Moderates United

I read this this morning: https://www.infowars.com/central-bank-issues-stunning-warning-if-entire-system-collapses-gold-will-be-needed-to-start-over/

It occurs to me I could call my proposal (read text, then click on picture) a monetary reset.  What I do call it is a Blueprint for a Capitalist Revolution.  It has more zing, but it does amount to a do-over, a monetary Mulligan.

More than that, though, obviously, it is rectification of wrongs, and a taking of power from an unelected, covert elite, and a redistribution of that power–as found in wealth–to a much larger number of people, a democratization of wealth, if you like, two chickens in every pot, and all workers able to afford the cars they make.  The sort of thing Leftists have always claimed they supported, but which they are uniformly much too stupid to actually enact, or even intelligently plan for.  The extent of their planning is taking Danny’s favorite bunny rabbit and giving it to Johnny and calling it just, all using intermediaries like secret police so they never get their own, personal, hands dirty.  When the bunny rabbits run out, they blame everybody but themselves, even though their own policies more or less directly inhibit in the best cases and indirectly prevent in most cases the manufacture of more bunny rabbits. 

With regard to my proposal, I am not hung up on any specific details, and as I’ve said before, would write that piece a bit differently today.  I don’t care about the gold aspect.  Gold is psychology.  That is what people have to understand.  If everyone has faith in the system, then no backing is needed.  As they point out, faith is what sustains our current fiat currencies, which can be created in unlimited quantities at the click of a computer, if the computer resides in the right place in the “supply” network. It’s unbelievable, if you really grasp this.  How could thousands of economists be so fucking stupid?  It’s the forest and the trees.  They come into the party after the monetary system is in place.  Their JOB, as most of them see it, is to manage the problems CREATED by the system.  Without that system, they would have no jobs.  So like people “researching” global warming, they NEED the system, because otherwise they would have nothing to do; or at least much less.  They would be what would amount to philosophers of business.

I am tempted to call my proposal brilliant.  It isn’t, though.  There are economists out there with much higher IQ’s than me.  The needed quality is not genius.  What is needed is audacity and courage.  All I did–literally all I did–was sketch out accurately the logical foundations of the system, then reason my way to obvious conclusions.  That is it.

But that is seemingly more than several generations of economists and political leaders have been able to do, or at least willing to speak about publicly.  No doubt the beneficiaries of the system are VERY cognizant of how the system works, and how it could easily be taken from them.  They see it every day.

But for most people, these things are mysteries which they don’t even realize exist.  Ford was right some 100 years ago that a revolution would happen immediately if most people understood the structure of our financial system.

I continue to hope that good people read my proposal, understand the broad stroke intent–a massive redistribution of wealth and power without violence, in effect returning that wealth and power to their rightful owners–and that some of them exist in places where they can do something about it.

We need to end both central banks and fractional reserve banking.  The latter was proposed, in large measure, as the Chicago Plan back in the Great Depression.  In that plan, though, as I understand it, the power to create money was still allowed to reside with the government.

No one should have the power to create money.  This is inherently abusive.  A fixed amount of money needs to be created, once, then that power permanently eliminated.  If we are in the end reduced to gold and silver coins–or certificates which are maintained diligently on a one to one ratio with the physical specie (a one ounce note corresponding to an actual one ounce somewhere)–then I am OK with that.

I see visions.  I see how we can peacefully and thoroughly remake this world into one which is peaceful, harmonious, happy, thoughtful, and prosperous.

I also see psychopaths and idiots.  Everywhere.

All I can do is what I can do.  I write here.  I work on myself, and eventually some of my plans I can take into operation locally, and then see where it goes from there.

My biggest dreams, such as my financial plan, are beyond my ability to do anything about.  I could write a book, but my experience is that people do not listen.  My ideas are much too strange for them.  The groundwork has to be laid, and I don’t know how to do that.

As I have likely shared, Terry Gilliams dystopian movie “Brazil” has my vote for the most prescient guess with regard to the future. In it, freedom does not exactly disappear, but simply ceases to matter for people obsessed with consumption, and keeping up with the Joneses.

And it HIT ME, just now, that the scene when Johnathan Pryce is brought in to be tortured by Michael Palin, where the guard says “don’t hold out too long or it will affect your credit score” is LITERALLY—and by literally I mean literally—what they have built in China.

There, if someone suspects you of something or other, and they arrest you, and they interrogate you, failing to confess a crime—even one you did not commit—could literally be a strike against your social credit score.  What may be termed Hyperconfessionalism is a key element in Maoist Bros washing, and there is zero reason to suppose it does not survive even today, particularly behind locked gates and tall walls.

And I will emphasize that, even though formally and dogmatically atheist, Communism as an ideal still had what might be termed a spiritual component. It was going to improve humanity, right wrongs, usher in peace, harmony, happiness and pervasive well being.

But don’t you just KNOW that Chinese women married to powerful men are just as obsessed with beauty and plastic surgery as the women were in Brazil?

50 plus million dead, and the dominant national ideal is compliant plastic people without original thoughts of any sort, trained from birth to work, consume, submit, and die.

How could any intellectual who retains a residual belief in ANYTHING not consider this ludicrous?

I remember the 80’s, any way, with the punk and post punk anger at thoughtless consumerism, the exportation of the suburban cultural ethos to everyone. This ethos is now, as far as I can tell, State dogma.

”Don’t do anything we do anything we don’t like”, the State tells the people, “or you won’t be able to buy tickets to see your favorite pop star.”

Seek freedom. Not just political freedom, but mental and emotional freedom. See the cage you built to protect you so long ago, and open the gate and walk out. I don’t know what will happen, and neither can you, but it WILL change you.

One of the most influential shows I ever watched, specifically, was the Cosmos episode where Carl Sagan talked about Mars Retrograde, as the single (as I recall) problem with the Ptolemaic model of the solar system.  What they had were planets revolving around the Earth, with each planet itself revolving in a second circle.  That, in any event, is how I recall the model.

The point is that it was highly accurate, other than some seemingly small details, which could be, and largely were, swept under the rug.

What if our own notions of quantum and macro physics are like the Ptolemaic model: highly accurate, but missing some fundamental piece?

As I understand String Theory, for example, it only has one type of “particle”, which is a sort of filament, which can manifest in many ways.  The math can be made to square with Relativity.  Conceptually, it simplifies a lot of things.  But it cannot be tested.  It remains–and is likely to remain–merely a very aesthetically pleasing possibility.

But it’s not unreasonable to suppose when you take something like Wave/Particle duality–one of the best tested facts in science–that we are missing something important.

For important discoveries to take place, you have to clear ground.  You have to have a place holder for “Something big that we missed”.

To me, the obvious examples that most physicists seem to devote little energy to are the Zero Point Field/Quantum Vacuum, and the seemingly related Higg’s Field.   We found the Higg’s Boson.  The field exists.  Now what?  I don’t know.  My understanding is that work is underway on the next big particle “Lab”, which will no longer quite be an accelerator.

But at all times, in all areas of life–work, romance, driving, creative projects, religion/spirituality, parenting, etc.–you always have to have a place holder for “Something big that I missed.”  That enables the process of perception to happen much more smoothly.

In my own case, I alternate, if I may say so (and nobody is stopping me!!!), brilliance, and profound stupidity.  My brain works in odd pathways.  It leads me places nobody else I know goes, but it also sometimes fails me completely, leaving me blind to obvious facts literally everyone but me sees.

So I have considerable first hand experience of missing big things.  I could tell some funny, to many incomprehensible, stories from my childhood.  I was severely dissociated.  I lived in my own little dream world, and there is no reason not to suppose that is still in many respects true, although I am vastly, vastly better now even than I was ten years ago.

You know, it is in my view an established and obvious fact that we are all reduced to taking our best guesses as to how life works.  In order to avoid dogmatic blindness, you must always keep an open mind.  Perhaps Spiritualists have described things best.  I tend to believe this.  Perhaps the Buddhists or Hindus.

Maybe we are extinguished when we die, or so radically changed that we are no longer recognizably us. I can’t say from personal experience or with certainty this is not the case.  Atheism is not an inherently irrational position, merely DOGMATIC atheism.  That is irrational, because it makes the simultaneous claims that it is scientific, and that it possesses an absolute and immutable Truth.  This bespeaks an emotionally rooted and willful misunderstanding of science, which always makes merely provisional claims, always subject to added evidence and the conclusions to which that evidence leads.

Last night, as I continue to fly in the face of all the anxieties this world throws at me, it was robots.  Robots and some deeply complex personal myth I’m still sort of sorting out.

Robots are coming.  You can’t stop it.  They may be good, bad, or most likely both.  The Marines are already deploying remote controlled and also, I think, vaguely intelligent .50 caliber gun platforms.  Little guns on wheels, with targeting computers.

The Buddha had sickness, old age, and death.  We have robots/AI, also, and perhaps also the philosophical conundrum if you are still you if it proves possible to upload SOMETHING to an electronic world.  If is worth it?  If death is certain and final, maybe, I guess.  It’s not an inherently illogical position.

In the end we are left with our beliefs.  I think all of us would get on much better if we all always remembered the provisional nature of our guesses.  We do “have” each other.  We can see one another, hug one another, shoot one another, eat meals with one another.  That much is as close to an established fact as any other that we have.  This much we know, to the extent we can know anything.

And if you think about it, there is something solipsistic, or perhaps narcissistic–although I’m not quite sure that is the word–about anyone losing themselves in a computerized universe, in video games, artificial reality, recorded music, recorded drama (movies being to live productions what records are to live performances).  One could sit in a man or woman cave, work remotely, and be surrounded by what amounts to relics, records, of human activity, which nonetheless FEEL present.  But they aren’t.  This is an important point.

I am tempted to say there are countless madnesses, which reminds me of the Sufis who counted many types of Idiot.  I’ve been told by a number of women that I think too much.  The sort of stuff you see here is not something most men or women really want to live in.

And it is true that I, too, am sitting in front of a computer.  But I am interacting, I would say, with my Self.  I am trying to learn what hidden caves and continents are hidden within me.

Last night, as one example, I dreamed of a hidden cave, with a hidden lake in it.  This is, or was, walled off emotion, things hidden.  For me, water is nearly always emotion.

The goal is emotional transparency, where you are hiding nothing.  I am no longer hiding my fear of robots, which I have dedicated very little waking energy to.  But it’s there.  It’s definitely there.  But you face, embrace, and create a place for fears.  I think that is what you do.  You can’t make it go away, if it is rational–as this one manifestly is–but perhaps create a place for it, and plant it like a little seedling, and give it sun and water.  And it may never get any bigger, precisely because it doesn’t have to.  You haven’t forgotten it.  I haven’t forgotten it.  It does not need to signal to me that there is a possible danger–I am giving it the attention it needs.

Maybe this is the best peace we can get: a thousand small anxieties, all kept within very manageable size, coupled with a sense of wonder at the light in this world, the colors, the odors, the positive feelings, and the awareness that only those who choose to be are truly alone. You can always be your own kind companion, and if you can manage that, you will always be welcome among others too.

It’s easy enough, obviously, to skew polls.  Just oversample a population likely to support what you want to be supported.  Today, oversample Democrats in asking whether or not Trump’s election should be reversed through an abuse of the impeachment process.

There is a more subtle element, though, too, I think: Republicans do not think about, do not value, polls the same way Democrats do.  Personally, if I get asked to participate in a poll, I say fuck no.  Why?  Why would I want to give you my time? 

Many on the conservative side of the ninety degree political mark would, I think, agree with me.

But polling on the Left almost equals morality.  These people are taught that a popular position must be a just and moral position.  In my years on the internet, I have been told over and over and over and over again that X is popular, and that this constitutes a valid argument.

There is a large abyss between those who think rightness can be equated with popularity, and those like me who are very firm in their convictions that you can be right even if the whole world is against you; even if you are an army of one.

The eagerness with which Democrats and Republicans encounter polls, then, is I think quite different.  I do not become more right if I give you my opinions, and you do not become more right if you find a lot of people to agree with you.  Rightness is a philosophical question, an abstract question, a question open to debate.

But for most Democrats, it really is a question of who has the best polling numbers.  This vast gap has to be considered in evaluating any poll numbers.

I am finding that clearing emotional blockages is a lot like when you eat too much peanut butter–or really any food that creates a pain in your chest–and it gets caught in your throat, then you drink water to clear it, and it hurts worse for a second, before it gets better.

Yes, that.

As far as I can tell, what we have learned is that some element in the intelligence community–yet unnamed, but perhaps affiliated with the CIA–has been listening in on the telephone conversations our President has, looking for political dirt.  They may be listening in when he calls his wife, daughter and son.  They may be listening when he calls old pals.  They may be listening when he calls Rudy Guiliani, or the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (which may have actually been run by good people in recent memory), or has phone sex with some bimbo whose name we haven’t learned, YET.

Does no one else see the problem here?  Can we not apply what might be termed the “Obama Principle” and ask: if this were being done to Obama, would the reaction be the same?  Of course not.  Of course not.

As I wrote in the lead up to the 2008 election, the damage Obama did to our country can be corrected.  We just needed a new leader, which we got.

But the STUPIDITY of an electorate so responsive to almost childish propaganda offensives that it could be manipulated into supporting and electing him: that is a problem with no easy fix.

Obama was obviously no saint, and Trump is no villain, but America STILL seems to be responding to these cartoons, these Looney Tunes, in the way the CIA and other affiliated persons and bad actors want us to.

I think it is past time for a repeat of the Church hearings, but this time with consequences for all involved, and a wholesale shredding of the whole outfit.  The media is taking direction, and the most obvious candidates are the one’s with the most experience in overthrowing governments, and electing illegitimate ones.

My view: a cynical photo op intended to attempt to peal wobbly Republicans away from Trump.  I watched her monologue, where she spoke approvingly of “whistle-blowers” at a football game, with an obvious second reference.

Ellen and W belong together, just as, in important respects, Clinton, George H.W., W, and Obama belonged together.  All of them are, or were, something different from Trump.  They were tools, of people whose names we don’t know.

Trump, himself, has inserted a spotlight into this darkness, and while we still don’t know the names, I don’t think, the existence of the problem itself is very, very, very clear.

I was reading the other day that one in four Swedish women are afraid to leave the house because of the HUGE increase both in rapes, and the violence of those rapes.

I read the other day an article from a labor organizer who was treating illegal alien workers in the same stroke as American workers, like he cared equally for them.

We see the letter string LGBT, without really recognizing that the T is really in opposition to the rest.  You can only be “gay” or “lesbian” if you recognize that men and women exist, and are different.  To this point, I was reading a trans activist the other day who was claiming that BEING GAY is transphobic.

This morning, I was reading this:


An excerpt: 

five years ago, I first started seeing lesbians were being publicly shamed, sexually harassed, and demonized by straight men calling themselves lesbians. 

These men also tended to call themselves progressives, feminists … They keep telling us now that they are absolutely indispensable to the women’s movement, and we cannot do without them. Everyone can always see this behavior, and they always get away with it. 

I didn’t think — and I still don’t — that sexually harassing lesbians is a good way to be inclusive. So I objected. 

It turns out it’s a firing offense on today’s left to complain about men sexually harassing lesbians if that man says he feels like he’s a lesbian. 

That harassment still goes on, and if anything, it has gotten worse. Women share shocking screenshots with me from lesbian dating apps, which are now just simply packed wall-to-wall with men. These men have even started getting women’s [social media] profiles suspended for saying no to them and refusing to recognize their gender and validate their feelings.

Core truth: YOU HAVE TO PICK SIDES.  You cannot be pro-women, in Sweden, and pro-immigrant.  They are incompatible.  You have to prioritize and choose.

You cannot be a feminist, and be pro-transgender.  The latter don’t recognize the construct of “woman” and are doing their level best to completely disrupt and destroy true women’s athletics.

You cannot be in favor of essentially unrestricted and unregulated illegal immigration AND claim you support American workers.  Cesar Chavez–who I cite endlessly because in the Southwest there about as many roads named after him as Martin Luther King Jr.–understood this.  He organized LEGAL Hispanic workers, who were being abused since even though they were either citizens or had green cards, their inability to speak English, and/or inability to really understand our system, led to their systematic exploitation, which Chavez worked his whole life to stop.  Illegals, who really amount to scabs in this whole thing, made all of that harder.  They eroded his gains, made regression easier.  So he hated them, and on at least one occasion sent his guys out to the desert to beat up and intimidate illegals who were camping there.

Thinking about it, the only continuity running through any of this mess is LOYALTY TO PARTY.  Who wins, always?  Those in power.  If they want you running in this direction this morning, and that direction in the afternoon, you yourself cannot claim moral continuity.  You can’t claim you believe anything, personally.  What you value, ALL you value, is conformity to those in power.

All of the examples I cited above conform to this matrix. 

And there is what I call, or have taken to calling–and I think I posted on this but can’t remember–the Law of Recency.  This is of course a learning principle, but here I would define it as “where alleged victims are concerned, the most recent to get our attention has primacy over all others.”

Blacks have primacy over the working class, but illegals have primacy over blacks.  Transgenders have primacy over LGB’s, who have primacy over women.  The Law of Recency is how the Democrats have abandoned substantially all actual Americans, without most quite realizing this is the case.  It’s astonishing, but really the inevitable outcome of people subordinating their own judgement to those of power elites.  The will to see atrophies.  The capacity for perception, for squaring up principle and action, slowly withers.

And the continual evocation of anger helps mask all this.  When you are angry, you are not thinking.  All they have to do is point out one crime, one injustice, and ignore the counterbalancing, often worse injustice.  Children here illegally are treated poorly, we are told.  Ignored is that 1) their parents sent them here, knowing this was the case; and 2) most of the children throughout Central America live in shit situations ALREADY, and we can’t save all of them.  That is the job of the adults in the region, and most of them are corrupt and violent.  It’s sad, but it is not ultimately our primary or even secondary responsibility.  This is a situation for international charity, and would not be hurt at all by an airlift of books by Hayek and Friedman.

You have to pick sides.  Either you do, or you are a politician, and worthy of receiving all the condemnation that job evokes with morally normal people.

I can feel the effects of this movie on America.  I saw a poster with Donald Trump as a superhero, that he himself is selling, and it makes sense to me now.  Intuitively, he sense America needs heroes.  We need people we can trust and believe in.

The Joker is a body blow to our collective psyche, quite intentionally.  It is a villain who supercedes all our heroes, to the point where he is not even a villain, just a truth-teller.

This movie, I think, is satanic, and will be taken as such by many.  The Joker represents the spirit of the mass shooter, the rioter, the gleeful sadist and anarchist.  But everyone is dressed the same, I think.  They all have the same mask.  The ability to express their rage and hatred comes at the price of personal conformity.  All amygdalic attributes.

I watched the psychic creation of this character.  He was struggling, and then a female “bruja” gave him what he needed, including his face.  I read the plot summary, and this female energy would be both his mother and Sophie.

For some time, in American–and probably other, since Hollywood has influenced most of the world–movies, there has been the righteous retribution motif.  Someone kills your dog, you are John Wick, and John Wick 4 is being planned.  The Punisher.  Batman, in directly relevant ways.  Outlaw Josey Wales.  Most Rambos.  This is a basic theme of a very high percentage of action thrillers.  Bad guys do bad things, then the good guy becomes a bad guy who is really a good guy.  Why?  Because he recognizes LIMITS.

Joker, seemingly, takes this retributive motif, and simply directs it at “Society” as a whole.  Everyone is guilty, or nearly everyone.  As the mass shooter, you might spare that one person who gave you the money for a cab or a Coke or something, but then shoot some woman right next to him you have never seen before in your life.

I’m actually going to go out on a small limb here, but with a high degree of mythic/psychological confidence: I think Martin Scorcese has major unprocessed mother issues.  He was the psychic backing of this film, which was on all accounts modeled in part on Taxi Driver, which I’ve seen, and King of Comedy, which I haven’t and won’t.  I read Scorcese initially wanted to be a priest, but failed out.  You can’t get subtle psychological dynamics, obviously, from Wikipedia.  The stuff that matters the most, usually, is often invisible to those involved.  That, in any event, has been my experience.  I’ve been doing some processing of my own I’m not talking about.

Based on my reading of the plot, finding out his mother was a sort of disgraced whore was the final unraveling, the final humiliation, the final shaming.

This is a mythically powerful film.  Its potential for evil should not be underestimated.  I personally have no plans to see it.  I am not immune to evil, although, having seen a great deal up close, having been visited by many demons, I think my resistance through recognition is quite high. It’s the demons you don’t see which get you.

I am washing toxins out of me right now, toxins I was unable to feel before.  Things are going well with me, but not well with our society.  We need new, better dreams.  We need hope.  We need civility, but won’t get it back as long as a large segment of our populace depends on what I will call “Amygdalic Politics”.  There may be a large crash before, hopefully, things get better.

I am reminded of a movie by Federico Fellini, called “The Orchestra Practice”.  As I recall it–having seen it many years ago–it may be a good metaphor.

Back to bed.  I had to write that, before sleep erased what I had to say.