State assemblies, prior to the Bolsheviks making them one party by law), etc.

Or take the group from which Bill Ayers split off: Students for a Democratic Society. Did they want a system in which people have government recognized rights which protect them from abuses, and in which people could render their opinions in the ballot box, resulting in regular changes in government? Of course not. The setup is simple: Capitalism is about greed, greed is wrong, therefore “freedom” consists in protection from PRIVATE greed (self evidently, all Communists governments are far, far more abusive than the worst corporation in human history), and “democracy” is the system which does this. In order to become free, tyranny must be imposed. Only people with college educations at elite schools can be stupid enough to believe this, but they are out there. Jones law degree is from Yale, if memory serves.

Again, Leninism is about deceit. It is an evil doctrine, that results in human suffering, and those who knowingly adopt it are in my view likewise morally corrupt.

Van Jones is clearly such a person. He wants to destroy, not build, and hate, not love, his own propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding.

Edit: I will add, that Jones is very clearly MUCH more talented than our current President. It is a shame he has not seen fit to put that talent to use in a way that would actually improve the lives of people in the inner city he claims to care about. As things stand, the policies of the Democrats will hurt them worst of all. His “green jobs” idea was never anything but a redistributive hustle.

It is a pity to see the venom of Leftism ruin what otherwise could have been productive lives.