Tuesday, September 30, 2008


BTW: Unless you are Sarah Palin being quizzed by MSM, facts don't matter for politicians. See http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/03/do_facts_matter.
In other words, in MSM, it is ludicrous to refer to any show or publication as constituting "news."
BTW --- For detailed list of astonishing number of outright lies and gross misrepresentations made by Michael Moore in his “lie-u-mentary,” Fahrenheit 911, see: http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm.



Ivy league Republicans (George Will , David Brooks , Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, and Kathleen Parker and war cheering Democrats (led by Christopher Hitchens ) are acting out against Sarah Palin. Why?

Might war-cheering Democrats, in light of the financial meltdown brought on by excessive Big Government, now long for less international activity by the U.S.? Might ivy league Republicans, ruing Big Government, now prefer that Democrats be elected to suffer blame for mismanaging any recovery? Might ivy league Republicans also fear hints of common sense in Sarah Palin, as if she may dare to question blue blood Republican rationalizations of outrageously disproportionate allocations of wealth, nearing levels of Mexico? On social issues, might blue-blood, self-ingratiating Republicans be more aligned with far left Democrats?

If so, consider:
1) Is the threat of Islamofascist pursuit of nuclear dissemination substantial? If so, compare the costs of retreat.
2) Are ivy leaguers conditioned to “justify” their hiring out to help in the farming of all other Americans, as if we should be reduced to be satisfied with chicken feed? If so, why?

Bottom Line: Look behind the words of “elites;” consider who and what they work for and stand for; do not just assume their “educations” are grounded in fellow-empathy or in good judgment derivative of actual experience. Do not just assume their words are grounded in wisdom as opposed to shallow opportunism --- no matter what their political stripes!

MCCAIN — Work-Out, Bail-Out, or Loan-To-Insure-Out:

Snippets from http://www.newsmax.com/morris/mccain_against_bailout/2008/09/29/135431.html:
McCain Should Not Support Bailout
Monday, September 29, 2008 10:05 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann


The game is the same: Loans or grants fund the deficient debt service on the defaulted mortgages until homes can recover their value in the cyclical real estate market.
But it makes all the difference in the world politically if this task is accomplished by buying bad debt or by lending the bankers the money to cover their current losses while they keep their bad debts on their books and by insuring them against future losses.
Loans are politically viable. Purchase of bad debt with tax money is not.
The Democrats and our politically-challenged president have failed to appreciate the difference between spending and lending. Treasury Secretary Paulson can be excused for not realizing it. Politics is not his thing.
But John McCain must realize the crucial distinction and must use his leverage to stop a taxpayer-funded bailout, insisting instead on loans and insurance.
If McCain stands firm, the Democrats will either have to pass the bailout package on their own, without Republican votes, and rely on Bush's signature on the bill to provide a fig leaf of bipartisanship, or they will have to cave in and pass the Republican package.
Either way, McCain comes out ahead.
If he gets his way, he gets credit for the bailout. If he doesn't, he can spend the campaign attacking Obama and the Democrats for spending $700 billion of taxpayer money.
If the Democrats don't adopt either course and play a game of chicken with the Republicans, their congressional status as the majority party dooms them to taking the blame for any ensuing collapse.
Big Oil and Obama v. McCain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B_mlrryYQA.

How Leftists Restore Respect: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_foreign_policy_appeasem.html.


Another direct fix for frozen credit markets would be an FDIC program to restore bank capital that has disappeared in the downward market spiral. Former FDIC Chairman William Isaac suggested last Saturday in a Washington Post op-ed that this could take the form of "net worth certificates" issued by the FDIC to troubled banks that need time to work out of their problems. This approach worked well in the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s.

There are a number of measures that can be taken to address the liquidity crisis; some already have been. Revision of the SEC's mark-to-market rule should help considerably to free up banks' lending capacities. Likewise, extension of the FDIC limit from $100,000 per account to $250,000 will help prevent runs on banks. Other relatively modest regulatory measures are no doubt available that will also make incremental contributions toward freeing up national and international credit markets.
Government is too important to be left to "elite-in-their-own-minds" intellectual hirelings derivative of socialist billionaires. See: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/11/11/intellectuals.
Liberal tolerance of dissent --- see: http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/11/11/liberal_censorship_and_its_roots.


(Click title above)
Uber-Nomenklatura (International Pirates of Opportunity):
For "Ultimate Play On Volatility" (to consolidate rule of Uber-Nomenklatura), see http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/bidens_generated_crisis.html.
BTW --- For detailed list of astonishing number of outright lies and gross misrepresentations made by Michael Moore in his “lie-u-mentary,” Fahrenheit 911, see: http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm.


(Most of the 9-11 Conspiracy Notions have been adequately debunked.
But, not this one. The only one who could clear up this discrepancy is Bush, and he has not been asked and is not saying.)
On the facts, can there be reconciled a least paranoid, simplest explanation regarding how much Bush knew about the attacks of 9-11 before he went into the class of children?
Might Bush simply have misremembered or misspoken, regarding his having seen on TV the first plane fly into the first of the towers of the WTC?
But, surely, before Bush went into that classroom, he had been informed of several contemporaneous hijackings.
So, how could he possibly not have apprehended that America was about to face a series of attacks?
Did he apprehend, or were he and his aides stunningly incompetent or complacent?
Might his reluctance to explain whether he had misspoken be attributable, simply, to his desire not to relive or give additional legs to old news highlighting his incompetence, but not be attributable to his or his staff’s having known of, or been involved in, any conspiracy to foster or let unwind such attacks, as prelude to justifying planned invasions of the Middle East?
Which is more believable: (a) incredibly high levels of stress, confusion, and misinformation; (b) incredibly high levels of incompetence; or (c) incredibly psychopathic ambition?
Do not subsequent events strongly suggest the prime cause of Bush’s misstatements was choice (b), i.e., stunning incompetence?
Do not the inconsistent and fudged reports and excuses subsequently given to the press likewise implicate attempts to cover up incompetence, rather than attempts to cover up conspiracy?
Insofar as Bush’s money-changing handlers saw to his election, have they now learned, for when next they install a stooge to front the throne, at least to ensure he is articulate?
Regardless, even the most articulate among money-ruling elitists seem prepared to swoop, like birds of prey, in stunningly callous and carefree ineptitude, to overreach at every apparent opportunity to push some sort of agenda that seems to have been hatched or precontrived among N.W.O. conspirators.
That agenda, brazen, if not treasonous, seems to entail secret coordination among co-conspirators, to be on watch for events of volatility that can be seized upon in order To Push Civilization, Globe Wide, Towards A System Of International Socialism, to be ruled over by such secretive elites --- regardless of votes or preferences of those to be ruled!





So Bush says that he watched on TV the first plane hit the (North) Tower while sitting outside the classroom (actually at 8:45, when the first plane hit, Bush was riding in his limousine to the Booker school). Then (some twenty or so minutes later, after he has arrived at the school) he is informed that a second plane has hit. But, as Paul Walker pointed out, prior to the first impact there was no network TV channel showing the Twin Towers live, SO WHAT WAS BUSH WATCHING? It can only have been a private transmission, arranged for Bush's benefit, by people who knew what was about to happen. Either Bush knew what was coming, or he was told to watch the TV transmission (and not go into the classroom until he'd seen what he was supposed to see). Either the President of the United States, or someone closely connected to him, knew that a disaster was about to strike the Twin Towers.


… according to Bush (in his first Town Hall meeting) Card said: "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack." If Bush had seen the South Tower impact before entering the classroom, but was ignorant of the (prior) North Tower impact, then Bush would assume that there was a second hit after the one he had just seen ….


… if Bush was waiting not in a room with a TV, but rather in the corridor, with the TV in an adjacent room, then perhaps he got a look at it only as he was passing the room on his way to the classroom at 9:03 a.m.


This theory does not imply that Bush was unaware of the preparations for 9/11, or that he lacked "prior knowledge" (if there is proof of this, e.g., a video of Bush being prepared, then it is probably in the hands of Mossad), but suggests that he was not informed in advance as to exactly which day the attacks were to occur. (Perhaps he was informed, by his National Security Advisor, only after the 9/11 operation had already begun.) Like
Timothy McVeigh Bush may have been seen by the planners of 9/11 as a useful idiot, and one does not invite idiots to participate in the planning of operations which must be carried out with care and precision to succeed. One tells them only enough about what is going to happen to ensure that this knowledge can be used later to frame them or to control them.


Bush’s appearance at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, on September 11, 2001 had been in the planning stages since August [
Booker web site], but was only publicly announced on the morning of September 7.
On the night of September 10th, Bush stayed at the Colony Beach Resort—“an upscale and relatively pristine tropical island enclave located directly on the Gulf of Mexico, a spindly coral island… off Sarasota, Florida.” [
AP, 07/29/01] Zainlabdeen Omer, a Sudanese native living in Sarasota, told the local police that night that someone he knew who had made violent threats against Bush was in town and Omer was worried about Bush’s safety. The man was identified only as “Ghandi.” A police report states the Secret Service was informed immediately. [Hopsicker, 7/22/02]
Bush awoke a little before 6:00 a.m. on September 11, pulled on shorts and an old T-shirt and laced up his running shoes. [
CBS, 11/1/02] At 6:30 a.m., Bush, a reporter friend, and his Secret Service crew took a four-mile jog in the half-light of dawn around a nearby golf course. [Washington Post, 1/27/02, Washington Post, 09/11/01]
At about the same time Bush was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony’s guard station. The men said they were a television news crew with a scheduled “poolside” interview with the president. They asked for a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent inside the resort, who hadn’t heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He told the men to contact the president’s public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the van turned away. [
Longboat Observer, 9/26/01]
The Secret Service may have foiled an assassination attempt. Two days earlier, Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, had been murdered by a similar ruse. Two North African men, posing as journalists from “Arabic News International,” had been requesting an interview with Massoud since late August. Ahmad Jamsheed, Massoud’s secretary, said that by the night of September 8, “they were so worried and excitable, they were begging us.” An interview was arranged for the following day. As it began, a bomb hidden in the video camera exploded, killing the two journalists. Massoud was rushed by helicopter to a hospital in Tajikistan, but was pronounced dead on arrival (although his death was not acknowledged until September 15).
Accounts of when Bush’s motorcade left for the school vary from 8:30 to 8:39.
… Bush arrived shortly before 9:00.
Why does it matter when Bush left the resort and arrived at the school? Because this is the crucial time when Bush was first told, or should have been told, of the attacks. Official accounts, including the words of Bush himself, say Bush was first told of what was happening in New York City after he arrived at the school. [
Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] However, this statement does not stand up to scrutiny. There are at least four reports that Bush was told of the first crash before he arrived at the school.
The first media reports of Flight 11’s crash into the World Trade Center began around 8:48, two minutes after the crash happened. [
New York Times, 9/15/01] CNN broke into its regular programming at that time [CNN, 9/11/01], though other networks, such as ABC, took a few more minutes to begin reporting. [ABC, 9/14/02] So within minutes, millions were aware of the story, yet Bush supposedly remained unaware for about another ten minutes.
… Kia Baskerville, a CBS News producer traveling with Bush that morning, received a message about a plane crash “as the presidential motorcade headed to President Bush’s first event.” Baskerville said, “Fifteen minutes later I was standing in a second grade classroom [waiting for Bush’s entrance]”—which means she got the news at about 8:47—right as the story was first being reported. [
CBS, 8/19/02] A news photographer in the motorcade overheard a radio transmission that Press Secretary Ari Fleischer would be needed on arrival at the school to discuss reports of some sort of crash.
Florida Congressman Dan Miller, waiting in front of the school as part of the official greeting party, was told by an aide about the crash at 8:55, before Bush arrived. [
Sarasota Magazine, 11/01]
If Bush wasn’t told while in his limousine, he certainly was told immediately after he got out of it. US Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the director of the White House Situation Room, was traveling in the motorcade when she received a message from an assistant back in Washington about the first crash. Loewer said that as soon as the car arrived at Booker, she ran quickly over to Bush. “It’s a very good thing the Secret Service knows who I am,” Loewer later said. She told Bush that an aircraft had “impacted the World Trade Center. This is all we know.” [
Catholic Telegraph, 12/7/01, AP, 11/26/01]
Flight 93 wasn’t hijacked until about 9:16, but by about 8:50, it was clear that at least three planes had been hijacked.
Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director, says he was there when Bush was told: “ [Bush] being a former pilot, had kind of the same reaction, going, was it bad weather? And I said no, apparently not.” [
ABC News, 9/11/02] A reporter who was standing nearby later said, “From the demeanor of the President, grinning at the children, it appeared that the enormity of what he had been told was taking a while to sink in.” [Daily Mail, 9/8/02]
Booker principal Gwen Tose-Rigell was waiting for Bush outside the school. “The limousine stops and the president comes out. He walks toward me. I’m standing there in a lineup; there are about five people. He walks over and says he has to make a phone call, and he’ll be right back.” [
MSNBC, 09/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01] The phone call was with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. From a room with secure communications, Rice updated Bush on the situation. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/17/01, Time, 9/12/01] The fact that Bush immediately said he had to make an important call strongly suggests he was told about the situation while in the motorcade. But some accounts have Andrew Card saying to Bush as he gets out of his limousine, “Mr. President, you really need to take this phone call,” thereby implying that Card knows what’s going on, but Bush doesn’t. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02 (B)]
Tose-Rigell was then summoned to a room to talk with Bush: “He said a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center, and we’re going to go ahead and go on, we’re going on to do the reading thing anyway.” [
AP, 8/19/02 (D)]
So supposedly, 15 minutes after the first crash, none of Bush’s aides, not even Rice back in Washington, DC, knew a thing about the hijackings that had been reported to NORAD 20 minutes earlier? This simply is not plausible.
So supposedly, 15 minutes after the first crash, none of Bush’s aides, not even Rice back in Washington, DC, knew a thing about the hijackings that had been reported to NORAD 20 minutes earlier? This simply is not plausible.
Bush’s remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit—which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.”
Unfortunately, BUSH HAS NEVER BEEN ASKED—not even once—to explain these statements. His memory not only contradicts every single media report, it also contradicts what he said that evening. In his speech to the nation that evening, Bush said: “Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government’s emergency response plans.” [
White House, 9/11/01] It’s not known what these emergency plans were, because neither Bush nor anyone in his administration mentioned this immediate response again. Implementing “emergency response plans” seems to completely contradict Bush’s “by the way” recollection of a small airplane accident.
At 9:03, Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. News of this traveled extremely rapidly. In fact, some of Bush’s Secret Service agents watched the second crash live on television in an adjacent room. [
Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, in the same room as Bush but not near him, immediately received the news on his pager. [CBS, 9/11/02]
Chief of Staff Andrew Card was in a nearby room when he heard the news. He waited until there was a pause in the reading drill to walk in and tell Bush.
ABC News reporter Ann Compton, who was in the room, said she was surprised by the interruption and “wrote [the time] down in my reporter’s notebook, by my watch, 9:07 a.m.” [
ABC News, 9/11/02]
He did not know who (or which country) was attacking, whether there would be more attacks, what military plans had been taken, what military actions should be taken—indeed, he knew virtually nothing about what was going on outside the room. He just sat there. Bush later recalled: “There was no time for discussion or anything.” [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 83-84] Even stranger, as one newspaper put it, although the nation was under terrorist attack, “for some reason, Secret Service agents [did] not bustle him away.” [
Globe and Mail, 9/12/01]
One newspaper suggested he remained “for eight or nine minutes”—sometime between 9:13 and 9:16, since Card’s arrival is uncertain. [
Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02]
The many accounts of what happened to Bush on 9/11 are riddled with disinformation of false threats, omitted details, fudged timing, and more. But around September 11, 2002, the heavily publicized first anniversary of the attacks, there was an obvious attempt to further rewrite the story.

See also
http://www.voxfux.com/features/timeline.html; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUXglJU2w6U; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wobKUZN7dDg.


Americans might be considerably less prone to conspiracy theories if there were any significant evidence or experience of our government actually paying heed to what the citizenry as a whole needs or votes for.

As things stand, we just keep getting hosed by special pork dealers and money ruling, N.W.O. minded elitists. We seem to be on a greased track towards undisciplined free fall into despotism, with competent leadership not in sight — not in mainstream politics, not in mainstream academia, not in mainstream media.


Sunday, September 28, 2008

Globalists' Treachery

(Click title above)

3-D STOOGES --- Dingbat Pelosi, Dipdoowa Frank, and Drip Reid, whistling while they work:

Globalists' Treachery:

Anyone who doubts that Globalists and their puppet-meisters are forcefully pushing the N.W.O. agenda and failing to defend the American Republic and our Constitution should check this out:

“THE ROYAL Bank of Scotland is to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the planned $700 billion bail-out that comes courtesy of the American tax-payer if the US Congress gives the financial rescue package the go-ahead this weekend.”



Bush and his crony Globalists are not really Republicans. A Republican would defend our Republic, i.e., the U.S.A.

But Globalists are pushing as fast and hard as they can to erase our borders, internationalize our law, globalize our currency, and reduce us all to debt slaves to money masters.


I can hardly guess whether their purpose is to try to win some top-tier, skull-and-bones frat game, serve high-money elites, or to try to save us from inter-national destruction in their own perverse way.

But, it does not matter. I do not want to be a pawn in their silly game; I do not think the world is safely ready for world wide government; I do not want to be tied too closely to Communist or Islamic blocs; and I think the world would be safer were the U.S. to right itself and seek to be true to its best traditions.

As things stand, I quite doubt that continued encroachment of anything-goes liberal-style depravity into Eastern venues is calculated to encourage or preserve peace or harmony in the world.

Blame for Meltdown --- let the record show: Democrats dishonest in denials --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs.
Solution --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwC7q_gdex0.

Globalists should be flushed out with fire hoses!



Saturday, September 27, 2008

Disgust with Republicans

(Click title above)

Disgust with Mainline Republicans:
When we find ourselves needing to sell to foreigners our infrastructure in order for it to be built or maintained so that we can rent it back, has not our moral weakness and depravity for overextending our debt come to be written on the wall? Having sold ourselves on the cheap, can we hope ever again to regain any semblance of sovereignty?

In large part, I am a Red Ass Moderate because Democrats just “do not get” individual responsibility, but Republicans just “do not get” fiscal or social responsibility.

Republicans seem always to want to justify greed based on individual hunting success, apart from responsibility or loyalty owed to a wider, sustaining community.

But no individual entirely deserves or earns the pay he hunts or receives. Rather, all of us stand to gain or lose, undeservedly, from community organization, exploitation of common environment, happenstance of birth, leverage of position, adhesive and unequal bargaining, and rationalizing of why the poor should or should not mind or owe the rich. There is nothing particularly fair, reasonable, or justifiable about entire families, clans, or cliques accelerating in disproportionate power to rule the labor of others merely because of happenstance of position for leveraging.

All of us benefit from nurturing a civilization that is stable, sustainable, and amenable of surpassage.

All of us stand to benefit when society is organized to encourage or avail: individuals to work and produce; reasonable opportunity for individuals to earn enough to be able to pursue, buy, or finance shelter, clothing, food, and self respect; empathy and fair dealing with one another; respect for fundamentals for preserving family and social decency; appreciation of our shared need to nourish, heal, educate, and inspire ever-replacing generations; assimilation and respect for social traditions and laws; respect for our common culture and environment; unity for pursuing purpose, art, science, philosophy, understanding, and fulfillment; unity for defending against what is uncivil, nihilistic, or death-dealing;
and appropriate communitarian means for defending, resetting, redistributing, and reapportioning social access for each individual to have OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE income, wealth, power, and general fulfillment.

When society lacks means for fairly reapportioning relative financial power across classes of wealth, natural advantages for leveraging positions continue to accrue, so that gulfs between “haves” and “have nots” continue to expand. Such a situation is neither healthy nor conducive to happy society.

All people are people; none of them appreciates being alienated, ignored, unrepresented, deceived, or condescended to, as a "little person." Yet, alienation, loss of empathy, mistrust, and mutual hostility are what occur, as gulfs in financial power accelerate ever more widely to separate us. Such gulfs seem not to be occurring so much because of innate moral merit or ability as because of compounding advantages in leveraging wealth, position, and access to cliques and secret societies of inside information and loyalties.
Those finding cynically competitive advantage in discarding notions of morality based in spirituality may swim up to topmost levels of power. Discarding morality, their agnostic, nihilistic, atheistic corruption leads to indifference to the plight, value, or worth of the masses of humanity. Such indifference corrupts and seeps into all levels of government and business with which such controllers come into contact. Such indifference leads us all, even ordinary governmental servants and business operatives, to become ever more indifferent and less empathetic to the welfare and moral value of one another. Thus do we begin morally to decline, quickly. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12yfN4wrzQ8.)

Respecting the need to incentive individual work, risk, and insight is only one aspect of a healthy society. But, too often, Republicans have been too short sighted to appreciate: how much their well being depends upon society’s sense of fairness as a whole; how dependent we all are, for being supported in old age, upon the health and good will of our progeny; and how dependent the continued economy and sustenance of all of us is upon each replacing generations’ being availed of fair, financial means to thrive.

Anyone reasonably in touch across various levels of our society should have long ago appreciated how very detrimental to good will towards Republicans is their willfully rationalized blindness, by and large, to the ill of proportionately ever-increasing gulfs across income levels.

For that blindness, the current administration has well earned society’s disgust.

Were John McCain's philosophy only the disgusting philosophy of an ordinary Republican, my support for him would be even less heartfelt.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/business/29bailout.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin, discussing: Limitations on executive pay; stalls on foreclosures; sharing by Government in potential equities; rules for oversight regarding conflicts of interest; and insurance against dubious individual extensions of credit.

But, ask --- what will protect against continuing, increasing:
1) Dependence of U.S. Government on top-tier money changers?
2) Enrichment in wealth and power of abusers of top-tier money changing markets, by mooching and leveraging off the faith and credit of the national government? (There is nothing quite like paying to get screwed!)
3) Allowing of the faith and credit of the U.S. to be used to leverage the continuing sellout of America’s infrastructure to foreigners?
4) Loss of revenues for Americans for maintaining America’s infrastructure?
5) Obfuscation of transparency in accounting through ruses of inventive, dubious credit instruments?
6) Proliferation of government backed mortgage loans to un-creditworthy borrowers?
7) Debt-enslavement of Americans and people worldwide?
8) Devaluation of moral and financial worth of ordinary individual people?
9) Gulfs in income, wealth, and power between “haves” and “have nots,” to such extent as to undermine representative democracy?
10) Pixie dust paper magic to promise the sort of imaginary banquet Peter Pan offered to the Lost Boys, now promising guarantees for pension plans, later, probably, promising to assume all third world indebtedness, all of this leading not to an International Utopia, but to an International Gulag under an iron heel of top tier money controllers.
See http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/the_bailout_plan_as_of_sunday.html.
This is pixie dust paper magic for promising the same sort of imaginary banquet Peter Pan offered to the Lost Boys.
Congress now promises guarantees for pension plans. No doubt, this will be followed by promises to assume all third world indebtedness.
This is not a path to International Utopia, but to International Gulag.
We are being piped off by top level money changers, with Obama acting as smiley face for the real pipers, leading us under an iron heel of faux socialism.
Kill this bill!

See Ron Paul and Jim Cramer, being prescient at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nf9Gbkbm8I.
It appears the Fed has been modulating interest rates not to modulate the economy, but to set up a Mount Vesuvius of instability, as prelude for top tier money changers to stampede us into International Gulag.
Was it H.G. Wells who once wrote a story about people expecting or thinking they were living in paradise, but in fact being raised as cattle?

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Last Man Standing

(Click title above)



Americans might be considerably less prone to conspiracy theories if there were any significant evidence or experience of our government actually paying heed to what the citizenry as a whole needs or votes for.

As things stand, we just keep getting hosed by special pork dealers and money ruling, N.W.O. minded elitists. We seem to be on a greased track towards undisciplined free fall into despotism, with competent leadership not in sight — not in mainstream politics, not in mainstream academia, not in mainstream media.

Last Man Standing:

Should humanity, like one big wolf pack, be subjected to the abuse, bluff, and management of Alphas, or Last Dictator Standing? Or, may human civilization reasonably aspire more to foster and preserve individual freedom and dignity?

Of dictatorships and powers behind thrones: In a “First World,” power often seems based on financial hegemony (such as for “America’s Owners”). In a “Second World,” power often seems based on ruthless cult of personality (such as for Russia, China, North Korea, or the Mafia). In a “Third World,” power often seems based on religiously whipped up, death-cult, tribal-fascism (such as for Iran, or Saudi Arabia).

But, how much must individual freedom and dignity be sacrificed, so that technology, trade, and travel can be safely monitored and controlled, so that no individual, unwatched person is availed to put the world to risk of massive devastation, such as by deliberate spreading of viral technology or of incitements to unsustainable populations or mass environmental abuses? How and to what extent should sacrifice of liberty be mediated in such cause?

In the First World, well positioned financiers presently stand poised to stampede Western Civilization to harness its taxpayers to voluntarily assume unconscionable debts.

How did we get to this point, and what can or should be done?
What are the forces and factors in play?

-- Would-be borrowers have needed credit, so they can borrow money to start or expand businesses or to buy durable consumer goods and homes.
-- For the sake of social stability, borrowers have often needed to be protected against irrational expectations, desires, and willingness to undertake unrealistic or usurious debt obligations.
-- However, bottom-scouring politicians (Barney Frank), seeking easy votes from irresponsible borrowers, put the faith and credit of the nation behind a tsunami of bad mortgage loans.
-- Meanwhile, revolving-door lobbyists and “regulators” plotted to take advantage when such Ponzi pyramid eventually failed, as it had to.

Lenders also have needed to be protected or regulated against competition driven by base, cannibalistic impulses.
Lenders need to be checked or managed, so they do not cannibalize unwary borrowers or each other, using techniques that imperil social stability.
Investors need trustworthy, transparent information and incentives, to help them evaluate whether or when to deposit or invest in lending institutions and/or business stocks.

Of course, high rollers tend to believe transparency for the evaluation of stocks is for “the little people.”

Apart from inside information, successful lenders and investors have conceited ability to sniff or foresee for taking advantage of unstable, volatile, lack of foresight among competitor lenders and businesses.
-- Successful lenders, investors, and business operators have conceited to foresight for anticipating, manipulating, priming, pushing, or tipping social volatility, in order to plan to have options in place to take advantage quickly.
-- Successful operators have practiced protocols for leveraging, managing, inciting, and tipping deceit and disinformation, to take advantage of instabilities.
-- Successful operators have expected and planned to take advantage once instability begins teetering, regardless of how the situation unfolds or tips, even if it leads to a cascade of other tips, falls, or failures among competitors.
-- Successful operators have learned how to assert control over others by using stampeding threats, like threats of “financial suicide bombing.”
Successful operators have nurtured alliances among others, like gangs conspiring to leverage together, to incite and take advantage of instabilities.

In patriotic good faith, can ordinary civilians and their representatives, not wishing to dominate others, or the globe, work together to preserve faith and credit in currencies for facilitating fair trade?

Can ordinary civilians, in respect of freedom, dignity and independence, unite to check, balance and protect against power-vacuum ploys by would-be financial wolfs?

Can ordinary civilians bring to heel presidents and regulators who may be biased towards international operators and wolfs, to require government, when there gets to be too wide a gap between those with advantages for money-leveraging and those without such advantages, to develop and use tools for proportionately resetting or redistributing money-leverage, income, or wealth?

Of course, for that, our present governance has failed and has shown no inclination. For that, our present governance has spurred the proportionate reduction of the non-financially elite to undemocratic status as debt slaves.

So, now, how should control freaks be checked, insofar as they are trending to sponsor too wide a gulf in comparative wealth and power, so that ordinary people may once again be protected against being terrorized or harnessed into debt slavery?

How can First World ordinary civilians reassert political control, to put an end to games of Global Dominance, so that public-backed financial institutions, profiting from the faith and credit of the nation, are not exploited merely to push us to evolve towards a Last Man Standing? What is at stake?


SEE: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/burning_down_the_house.html.



Another direct fix for frozen credit markets would be an FDIC program to restore bank capital that has disappeared in the downward market spiral. Former FDIC Chairman William Isaac suggested last Saturday in a Washington Post op-ed that this could take the form of "net worth certificates" issued by the FDIC to troubled banks that need time to work out of their problems. This approach worked well in the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s.

There are a number of measures that can be taken to address the liquidity crisis; some already have been. Revision of the SEC's mark-to-market rule should help considerably to free up banks' lending capacities. Likewise, extension of the FDIC limit from $100,000 per account to $250,000 will help prevent runs on banks. Other relatively modest regulatory measures are no doubt available that will also make incremental contributions toward freeing up national and international credit markets.

Re-Assimilating Spinoza

(Click title above)

Re-Assimilating Spinoza:

[NOTE: The photo on right, which I found interesting, is downloaded from flickr. I do think much of communication entails both intuition and deception, but I hardly subscribe to much of the fanciful "Lillith-like" speculation posted under the photo at the flickr website.]

Dissimilation of Society:

As members of a society fail to preserve vestiges of those common grounds for inspiring, shaming, and disciplining moral values under which their society was first assimilated, they begin to lose hope of preserving mutual faith and trust.

Losing mutual faith and trust, such society cannot very well preserve either its currency or its existence as a society.

A person, country, or world simply cannot retain civilizing bearings by dead reckoning to governance elected in uninspired, spineless catering by politicians to electorates rife with hedonistic, nihilistic, division and disrespect for moral assimilation and secular law.

Losing grounding in Judeo-Christian values, how can Western Civilization intelligently expect to summon moral fiber enough to sustain itself?

What in history, philosophy, empiricism, or good sense leads Western Civilization to gamble or suppose it will sustain itself merely by transitioning through ever weakening derivatives of Spinoza into full blown, Godless Humanism?

Re-assimilation of Society:

Secular Humanists seem offended by a notion of complete subservience to, and invasion of privacy by, highest God.

But, what if God is Ineffable Synchronizing Will, of which each of us merely apprehends a particular perspective in respect of fluxing levels of holography that happen to nourish other perspectives more or less similar to our own?

Why should not such intuition of God subsume other interpretations, as figurative derivatives?

Why should not such intuition of God and ourselves help inspire and condition us towards more mutually enlightened appreciation of our interaction?

Why should not such interpretation help inspire us to seek and sustain assimilating values, reverse our splintering away to nihilism, and support more rational appreciation of our interconnection with God and one another?

Why should not such intuition of God yet command enough awe to continue to inspire existing churches and forums for facilitating receptivity and respect for assimilating, civilizing values?


For further discussion of happenstance anthropic holography, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zidVyQe7NCo.
“Ommm” photos of universe, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Z5v_ZLs0o.
For Universe as a big place, see
For questions about “Dark Matter" (consider known unknowns, unknown unknowns, unknowable unknowns?), see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJN2X3NrQAE.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Cultural Warrior

(Click title above)


— SEE http://townhall.com/Columnists/BenShapiro/2008/10/21/you_know_youre_an_elitist_if.



My beef is not with Lenders, Lusters, Lickspittles, Louts, Luddites, Libertarians, Liberals, or Libertines, per se. My beef is with culture that unbalances them, which seems to be culture for promoting alienation, narcissism, hedonism, aimlessness, malaise, superficiality, foppery, dependency and addiction.

It is culture for which I do not wish, either for my children or for my country. I prefer a more vigorously balanced culture, moderated and counterpointed in respect of science, technology, conquest, diversion, art, romance and philosophy.

I prefer that we try to come together as responsible independents, in hopeful seeking of consensus, to counterpoint and focus appreciation in respect of common holography then and there defining, delimiting, and empowering all participants as are in common competent and wise enough to humble themselves to receive such insights as may flow therewith.

Therewith, each participant may independently become more responsibly attuned to how our common holography operates in respect of counter points and tipping points. With receptive practice, each of us, being amplified through all of us, may acquire skill to better envision in advance of each falling domino and series of falling dominoes, to enhance a more enlightened civilization for all of us.

"The way" is not in capitalism or socialism, but in enlightened, vigorous moderation. David Brooks seems to call it "Progressive Corporatism."


Hollow Men:

It becomes:
-- wearisome to watch any expression of will surrender to soulless loss of faith that any quest for spiritual vison or appreciation can be worthwhile;
-- wearisome to watch despair sinking into co-dependent, drugged stupor;
-- wearisome to see cheering for badness, destruction, holocaust, apocalypse, defeat;

-- wearisome to endure leftist anger, spewed and dedicated to a proposition that no manifesting thing is worth appreciating, but that only an impossible ideal could ever be good, the pursuit of which leads to desperately accelerating devaluation of every emerging opportunity of self reliance.

Against the spiritual hollowness of modern “liberals,” it falls to Red Ass Moderates to sound an alarm that the ideal of International Socialism is a rat trap lie, being invited under a fascist spider spring.

Marriage --- http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_dangerous_reasoning_of_the.html.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Safe Harbor on Way to Globalism

(Click title above)

Seeking Safe Harbor on Way to Globalism:
(World not yet ready for sharing same harbor among Free Thinkers, Communists, and Religious Fascists)

Progressive Corporatism: Between Capitalism and Socialism

Snippets from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/opinion/23brooks.html?th&emc=th:
The Establishment Lives!
Published: September 22, 2008


In the 1980s, the old power structures frayed, even on Wall Street. Corporate raiders took on the old business elite. Math geeks created complicated financial instruments that the top executives couldn’t control or understand. (The market for credit-default swaps alone has exploded to $45.5 trillion, up from $900 billion in 2001.)
Year followed year, and the idea of a cohesive financial establishment seemed increasingly like a thing of the past.
No more. Over the past week, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner of the New York Fed have nearly revived it. At its base, the turmoil wracking the world financial markets is a crisis of confidence. What Paulson, et al. have tried to do is reassert authority — the sort that used to be wielded by the Mellons and Rockefellers and other rich men in private clubs.
Inspired in part by Paul Volcker, Nicholas Brady and Eugene Ludwig, and announced last week, the Paulson plan is a pure establishment play. It would assign nearly unlimited authority to a small coterie of policy makers. It does not rely on any system of checks and balances, but on the wisdom and public spiritedness of those in charge. It offers succor to the investment banks that contributed to this mess and will burn through large piles of taxpayer money. But in exchange, it promises to restore confidence. Somebody, amid all the turmoil, will occupy the commanding heights. Somebody will have the power to absorb debt and establish stability.
Liberals and conservatives generally dislike the plan. William Greider of The Nation writes: “If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public — all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims.”


So we have arrived at one of those moments. The global financial turmoil has pulled nearly everybody out of their normal ideological categories. The pressure of reality has compelled new thinking about the relationship between government and the economy. And lo and behold, a new center and a new establishment is emerging.


The country will not turn to free-market supply-siders. Nor will it turn to left-wing populists. It will turn to the safe heads from the investment banks. For Republicans, people like Paulson. For Democrats, the guiding lights will be those establishment figures who advised Barack Obama last week — including Volcker, Robert Rubin and Warren Buffett.


The government will be much more active in economic management (pleasing a certain sort of establishment Democrat). Government activism will provide support to corporations, banks and business and will be used to shore up the stable conditions they need to thrive (pleasing a certain sort of establishment Republican). Tax revenues from business activities will pay for progressive but business-friendly causes — investments in green technology, health care reform, infrastructure spending, education reform and scientific research.

If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might pick the phrase economist Arnold Kling has used: Progressive Corporatism. We’re not entering a phase in which government stands back and lets the chips fall. We’re not entering an era when the government pounds the powerful on behalf of the people. We’re entering an era of the educated establishment, in which government acts to create a stable — and often oligarchic — framework for capitalist endeavor.



Others argue that any bailout must pinch the people who have run the companies now needing rescue, along with their shareholders, addressing the unseemly reality that executives have amassed beach houses and fat bank accounts while taxpayers are now stuck with the bill for their reckless ways.

“It absolutely has to be punitive,” Mr. Baker said. “If they sell us the junk, then we own the company. This isn’t a way to make these companies and their executives rich. This should be about keeping them in business so the financial system doesn’t collapse.”


“I’d like a clearer statement of what we were afraid was going to happen that requires $700 billion,” Mr. Baily said. “Maybe they don’t want to talk about it because it would scare everybody, but it’s a bit much to ask.”
Why in heaven's name did Senator McCain tell 60 Minutes that he thinks that Cuomo would make a good SEC Chairman in a McCain Administration?
Who was the person leading this "home ownership for all" program at the behest of the Democrats? No other than the head of Bill Clinton's Department of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo. A non-banker, by the way. And apparently a favorite of John McCain.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Science of Evil

“Science” of Evil:

Suppose “physics” is just illusion, for entertaining each mathematically synchronized, holographic set of different perspectives from the same essential Will.

Suppose time, space, matter, and energy do not exist, except in respect of a coordinating of perspectives of Will.

Suppose what separates my perspective from the furthermost expression of consciousness elsewhere in the universe is not time, space, matter, or energy, but spiritual form of Will.

If so, how could it be, out of the myriad of possible events, that any particular event (or pattern of events) emerges into recordable or meaningful (physical) manifestation?

Well, might the “ultimate explanation,” rather than laws of natural physics, simply be that each such event is “anthropic-ally” necessary to the unfolding of a common holography of beings and recorders that happen to be formed and synchronized to perceive or record each such event?

If so, by definition, no one member of a set of interacting perspectives could predict how each event that is determined in respect of the synchronization of all such perspectives must unfold.

In each case, whether an event were prescribed by “objective physics” or by “synchronized holography of perspectives of will,” the empirically experienced result would measure the same.

In such case, mere empiricism could neither prove nor disprove a synchronizing source of Will (i.e., “God”).

Ask, then: What is the utility of “God”?

Answer: The utility of a concept of “God” is to facilitate the inculcating of common, natural respect for a higher Source, which has seen fit to define each of us, thereby facilitating more enlightening empathy among all of us.

Being “churched” about such a God helps condition us to be willing to come together in mutual, humble respect, to try to reason out our differences, meaningfully.

For such purpose, God does not manifest directly to tell us what to do.

Rather, our common receptivity to God is what we experience, which helps lead us to reason together.

In expecting to find meaningful ground by respecting God, we may more likely find common ground.

Regardless of respect for God, war will often come.

If belief in God is necessary to do evil, so also is belief in God necessary to do good.

Regardless, moral meaningfulness tends to be enhanced in respect of belief in God.

And moral meaningfulness will come to prefer peace --- if we are meant to survive.

Who or What Created God?

(Click title above)

Who or What Created God?

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF ATHEISM: Atheists pretend to discredit any argument for God as a necessary first or prime mover or cause by ever-regressing the inquiry one step back, to ask, who or what, then, created God?
If meant as “proof” of non-utility in respect of a concept of God, such pretense is fundamentally flawed.

Assumption is not proof. One may assume or believe, on faith, a beginning, before which all was nothingness, out of which arose dumb, unintelligent, non-choice-making, non-wilful matter, out of which evolved matter expressive of cellular life, will, choice-making (morality), and mind.

However, for such a belief or theory to be proven, replicated, tested, or evidenced, there needs to be:
1) evidence of at least one instance of cellular life having evolved out of a primordial mix of non-cellular material; or
2) evidence of at least one instance of an expression of (illusion of) wilful choice having evolved out of a system predetermined for not availing choice; or
3) evidence of at least one instance of (illusion of) nothingness, out of which somethingness evolved.

Of the list of three, above, two seem nearly self-annihilating to logic.
And not one of them has been observed or accomplished.
But, even if the first on the list were accomplished, it would just push back some other questions, such as:
What does “cell” mean? Or “gene”? Or “particle”? Or “mass”? Or “matter”? Or “physical”? Or “nature”?

Similarly, one may assume or believe, on faith, that a concept of God is non-helpful (or even counterproductive) to human, moral purposes.

However, such an assumption (or atheistic faith) immediately meets its own difficulties:
1) in assuming a “basis” other than God for intuiting, receiving, or evaluating moral choices, such an assumption immediately exposes itself to argument that its “basis” is merely a substitute notion for God (like a shell game);
2) intuitively, any attempt to submit such an assumption to rigorously controlled double-blind field testing would encounter enormous (insurmountable?) problems; and
3) pursuant to Godel’s principle of incompleteness, any attempted resolution simply could not be explicated as a complete, consistent, coherent banishment of God.

NOMA: I believe empiricism and science (and “childish scientists”) intrude beyond their proper realms when they conceit to employ empiricism to “evidence” whether or not “God,” as a concept, is logical, probable, or worthwhile for human, moral purposes. I do not believe God is properly required to self-evidence. Rather, I believe one either expressly “intuits” “God” as being meaningful to one’s life, or one does not.

TAIL CHASING: One who prefers (to evangelize?) a personal belief in some basis or alternative (name for)“God” for guiding choices is entitled to do so.

But I think such folks are needlessly chasing their tails.
And, they seem often not to be as socially adjusted or happy as more traditional believers.

ALL FROM NOTHING: A flaw in a notion that all can be explained as evolving from nothingness (and un-intelligence, un-will, and un-choice) is that such a notion merely assumes choice-making (morality in action) has not been with us from the beginning. That is, the anti-God notion merely assumes (with no means of proof or empirical evidence) that the experience of choice-making evolved out of non-choice-making. But I believe choice-making (morality) has always been with us — from the instant Being’ness came into being (and perhaps before ...).

COMING TOGETHER TO SEEK ENLIGHTENED EMPATHY: Even though mere empiricism will not likely resolve the matter, I think a belief-system regarding God can be rationally based.
But, I do not think it rational to try to delimit or confine God in respect of dogma.
Yet, I do think it worthwhile for communities to establish sacred, figurative parables, traditional forums, and churches, for coming together to seek enlightened empathy for reasoning and relating together in common, humble respect of God.
In sharing hope and belief in a basis for reconciling differences, meaningful peace may more likely be achieved.
“God” should be about invitations to come together to seek enlightened empathy.
But that is only my (chosen) belief.


An evangelist of atheism, who pretends nothing is worth fighting for, is already closer to moral irrelevancy and death.


Except in respect of cycles of volcanic and pyramidal subduction, uplifting, change, and death, no culture, economy, or holographically shared pattern of physics could sensibly be termed to exist.
Were no limit imposed by death or change, Ponzi pyramids could, by continuous reproducing of basics, build forever.
But, such would violate our holographic consciousness and license on life.
For us, while we experience ourselves as being only human, such does not occur.
We do not experience volcanoes or pyramids except in respect of continuous changing.
Only in continuous changing of such pyramidal forms as under lays us does our civilization endure.
Our lot seems to be one of continuous upheaval and subduction, passion and seduction, war and peace.
Yet, in such lot, we may find and experience passion, art, companionship, adventure, and meaningulness.


As any system or subsystem of holographically related parts and patterns collapses beyond appreciability of its own or other inhabitants, it will no longer support any functional basis for expression, either of Will, or of illusion of physicality to Will.
As any system comes no longer to support apprehension of, or by, any form of Will, such system will collapse towards a “black hole.”


Respecting humanity’s common holography, our beginning of time has to do with a beginning of time as apprehended for our common, anthropic-happenstance of assigned holography.
Our beginning of time does not have to do with any common beginning of time for all possible holographies.
Nor, apart from very dim speculation, may we, in our present capacities of Will and our present limitations of models, comprehend what “time” may mean (or not mean) for any Superior Being with capacity to engage beyond the holography that defines and delimits humanity, or, indeed, whether a “meta-time” may have been running, indefinitely, before what seems to have been the “Big Bang” for our universe.


If there may be One Holism, it would seem to be appreciable from perhaps an infinite variety of holographic systems, subsystems, and cross-systems of perspective. If there is one universe, it seems there may be infinite holographic representations and perspectives of it.
How each system or pattern of holography may potentially be measured or apprehended would seem to depend upon how (and whether) each inhabiting observer, in essential (or metaphysical) form, just happened (anthropically) to be sympathetically or synchronously sensitive to it.
So long as a Being does not in any way happen to be sensitive to the apprehension of a particular pattern or holography, such Being will simply lack capacity to sense or to comprehend such holography (or “dark” matter or energy?).
Such insensitivity need not prohibit other or superior Beings from happening to have capacity to sense or comprehend across holographies.
Such insensitivity need not prohibit One Superior Being from happening to have capacity to sense or comprehend across all holographies.
Surely, such A Superior Being would have supernatural powers and capacities beyond the holographic dimensions that define or delimit humanity.
So long as we are limited to our holography, we cannot comprehend any such Superior Being respecting its cross-holographic powers.
Rather, we can only relate “physically” to such Being as if it were restricted to our holography.
That is, we could never “physically” prove that such Being were not just another man (or woman).


Of any Superior Being, we may, at most, glimmer non-measurable, non-replicable, non-physical (i.e., “spiritual,” metaphysical, supernatural) “intuition” about its cross-holographic superiority. By definition, such non-replicable, non-measurable intuition would be a concern for faith and moral choice, not empirical testing. By definition, such intuition would be irrelevant to science, but vitally relevant to moral and civilized choice making.
Although some, such as those who profess atheism, claim to have neither faith nor intuition, yet, insofar as they do engage in moral choices and debates, they seem only to deceive themselves, with semantic shell games.
I care not whether vaunted "atheists" call their basis for morality or choice-making “rationalized judgment,” “God,” or some other name or label. Mainly, I just care that they respect a basis.
Of course, agreeing to a common name for such basis can be a helpful step towards facilitating our coming to reason (or rationalize) together, to try to divine, figuratively inspire, moderate, and pursue our common goals and interests.

Absolute Moral Imperative by which to escape moral irresolution: Pursue empathy for the ongoing Source of the good!

Sunday, September 21, 2008

A Gathering Storm Of Evil

(Click title above)
Uber-Nomenklatura (International Pirates of Opportunity):
For "Ultimate Play On Volatility" (to consolidate rule of Uber-Nomenklatura), see http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/bidens_generated_crisis.html.


A storm before us is not gathering because people are inherently evil. Rather, a storm of evil is gathering because morphogenesis unavoidably generates some habits of will and perspective that lead us to evil.

EVOLUTION: On one side of the coin of unfolding creation, the physical side, physical evolution appears to be expressed.
MORPHOGENESIS: On the other side, the spiritual side, morphogenesis occurs, in constant, continuous flux, availing us of both good and evil.

STRUGGLE: The good, meaningful, perpetual challenge before us is to devise strategies for controlling or countering an inherent aspect of morphogenesis that gathers and pushes us towards evil. We may not achieve final victory, but meaningfulness may find expression in the perpetual struggle.

POINT OF REFERENCE: For that, what can be our fixed star, or point of reference? To me, the fixed point consists in the pursuit of strategies for stabilizing and sustaining ever-surpassing civilizations for sheltering the social interaction of conscious beings of relative freedom and dignity.

DIALECTIC: For that, there is always a push-pull between individual versus communitarian needs. As community overbalances in dominance, individual freedom, dignity, and privacy may be sacrificed as cost. As individuality overbalances in dominance, eventually, civilization, even humanity, may be exploded and sacrificed as cost.



Might those pulling our strings at highest levels of wealth and power, relative to their own world view, be in a sort of perverse “good faith”? Might their “fixed star” consist in a notion apart from maximizing of human freedom and dignity? Might their fixed star consist in what I may consider a perverse view of empathetic purposefulness?

Might the philosophy of elitist money changers center mainly on a notion of physical, evolutionary devouring among the fittest, devoid of any sense of spiritual morphogenesis or meaningful metaphysics?

Alternatively, might they believe humanity has no choice but in the near future to acquire such great skill for manipulating our common holography such that the privately unregulated passion of any one of us could easily doom all of us?

SURRENDER OF PRIVACY: If so, are they racing to condition and control the rest of us, to lure us to trade liberty for security, privacy for omniscient potential, and individual dignity for safety in community?

VOLUNTEERING FOR BORG-DOM: If so, may such “Borg” life yet be meaningfully availing of enlightened empathy? Or, must it entail surrender of soul?

To the extent “Borg as a whole” flourishes, may each part of Borg take vicarious delight? Does struggle towards Borg-dom become worth participating in? Then, must our meaning come not in substance of opposing Borgdom, but in stirring up passion for process?

FALSE CANDY: If so, dumbing down the electorate fits neatly with such elitist “strategery,” as yet another tool for controlling and Borg’ing the masses and giving them only illusion of democracy.

Easily riled dummies become easy prey for abusive elites and their agenda-driven, drive-by media. To encourage to vote those with little investment in national sentiments (illegals), experience (minors), character (felons), or brainpower (idiots) is to use “false candy” to lay a fast track to deceive the proletariat into submission to rule by abusive elites.

Middle class Moderates sense that the candy is false. But most Democrats, easily lured to demagogic deceits, readily fall for such triangulation, helping to pull us all faster and deeper into submission to totalitarianism.

FEDERAL RESERVE: As God (by mystery) keeps our bodies subordinate to our physics, likewise, do our top most money and interest managers (by cunning, shock, and awe) keep us subordinate to the Federal Reserve. Thus, the various levels of superior control to which we bend in subordination may --- in their own mysterious, hidden, deceitful, indirect, or direct ways --- affect fluxing parameters that govern limits of our apprehensions of freedom and dignity.


I am not ready to give up on human freedom, dignity, and privacy.
Rather, I see our main problems as relating to:
(1) How to limit necessary constraints on privacy and individualism;
(2) How to redistribute power and wealth more democratically, to undermine centralization of elitist, abusive control, without unduly undermining individual initiative.

(1) Orderly retreat of privacy rights;
(2) Wresting of *ultimate control* of Federal Reserve away from private interests;
(3) Devising of a *fundamentally new economic tool*, based on progressively proportionate forgiveness of debts and interest owed to banks and to the Federal Reserve, for periodically readjusting and redistributing income and/or wealth in respect of Gini index parameters; and
(4) Orderly reassessing of *checks and balances* for using such tools.

*Where reasonable, day to day decisions by the Federal Reserve should be left to private stakeholders. However, Government must retain controlling stake and, when necessary, appropriate ultimate power, progressively and/or proportionately, to reset controlling interest rates and to proportionately lessen accrued obligations. The balance to preserve in a healthy economy and state: Managing investors should have fair financial incentives; citizens should not be turned proportionately into slaves; workers should usually be able to buy the products they make.

*Problem: Devising *checks and balances* sufficient to enforce and preserve basic decency is the hard part. Presently, increasing governmental regulation usually just translates into increasing sweetheart deal-making with lobbyists for those being regulated. As part of *checks and balances*, revolving doors need to be closed, regulatory houses need to be more frequently flushed clean, and nets for new talent need to be thrown wide. Ivy leaguers and members of secret and elite clubs should be banished, at least periodically and frequently. Ordinary State’s colleges need to better educate their professoriate and students to the gross and grand scale of abuses of interconnected elitists. Unless the current system is fundamentally changed, more regulation will only aggravate the headlong enslavement of the proletariat to indebtedness owed to greedy puppetmasters.

Presently, we are not being manipulated towards international socialism, but towards an illusion of international socialism. In reality, most of us are allowing ourselves to be led to sell ourselves ever faster and deeper into debt-slavery

It may already be too late to recover, without great pain and anguish.

(1) Genetic treatment of populace, to instill, inoculate, or implant “genes of altruism”;
(2) Computerized monitoring, subject to appropriate checks and balances.