WATCH LIVE: Jordan Harbinger Discusses Independence, Entrepreneurship and Mindset

By Vin Armani

WATCH The Vin Armani Show LIVE at 10am PST (1pm EST). In the first hour, Vin discusses current events related to your liberty and takes a deep dive into the recent passage of the CLOUD Act that was snuck into the omnibus spending bill.

In the second hour, we are joined by Vin’s long-time friend, Jordan Harbinger. Jordan is a Wall Street lawyer turned talk show host, social dynamics expert, and entrepreneur. After hosting a top 50 iTunes podcast for over a decade that enjoyed nearly four million downloads a month at its zenith, Jordan has embarked on a new adventure: The Jordan Harbinger Show, where he deconstructs the playbooks of the most successful people on earth and shares their strategies, perspectives, and insights with the rest of us.

Learn more about Jordan and listen to his podcast at http://JordanHarbinger.com

Follow Jordan Harbinger on Twitter.

Live free and succeed outside the rigged system at Counter Markets.

Vin Armani is the host of The Vin Armani Show, CTO of CoinText, author of Self Ownership, founder of Bebi Vodka and co-founder Counter Markets. Follow Vin on Twitter and subscribe on YouTube. Get the weekly podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. Available for interviews at email – Vin (at) VinArmani.com.

Deutsche: "We Are Almost At The Point Beyond Which There Will Be No More Bubbles"

Whereas many Wall Street strategists enjoy simplifying their stream of consciousness when conveying their thoughts to their increasingly ADHD-afflicted audience, the same can not be said for Deutsche Bank"s Aleksandar Kocic, who has a troubling habit of requiring a background and competency in grad level post-modernist literature as a prerequisite for his articles among the handful of readers who don"t already speak exclusively in binary. Here is an example of Kocic"s "unique" narrative style:

Volatility is a consequence of speed and speed is the result of fear. Acceleration of movement is a defensive maneuver, a tool of retreat -- high speed and high volatility represent sophistication of flight (flight to quality is an example of the speed event). However, absence of volatility is not necessarily synonymous with absence of fear. Volatility is low not only when things become predictable, but also if the distribution of risks causes paralysis, when the state of no change, regardless how uncomfortable it might be, becomes the least undesirable of all alternatives.

While a passage like that is far more likely to have been taken from a book by Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze and Guattari, Foucault or any other prominent POMO-ists, in this case it comes from Kocic" year end outlook which encapsulates many of the themes we have covered recently, most notably his recent take on the interplay between volatility and leverage, a topic which anyone who has read Minsky is quite familiar with, yet which Kocic decided to give it his unique post-modernist spin with the following "spiraling leverage" chart from one month ago...

... which he described as follows: "spiraling leverage cannot continue indefinitely. At some point, the bubble becomes too big and cannot be subsumed by a bigger bubble – the damage of its burst would become irreparable. Therefore, when that moment comes -- and we believe that moment is now – the market is facing a following dilemma."

• Permanent state of exception: We continue to operate in a regulated environment. Leverage is limited, but care is taken not to overconfine the system so we avoid the Japanese scenario. While this appears as a prudent approach to reality, it implies giving up all the ideas of unlimited growth, something that made US economy look better than the rest of the world. Compared to what we have seen before, this means settling for much less than this country is used to aspiring. Although a reasonable proposition, it is emotionally a difficult choice that is and will remain subject to substantial political manipulation. It is unlikely that populist narrative will not continue to challenge this choice [ZH: hey, one can just blame the Russians, right?]


• Flirting with high tail risk : Deregulation and deficit spending could result exactly due to abandoning the first path, as its direct challenge, under political pressure that American economy can restore its old status and resume its pace of the previous decades. This is a serious tail risk as it is playing against the backdrop of considerable overhang of the post-2008 one-side positioning. Central banks are massively short convexity in this scenario. Any inflationary maneuver, or anything that would be a bear steepener of the curve, could force disorderly unwind of the bond trade and reinforce the trend thus creating another crisis from which there could be no way out.


• Forced deleveraging: An overly hawkish Fed forces rates higher and triggers a disorderly unwind of the bond trade, thus forcing the system to deleverage. This is the policy mistake.

The Deutsche Banker"s conclusion was stark and certainly dramatic:

"The tension created by these three choices is in the center of both economic and political discourse. It will shape the market dynamics in the future, beyond the near term. Taper tantrum and the US presidential elections were the two most recent episodes that have highlighted the risk distribution opened by these choices. Policy mistake appears less likely at this point. The financial conditions are as loose as they have ever been. Fed hikes are only going to tone this down, but it is very difficult to see how they can create overly tight financial conditions and cause economic slowdown. Nevertheless, negative convexity of the central banks in the bear steepening or generally high rates scenarios are making risk of volatile deleveraging alive."

Of course, Kocic could (far simply) have said that it takes more and more debt to kick the can, and keep the world"s biggest asset bubble ever created - with the explicit backing of central banks - from bursting. This is precisely what Bank of America"s Barnaby Martin did in far less words one month ago:

"the irony in today"s world is that central banks are maintaining loose monetary policies to generate inflation…in order to ease the pain of a debt "supercycle"…that itself was partly a result of too easy (and predictable) monetary policies in prior times."

* * *

In any case, fast forward one month later when Kocic picks up where he left off on his favorite "spiraling leverage" diagram, and decides to once again paraphrase Minsky"s conclusion that "stability is destabilizing" using just a few hundred extra words than is necessary, although since he does so in a "cool", Pomoist way, here is the paraphrase:

Persistent low volatility is like a sirens’ song. Low uncertainty engenders high leverage which leads to compression of risk premia and further buildup of risk, which, in the long run, destabilizes the system causing ultimately volatile deleveraging. This is generally harmful for the economy and requires stimulus injection in order to create an economic turnaround leading to subsequent decline in volatility and gradual releveraging as the system recovers. When described in terms of leverage and volatility, economic trajectories exhibit quasi-periodic pattern. These dynamic are shown in the Figure as trajectories in the vol-leverage plain across several “cycles”.

 

Starting with the internet bubble in 1999, we reach the 2001 recession and subsequent recovery on the back of the real estate boom (2003-2007). The figure suggests that after each volatile deleveraging (e.g. 2000 and 2007), subsequent sweep leads to a bigger bubble. After each sweep, amplitudes grow bigger and the damage more substantial, requiring a heavier hand in terms of policy response as crises they create become deeper and recoveries longer and more difficult.

Kocic then reuses the same chart he showed back in November to indicate the four distinct endgames should the leverage cycle be pushed into one of four final states of "instability."

Where the narrative differs from last month, however, is in the slight but perceptible shift to Kocic" conclusion: he now appears resigned that the current twist of the vol spiral is also the last one, beyond which the current financial and monetary system will no longer exist, something his just as gloomy colleague Jim Reid concluded not too long ago and which we described in "This Is Where The Next Financial Crisis Will Come From."

Here is Kocic explaining why we may be approaching the end of financial history (at least as we know it):

It is clear that the spiraling trajectory cannot continue indefinitely; it has to stop at some point beyond which there will be no more bubbles. In many ways, it looks like the post-2008 represents the last lapse. A new game has to be reinvented for the old future to materialize, or a different paradigm altogether has to take over.

As to what happens next, after the two sweeps of the spiral, both of which culminated with crashes, Kocic reverts back to his forecasting self and writes that "we arrived at the juncture point (2017) from which four possible trajectories emerge, none of them are looking very attractive at this point." For those who may have forgotten the November report, here they are again:

• Throughout the post-crisis period, policy response has been designed around an attempt to avoid the lower left corner of low volatility and low leverage. It is safe to say that we have been able to stay clear of this outcome.


• At this point, with regulated financial sector and restricted leverage, we have found what appears to be a “reasonable” base case trajectory – a middle ground between Japanese style liquidity trap and repeat of the same mistake of the previous lapse -- with regulated markets, lower leverage, and subaverage growth (a.k.a. Permanent state of exception).


• Alternatives represent risk scenarios and correspond to volatile outcomes. The lower right corner is the policy mistake territory of forced deleveraging (without inflation) triggered possibly by overly aggressive Fed.


• The most acute risk is associated with the path leading to the upper right corner where possible deregulation and reckless fiscal spending could trigger rise in inflation leading to stagflationary outcome with potential currency decline and forced unwind of the bond trade. Both of these trajectories represent high risk alternatives to be avoided.

Unfortunately, as recent social events have demonstrated, the current "reasonable base case" of a "permanent state of exception" is becoming increasingly improbable because the forced surreal financial relationships are starting to tear apart the social fabric itself. Not only that, but the fact that the "stability" has only been bought thanks to some $15 trillion in central bank liquidity is lost on only the biggest fools, and socialists, pardon - MMTers - in finance. Here again is Kocic:

As much as the base case trajectory appears as “reasonable” and a worry-free choice, its biggest problem is its legitimation. Easy money provided by central banks to restore growth was easy for capital, but not for labor. Policy response to crisis added further to inequality by blowing up the financial sector and inviting speculative rather than productive investment. The Keynesian bond which ties profits of the rich to the wages of the poor seems to have been severed, cutting the fate of the elites loose from that of the masses and the well-being of the economy. 

Confused? You can thank Bernanke and Yellen for president Trump. Anyway, Kocic continues:

 With subaverage growth and highly skewed wealth distribution, the economy is converging towards what for a growing majority increasingly resembles a zero sum game. To the vast majority, that is saying that the best days are behind us. This is the most difficult aspect of the base case scenario: There has been no political system in modern history -- inclusive, exclusive, democratic or oppressive, all the same – that has promised anything but better future to its constituents. For any ideology the gradient between the present and the future has always had to be positive. It is difficult, if not impossible, to conceptualize any political narrative capable of making the reverse acceptable. And in a context where economic growth is a universal metric of progress, problems  with the base case become even more acute. The legitimation of the base case will continue to define the populist narrative as a voice of change. Politics will be shaped along the lines of looking to disrupt the status quo with quick short-term fixes, which could emerge as outright triggers of stagflationary trajectory.

Well, considering that years and decades of endless political lies that "the future is brighter" is the reason why the world finds itself on the edge of a social, political and financial catastrophe, and which has made a handful of people richer than their wildest dreams while pushing the vast majority of the population into considering that socialism - and even communism - may be a wise alternative to capitalism, perhaps it is not so bad that for once the truth will be told and someone will have the temerity to admit that no, the future will not be better, especially when one admits that after the next crash - and the wars that follows - the future, or as it will be known then, the present, will be the worst since the world wars.

And finally, for those who lament the disruptions to the status quo by populist elements promising "short-term fixes", well just look where said status quo got you: a world where the markets have to close their eyes and pretend they can exist forever in the artificial, central-bank created "permanent state of exception."

Which, thankfully, is impossible.

Mass Shootings, Mass Psychology, And Self-Defense

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

There is an unfortunate correlation between crises and catastrophes and mass psychology.

For those with a decent long-term memory, you may have noticed that the frequency of attacks and tragedies taking place today around the world is far above and beyond what occurred 10 years ago. So much so that many in the public have moved beyond the point of outrage and have now embraced complacency.

The mass shooting issue, for example, once inspired fevered debate over gun rights. Not so much anymore. While I am happy that the relentless attempts by leftists to exploit every shooting as a tool for their gun grabbing agenda have taken a backseat, I see a trend in another direction which is equally dangerous. That trend is a move towards acceptance that "these things happen," instead of a healthy discussion on real solutions (and no, more gun control is not one of them).

A decade ago the Vegas shooting would have inspired media and social discussion for at least a year. Now, the story disappears in two weeks and is replaced with 10 others. I will be surprised if the latest church shooting in Texas in which 26 people were killed stays on the news feeds for more than a few days.

Where does this complacency come from?

It is a complex problem, but one that I think relates to the state of decline within any particular society. In Carl Jung"s The Undiscovered Self, Jung mentions a consistent element of latent sociopathy and psychopathy within most cultures. Perhaps 10% of people within a society are latent sociopaths and psychopaths, and around 1% or less represent full blown sociopaths/psychopaths. Most of the latent people will never become truly dangerous if they are living within a culture that is healthy and morally balanced. In fact, those with inherent sociopathic traits can become very high functioning human beings who are adept at careers that many other people avoid (surgeons and career soldiers are two examples).

However, in the event that there is cultural rot and a degradation of principles, environmental influences come into play and latent sociopaths/psychopaths have the potential to mutate into something far more dangerous. Jung examines this dynamic as an explanation for the sudden and accelerated decline of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s into totalitarianism and moral relativism. When the mentally disturbed 1% turns into 10% or more, entire nations can be dragged along into the abyss.

As a litmus test I find it valuable to look at popular culture when trying to determine if a society is on the brink of collapse into a singularity of moral relativism, because popular culture often reflects these elements more honestly than the supposed "experts" will. When examining Germany before its fall, I recommend studying the films of Fritz Lang; particularly his movie "M" released in 1931, which depicts a serial killer with a penchant for children being put on trial by a group of underworld criminals, not because they abhor what he does on moral grounds, but because his activities are drawing too much unwanted attention from authorities on their own criminal enterprises. If the dark world of "M" doesn"t perfectly showcase the decline of Germany, I don"t know what does.

Today, we are constantly surrounded by popular culture which leans towards the morally relative; stories in which the heroes must become monsters in order to defeat other supposedly worse monsters.

At another level, our popular culture tells us that it is only the fantastical, the super powered and the government contracted heroes that have the ability to affect change and disrupt disaster.  Underlying all of this seems to be a narrative of defeat; the notion that there is nothing the average person can do.  And, of course, we are also bombarded with stories in which gluttony and decadence are applauded while anyone that takes a more responsible path is portrayed as unhappy or joyless in the long run.

Translate this to the developing trend of mass shootings around the world and the public reaction to them. On one end of the spectrum, in the past it was the sociopathic left that saw mass death as an opportunity to enforce political control over gun rights advocates, with the goal of eventually achieving total disarmament. These people do not care about the dead, let alone logic, they only care about furthering their agenda.  They see government power as the answer to every problem.

If you were to hold up examples like the Paris or Mumbai attacks to gun grabbers and point out that disarmament only makes mass shootings EASIER for criminals and terrorists, they would not listen. Obviously, if any of the citizens including the off-duty police officers had been armed in Paris, the attack might have been stopped much sooner.

In the case of the church shooting near San Antonio, that attack WAS interrupted by an armed neighbor of the church who used his rifle to fend off Devin Kelley, forcing him to escape in his vehicle. Had that neighbor not been armed, the massacre might have gone on much longer. Had one of the people within the church been armed, the attack might have ended in seconds, as we saw in Denver in 2007.

Now, as I said earlier, there are sociopathic members of the political left that seek to take advantage of these scenarios, but these people have fallen by the wayside recently.

On the political right, sadly, I have seen another brand of sociopathy rising, with some arguing that all the people within the San Antonio church that were unarmed "deserved to die." This is just as dangerous a mentality as the exploitations of the left. If the liberty movement itself sets aside empathy and resorts to sensationalist or morally relative methods to drive forward a political agenda, then we are only hastening the fall of our culture, not protecting it. And, we become no better that the leftist disarmament thugs we abhor.

In between these two extremes sits a coagulated mass of people who simply don"t care much as long as a particular disaster doesn"t involve them. These are the folks who are uninterested in solutions and don"t really want to hear anything about it. It is these people who tend to become wreckage floating on the tides of history; their lack of concern eventually comes back to haunt them in the future.

So, if these are the wrong ways to approach the mass shooting problem, then what are the right ways?

I think it is vital that Americans in particular maintain our care and concern for the victims of these events. The solution to mass shootings is clearly a responsibly armed populace.  According to all the stats on active shooters, defense by citizens is the only factor that seems to make much difference. But to convince more and more people of this requires a level of conscience and empathy that inspires confidence, and perhaps brotherhood. When people know that you give a damn and aren;t simply pursuing an agenda like the political left does, it is more likely that they will listen to what you have to say.

As I noted in my article How To Stop All Future Mass Shootings, the Vegas attack was organized by someone who was smart enough to avoid a point-blank engagement in a city and state in which concealed-carry firearms are more common. Point-blank attacks are by far the most common because they are generally attempted by people who have minimal training or because the attackers are relatively certain that their victims will be disarmed in the area they have chosen (gun free zones).

The Vegas attacker (or attackers) chose to use sniper-like tactics to prolong the massacre. However, what this shows is that an armed citizenry is a factor or barrier in how an attack is planned. With properly trained and armed security overwatching major events along with an armed population, there may never be another mass shooting again.

This is what Americans should be talking about, yet, there is no practical discussion on solving the problem. Is this a symptom of impending collapse within our society? Possibly. If there was ever an honorable task for the liberty movement today, it is to inspire solutions and to maintain moral balance. These shootings and other crisis events should not be forgotten within a week. They should at the very least be a learning process, a means by which we evolve our way of life and become more self reliant and by extension more safe.

If you are not a conceal- or open-carry proponent, then you should be. If you understand that the majority of shooting events that are stopped are stopped by average citizens that are armed, then it should only follow that you should become one of those armed citizens. In the meantime, it is not for us who are consistently armed to admonish disarmed victims as if they "deserve what they got." Their failure is our failure as well. For if we are not working diligently to convince others of the importance of citizen self defense, then we have contributed to the conditions that led to these massacres taking place.

There are methods of stemming the tide of social collapse. There are in fact solutions. They begin with each individual acting in small ways and big ways everyday. Complacency and zealotry are the enemy, as well as those that would encourage such mentalities.

This and That Vol 3 – Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire

This and That Vol 3 – Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire

By

Cognitive Dissonance

 

 

Lots of original work available exclusively on my Patreon blog. For as little as $3 a month you can support my creative work and access all content. Please consider doing so at https://www.patreon.com/CognitiveDissonance

 

There are a couple of phrases I often use to neatly describe the personal and social dysfunction exploding into view these days. On the personal side, my “We are only as sick as our deepest darkest secrets” perfectly illustrates how personally damaging those things are that we hide from everyone, especially ourselves.

Since a society is composed of, and accurately reflects, its individual citizens, it stands to reason this dysfunction would reverberate throughout society even if it manifested differently on an individual basis. It is entirely possible, and in fact a regular occurrence, for hundreds of millions of people to share a ‘secret’ by simply not talking about the root issues of our social dysfunction.

We as a society will nearly always talk over, under and around the core issues that are slowly grinding away at our sanity. Therefore “What is not discussed is far more important that what is”.  A perfect example of this is the recent silliness of mass righteous indignation about kneeling or not during an act of coerced/conditioned symbolism (the ‘national anthem’) when so many far more important things are ignored like monsters hidden under the bed.

What is often lost by those on the sidelines, either participating in the drama or confused why there is so much ado about nothing, is that the drama IS necessary both for the participants and the viewers. It does not matter which side of the divide we lay on, only that we are engaged in not talking about the things we do not wish to talk about.

To many people my statements above will ring as nonsensical, even ridiculous, because in their view we talk incessantly about everything. The internet sees to that, which is abuzz with endless conversations and dialogue. In my opinion this is a false view and a misunderstanding of what is actually occurring. And it is a perfect example of how the illusion is often just as effective as the real thing, and sometimes more so.

Political correctness, also known as officially promoted self censorship, doesn’t just apply to political speech. We all moderate what we say (and think) in ways large and small depending upon a million variables too numerous to list here.

While we would like to believe society at large determines what speech is acceptable and what speech is not, in practice a few key meme makers leverage their influence via the mainstream media megaphone to set the water mark the public is then coerced into following.

You do not need to control the herd, just a few of the lead cattle. Even then ‘control’ is too strong a word, for nudge would be more in line with how directional bias is achieved by those who wish to command. This is done in part by subtly limiting subjects to be discussed, often but not exclusively via political correctness, but then encouraging everyone to engage in vigorous debate within these narrow confines.

Yes, there are people who will draw outside the lines and talk about anything and everything, particularly on the Internet. But for the brainwashed masses, meaning those who wish to remain safely within their mainstream cognitive comfort zone, these people are easily marginalized and dismissed as kooks, misfits, conspiracy theorists, mentally unstable and mad-as-a-hatter fruitcakes.

Never underestimate the lengths to which people (that’s you and me folks) will go to believe what they want to believe. Therefore all that needs to be done is to convince people they want to believe what they are told to believe. The glowing idiot box in the corner (and increasing in our back pocket) is the perfect vehicle for that task.

 

              

 

Color me surprised, shocked even, that at the last minute the ‘government’ has withheld full and final disclosure of the last remaining documents related to the John F. Kennedy assassination, ostensibly because they needed more time to examine about 200 for possible (further) redaction.

I don’t even know where to begin here other than to confess to my cynical sarcasm. I do not believe a single word uttered by any ‘intelligence’ agency or those who carry their water. From their perspective it is their job, their honor bound duty, to lie about everything and anything in order to protect and promote their power and control. It’s all about furthering American hegemony at all cost, including abusing any and all remaining rights not previously stripped from average Jane and Joe.

Earlier in life I learned that once you begin to lie, even if you never lie again, additional lies must be created and promoted in order to support or supplant old lies. It’s a vicious circle that feeds upon itself and serves no purpose other than to maintain and support the status quo…especially our personal status quo.

We lie to gain some type of advantage, even if the benefit is merely to maintain our own inner lies and denial. The same applies to nations, particularly when that nation maintains its dominant position via bullying, manipulation, falsehoods and various other belligerent behaviors including outright war.

Ultimately the most egregious lies, thus the most carefully crafted and concealed subterfuge, is reserved for the thoroughly domesticated and conditioned native population.

“We the People” have benefited greatly from American hegemony in ways not readily apparent to those completely immersed within the grand illusion of American exceptionalism. Obviously it is to our general and personal benefit for the lies to continue so that the status quo remains in place. The ultimate lie is that present day conditions can, and will, remain in place indefinitely.

They cannot, they will not, they have not. The financial, social and cultural rumblings currently echoing within the hollowed out shell of America are the precursor crumbling to the ongoing (slow motion) collapse. The lies promoted by the powers that be are intended to gain advantage over you and me, along with any one or thing still willing and able to lend the US money, power, prestige, faith and belief.

The looting will continue until the middle class has been stripped of all remaining wealth.

So why would they continue to lie about the JFK assassination? Because we want the lies to continue. It’s that simple. Daddy, tell me another lie so I can believe it’s the truth.

If you were told the truth, whatever that truth may be, exactly what would you do about it? Not think, not bitch and complain, but actually do? For example, if you were informed that elements inside and/or outside the government conspired to kill the President of the United States, then they, along with agencies of the government, acted in concert for decades up to present day to cover up this fact, what would you do?

The answer is mostly likely little to nothing. But that is not the point.

The secret sauce to keeping America limping along and the looting on track is your faith and belief things are not as bad as your average 3^rd world banana republic. Undeniable evidence things might actually be equal to, or worse than, a Central American banana republic would propel a tidal wave of fear and disillusionment among the general public, quickly followed by a loss of faith and belief in our leadership and ourselves.

Deep down inside in places we dare not look, we know this to be the truth. We also know without a shred of doubt that not only are we sleeping with the enemy, but we are entirely dependent upon the sociopaths and their skewed and rigged socioeconomic system to maintain our own (declining) lifestyle. And that lifestyle depends upon our continuing faith and belief in both the sociopaths and the system.

We ARE the system. We support the system. Without our faith and belief the system rapidly collapses. This is called a positive feedback loop in that the faith and belief system is self reinforcing to the greatest extent possible. But nothing lasts forever, in this case simply because more and more parasites are sucking the lifeblood from the nation.

We know this. It’s obvious. But we are desperate to believe it’s fixable (with little to no ‘cost’ to us) when it is not. To admit to ourselves this inconvertible truth means we must confront the fact the end is near. And quite frankly, we’ve grown accustomed to having our cake and eating it too. Or at least to the prevailing illusion this is the case.

And so we lie to ourselves and expect, even demand, our leaders continue to lie to us even as we claim we wish to know the truth.

There is no doubt that, with regard to most ‘truths’, we really do want to know the truth. For example we want to be told when a government official has embezzled money, misallocated funds or lied to benefit others, for these truths do not threaten our fundamental belief in democracy and the rule of law.

But to discover, or be told without a doubt the government was involved in what essentially would have been a coup of the Presidential office of the United States which was, and continues to be, covered up to this day would rock people’s faith and belief in the foundation of so-called democracy. 

If this were to occur, we might actually have to start asking serious questions about other ‘events’ in the recent past. Worse, we would then begin to feel obligated to do something about it. At the very least it would threaten our own relatively comfortable status quo.

Can’t have that, now can we? If nothing else we demand (the illusion of) law and order from our keepers in exchange for remaining mostly quiet and compliant.

The durability and believability of a lie is in direct proportion to the number of people who benefit from the lie or who would be hurt if the lie were exposed and acknowledged. For many, the primary disadvantage, at least initially, is simply the assault upon our ego that we swallowed such a big lie for so long.

The bigger the lie, the easier it is to keep it going once swallowed whole by the public. Our subservient devotion to a higher authority and its paternal hierarchy helps to initially cement the lie in place, then to keep questions at bay while the cement cures and hardens.

Even those who remain skeptical or refuse to believe the lie are diminished and isolated by the tyranny of the majority opinion who (desperately) wishes to believe the authority, particularly when doubt is present. Of course, doubt is always present because only the authority can proclaim something as true or false.

See how that works?

At best the most recent JFK disclosures are part and parcel of an ongoing, and ever evolving, psychological operation directed at the American people. How do you control a large group of people that far outnumber those who wish to control the group? Divide and conquer is the age old method used consistently and successfully to distract, divert and divide the restless herd.

We ain’t seen nuttin’ yet! Stay tuned for more of the same technique applied with increasing force and less subtly.

 

 

I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention that all of the above is not exclusively an American problem. While lying and denial are decidedly human traits, “We the People” seem to take it to extremes in our mindless pursuit of conspicuous consumption.

And what is the number one American export? That would be the American culture of mindless consumption and overall excess. More is always better, even when it isn’t.

This uniquely American export is an absolute requirement if the practice of non sustainable excessive consumption is to be maintained to the bitter end. When running a Ponzi, new marks must constantly be found and exploited if the status quo is to be maintained for those who ultimately benefit from the Ponzi, usually the founders and/or those at the top of the food chain.

This is a disease, a mind virus, an aliment of the spirit that will ultimately kill many of its hosts if only from an early death caused by disease and decay due to the excessive consumption. The obesity epidemic spreading throughout the western world is a perfect example. Everyone is looking for a single source, such as overeating, for what is causing the problem when it is the cumulative effects of a dysfunctional way of life that is destroying us individually and collectively from within.

If we do not recognize, acknowledge and then own our personal participation in this dance of self destructive insanity, nothing will change. How can we possibly expect others to change if we are not willing to do so ourselves? It all begins within.

 

10/29/2017

Cognitive Dissonance

An Act of Pure Evil

An Act of Pure Evil

By

Cognitive Dissonance

When I selected the name of my avatar here on Zero Hedge and began posting comments, then articles when I became a contributing editor, there was deliberate and conscious intent on my part to disturb the cognitive dissonance of the herd. Rarely do we personally grow unless sufficiently prodded with a poker. 

My intent with this article is NOT to stick a finger in the wound and cause more pain. Not in the least. But "We the People" have an extremely complex, some might say insane, relationship with murder/death/kill. To put it bluntly, we have been deeply conditioned to believe certain "types" of killing are just and righteous, therefore "legal". More importantly, we believe that just about the only righteous killing can, and must, be conducted by the state and its duly appointed apparatchiks.

To be even more blunt....that"s screwed up. This article illuminates both the state"s, and our, hypocrisy.

WARNING!! Trigger alert. Do NOT read this if you wish to remain comfortable with your belief systems.

This is being written the day after the mass shooting in Las Vegas and it in no way diminishes the horror and suffering experienced by all involved. I cannot imagine what it was like to be watching an outdoor concert and suddenly find myself under fire with nowhere to run and no place to hide.

It was truly horrific, senseless and so very sad. Or as President Trump declared in his morning after address to the nation, this was “an act of pure evil”.

There is no doubt over the ensuing days, weeks and months millions of words will be spoken and written about this singular act of violence perpetrated upon an unaware and unprepared crowd of dessert revelers. From arm chair psychologists such as this author to so called ‘experts’, we will be bombarded with one part insight to every hundred parts nonsense.

No doubt the nonsense will prevail.

I suspect some readers will not take kindly to me going off script so soon after what is being billed as a national tragedy. In my defense, the difference between me and your average sociopath politician is I am attempting to empower the reader by expanding our minds while they are trying to dis-empower the reader via carefully crafted propaganda and cognitive manipulation.

They want you to refasten your blinders while I wish to tear them off.

I absolutely guarantee you nearly every single political leader and wannabe is thinking only one thought at this precise moment. How can I use this situation to my political advantage? You cannot participate in modern day politics and not think in this manner, regardless of how good and honest you might claim to be.

When you swim in the swamp, you employ the same techniques and thought processes as all the other swamp dwellers. At best it is an occupational hazard, at worst an all consuming disease. Unfortunately very few escape with their morals and dignity intact and none succeed in draining, or even changing the flow of the fetid swamp waters.

But this isn’t the purpose of this screed at all. Either we fully recognize, and are repulsed by, the nature of the swamp and those who dwell within while taking concrete and purposeful steps to distance ourselves as much as possible from all that the swamp encompasses. Or we have learned to mostly ignore it, live with it, benefit from it or directly participate in it.

I tell myself I’m somewhere in-between, but that just might be my ego talking.

There are no innocents, only collaterally damaged individuals. But there are plenty who declare ourselves innocent, claiming the Sergeant Schultz defense of “I see nothing, I know nothing and I wasn’t even (t)here”.

I do not dispute the fact that planning and preparing for, and then carrying out, an act of mass murder and mayhem is indefensible and inexcusable. I assume the reader feels the same way I do, that the person who perpetuated this bloodshed with forethought and malice was mentally deranged and possibly even ‘evil’, regardless of the details of motive and method.

Where we might depart the same path is in how we characterize mentally deranged as defined by a nearly equally mentally deranged society. What, exactly, is the difference between a ‘crazy’ individual shooting from the 32^nd floor of a hotel into a large crowd of people with conscious intent to kill and a nation’s military lobbing cruise missiles or dropping bombs onto an opposing nation’s population centers, occupied hospitals or upon other so called ‘innocents’ with the same conscious intent to kill?

Now I am absolutely positive the reader’s mind is racing through the thousand and one excuses, reasons and rationalizations we have been programmed with, and conditioned to believe and repeat, in order to justify homicide, murder really, to ourselves and to our peers in the name of ‘war’.

I get it. I understand. I am the product of the same conditioning and propaganda everyone else has been exposed to. But the question remains entirely reasonable and relevant. How is homicide by the state any different than homicide by an individual, whether on a mass or individual basis?

Once we begin to delve into this thorny issue, the next question is why do “We the People” support one homicidal entity while vigorously condemning the other?

Ever notice how violence conducted in an ‘offensive’ manner is decried as wrong and ‘illegal’, evil even, while violence employed purely in defense of yourself and those around you is accepted as reasonable and justified? After all, civilized people know there are rules to follow when conducting war. You can’t have people just killing and maiming each other willy-nilly with no rules, now can you?

This is precisely why all nations frame war, before, during and after, as unavoidable and defensive in nature. And it’s also the reason why nations routinely engage in false flag operations in order to create plausible deniability and justification for homicide in order to gain, consolidate or hold on to power, wealth and control.

I can drop 1,000 pound bombs on your head or direct a cruise missile through your kitchen window, but I can’t use poison gas, exploding bullets or other such ‘illegal’ methods of particularly gruesome homicide. As if being blown into bits and pieces by a bomb or missile isn’t particularly gruesome or horrifying.

The fact remains we can rationalize away anything we wish to justify, first as individuals and then as a herd, by simply framing the discussion in ways that fit already programmed terms and conditions that justify our actions. Helpfully (thankfully, for we as ‘moral’ individuals might balk at doing so) the programming is already determined, then promoted and placed via state sponsored education and later via the deeply influenced, if not outright controlled, state propaganda arm called mainstream media.

All that remains is for us to not only accept it, but endlessly repeat it back to others, the ultimate positive feedback loop of group-think that reinforces both our conditioning and the continuing acceptance of our conditioning. The base message is usually not that sophisticated, enabling infinite modification by each individual so that state sponsored homicide is not only acceptable, but in many situations desirable and even necessary.

Once we are able to shoehorn distasteful nonconforming tidbits into our internal narrative, we sleep better at night. Never underestimate the lengths to which we will go to believe precisely what we want to believe.

So there you have it. One ‘madman’ with several automatics and lots of ammo randomly, and rapidly, shooting at human fish in a barrel is bad, very bad. Of this there is no argument from me. But college educated chisel jaw all American hero pilots dropping 1,000 pound bombs on hospitals or strafing wedding parties is acceptable as long as he or she is following ‘legal’ orders and plays by the rules of war a la legal murder/homicide.

And if there is some unfortunate targeting snafu or human error that leads to collateral damage, well…that"s just the price others pay for our gloriously righteous war against the evil madmen enemy.

I can’t wait to not only hear what the state will cook up to justify the next large scale war, but how it will be framed so you and I can swallow it hook, line and sinker, then order up pizza and beer just in time to watch the fireworks live on CNN.

A spoon full of sugary rationalization helps the ugly murder and mayhem go down. After all we do have to live with ourselves, now don’t we?

10/02/2017

Cognitive Dissonance

"Are They Really Out To Get Me?"

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

Libertarians and others who seek to be left alone to run their own lives habitually ask themselves the above question regarding their government.

So, what’s the answer? Are they out to get you? Well, unfortunately, the answer isn’t a simple “yes” or “no.” In fact, it’s “yes” and “no.”

The secret to understanding a government’s intentions is that there’s no unified overall objective, sentiment, or approach to dealing with the private sector.

Quite the opposite. With any government, it couldn’t be more fragmented or dysfunctional.

At the very lowest level of any government is the civil service, which is, in any country, a catch-all for all those people who are so lacking in ability and imagination that they’d be unlikely to hold down a job in the private sector. Moreover, their level of motivation is likely to be so low that their dysfunction tends to coincide with extreme inefficiency.

To test this out, one only has to visit the local Department of Motor Vehicles, or a similar agency that does little except charge fees and waste time in order to provide you with a permit, which, were it not required, you could happily do without.

Most anyone, in observing the individual behind the counter, would observe the glassy stare and recognize that, even though this person spends each working day behind this counter and may have been doing so for years, he or she takes virtually no interest in your personal concerns and, if you have questions, tends to find them a nuisance and an interruption in the endless drudgery of issuing paperwork.

Hence the image above. Here we have a pilot in Canada who, when being presented with a computer-driven list of tail letters that were authorized for him to choose from, immediately laughed when he saw the above letters on the list. He then went up to the counter, having circled the ones he chose, and the clerk processed the application brainlessly, without it even registering in his head what the letters suggested.

Later, when the pilot had had the letters emblazoned on his fuselage, it might not have been unlikely that an airport supervisor, seeing them 10 inches high on the side of the plane, raised an objection, at which time the pilot proudly produced his paperwork.

As most anyone in the private sector can attest, as soon as paperwork is presented, the civil servant in question simply says, “Oh,” then nods and lets you go on your way.

But, looking at this more deeply, what we’re witnessing is that that percentage of the population who are (once again) lacking in ability and imagination are easy to programme by the government to become automatons - that even if something strikes them as being somehow incorrect, as long as it has the State stamp of approval, it’s just fine.

And, so, at the lower level of government, we have those who are not “out to get us”; they are merely borderline useless and have ended up with jobs in which that deficiency will not get them fired. They are, therefore, merely “in the way.”

As we go up the chain, however, where those in government are somewhat more ambitious, we find a greater desire to control.

The closer we get to the higher echelons, the more they truly are “out to get you.”

Why should this be? And why should it be that those the higher-ups tend to hate the most are those who are self-motivated, responsible, self-reliant, and imaginative?

Well, unfortunately, the answer is simple. It’s because those are the character traits that they lack. I’m sorry to have to say that in my many years of working directly with politicians and heads of governments, virtually all of them were highly evolved civil-servant types. They had more drive, more guile, and larger egos than the lower-level bureaucrats but were just as parasitical and just as lacking in character traits that would make them productive people.

With these individuals, yes, they are out to get you.

First, if they recognize that you possess the traits that would make you productive, they will be highly jealous and suspicious of you.

Second, they will understand that since you are productive and they are not, they must find a means by which they can use you as a cash cow, to be milked as much as possible and as often as possible.

Their purpose, therefore, is to regulate, control, and tax you in every way possible, and in this they are, quite simply, predators. They may be Tory or Labour, Republican or Democrat, but they are predators nonetheless and, as such, are a genuine threat to both your freedom and your well-being.

Of course, all politicians play the game of party politics, doing all in their power to convince the electorate that they and their party are dramatically different from the opposing party, presenting their own party as “the good guys,” and the opposing party as “the bad guys.”

However, they are, as Judge Andrew Napolitano has repeatedly stated, merely “two wings of the same bird of prey.”

Significantly, as both the bottom level and top level are separated by many other layers of bureaucracy, and as their common character traits are inability, dysfunction, etc., there is no cohesive set of principles upon which a government operates. Its purposes are control and usurpation, and they’re backed by an imbroglio of confused and self-contradictory legislation and an increasingly large body of enforcement agencies.

Although the individuals within these agencies tend to be incompetent and dysfunctional, they do tend to remain loyal to the whole. They may not get along with each other, or work toward a unified set of goals, or even have the same beliefs. They do, however, tend to do as they’re told and blindly support the State, above all else.

Once all the above is understood, the individual may do as this pilot has done. He has grasped the dysfunction and parasitical nature of his government and has used their own computer-generated registration code to express his reaction to “authority.”

More to the point, he has used their laws, their bureaucracy to express it legally.

This is an important point. Each individual, essentially, has three choices.

He can either go along with those lesser beings who seek to control his life,

...or he can rebel and possibly be incarcerated for his efforts,

...or he can become creative and recognize that the laws and regulations of his country are a confused mess, written by incompetent people, and do all he can to assert his independence, legally.

He can and should do everything in his power to operate his life as though he’s not owned by the government of his home country, or any other government, for that matter.

Wherever a government tries to control the ownership of his real estate through taxation, he might seek out a jurisdiction that has no property tax. If they try to tax his income, he might seek out a country that has no income tax. If they try to restrict his migration, he might seek a second citizenship that does not restrict him.

Freedom is not merely a vague historical idea, or an excuse to celebrate with firecrackers once a year; it’s a lifetime pursuit and should be taken on as such. The pilot in question has made an initial stab at it. Hopefully he, along with you, the reader, will make it a central facet of his life’s work.

*  *  *

A second passport is one of the most practical and effective ways to assert your independence. Find out how you can get one in our special report, The Easiest Way to a Second Passport. Click here to download your free PDF copy now.

Studies Confirm, Free People are Happier

Via The Daily Bell

If you don’t feel free, chances are you don’t feel happy either.

Both of these words, free and happy, are pretty loose in their official definitions. Scientific studies have used various metrics to measure happiness; self-reporting, brain waves, psychological evaluations, and family member surveys. As for freedom, the studies mainly use the self-reported metric, how free a person feels.

When people feel less restrained by outside forces, when people feel that their life is their own to do as they please, they are happier.

Even when holding income, sex, education, race, religion, politics, and family status constant, we find that people who felt free were about 18 percentage points more likely than others to say that they were very happy.

Even people who think that the government should be less involved in daily life are happier than people who think society needs more rules. And it might be tempting to chalk this up to people who are poor feeling unhappy, regardless of freedom. It makes sense to think they would want the government to intervene in order to make them more wealthy, and thus happier.

But when you look at countries overall, you still find that freer countries are happier countries.

…in 1990, at the end of the Communist era, one cross-country survey found that 41 percent of Americans said that they were very happy—contrasted with just 14 percent of East Germans, 6 percent of Russians and Czechs, and 2 percent of Latvians. Of course, regimes behind the Iron Curtain were not just economically unfree; they were politically unfree as well.

Of course, this could also just point to the fact that the freer the country, the more prosperous the people. So you could say that being prosperous makes you happy. Except this would prove that free economies deliver more prosperity. So no matter how you slice it, more freedom means more happiness–even if prosperity is a necessary step in between.

But another study found that even prosperity might not matter as much as freedom when it comes to happiness.

Swiss economists Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer made this point convincingly in the 1990s, comparing happiness levels across various Swiss cantons, which vary dramatically in how much political participation they afford their citizens. Cantons that allowed citizens more direct democratic rights, as well as meetings with leaders to discuss political and financial matters, proved significantly happier than cantons where political access was more restricted.

Now there may very well be some very special people, who even in a prison cell would still mentally “feel free.” But for most of us, factors of our environment come into play as much as our mental attitude.

But then we get to the chicken or the egg thing. If you don’t feel free, is it because of your environment? Or does your environment not feel free because of your mentality? Either way, you can fix this. You can either change your environment, or you can change your attitude. But it takes recognizing the root of the issue.

If you don’t feel free, and it is making you unhappy, you should start getting specific. Identify exactly what is making you feel unfree. Not “government” but “high taxes or illegal marijuana.” You can legally set up your finances to drastically cut your tax rate. And you can move to a place where marijuana is legal.

And don’t say “society” makes you feel unfree. Is it watching the news or scrolling facebook? Stop. Living in a city with a country heart? Move. Is it Sunday dinner with terrible relatives? You’re under no obligation, although the choices they force on you may be tough. Still, it is their choice how to react. You have the ability to make yourself free of things that keep you constrained.

Let’s address the claim that people who have too many choices are less happy.

Some studies have found that when given too many options, people get freedom overload, and are more anxious, finding it harder to make any choice at all. In one instance, two sample booths were set up to sell jam. One gave away 24 samples, and that one attracted more tasters. Another booth gave away 6 samples, and even though fewer people stopped to try the jam, they actually sold more.

The idea is that people are attracted to freedom, but in the end, it makes them stagnate and shut down with an overload of choice.

But there are a couple factors to consider.

One is that people are naturally constrained by their circumstances to some extent. Maybe you are technically free to do anything you want. But at any one point in your life, there are really only a few choices to be made.

It gets overwhelming to think, I could move anywhere I want, start a business or get a job, find a lover or play the single life, or hike the Appalachian Trail and write a book. That train of thought makes it seem like there are too many choices. You may choose to stay in a situation that doesn’t make you happy because you have no idea what choice of the infinite possibilities will actually make you happier.

But you don’t really have that many choices right now. Do you want to move, or do you like where you are? That is only two choices.

If you choose to move, that clearly opens up more choices. You say, where should I move? Is every square inch of the earth truly an option? No. You should be able to identify why you want to move. Then you simply need to make another series of small choices that are not overwhelming when you take them one at a time. Warm or cold? City or country? Coastal or inland?

Second, most people are naturally constrained by their own unique morality. Some people adopt moralities from religion or spirituality, and some people create their own. It doesn’t really matter, there are some things you will be willing to do, and some things you definitely will not. You probably don’t truly have a choice between becoming a doctor, lawyer, teacher, meth dealer, or pimp. Some of those options probably don’t align with your morals–like becoming a lawyer.

When you break things down to a step by step process of where you are going from here, the choices for what to do with life become much less overwhelming. It is great to have a 5 or even 10-year plan, but things are going to change. Most choices don’t require a steadfast decision in the present. Your smaller choices in the present will instead present new opportunities to choose from later.

And if you have some general philosophy or morality that you live by, certain choices are off the table altogether.

So by if you limit your own choices, you may very well be happier. But if someone else limits your choices for you, you are likely to feel less free, and thus be unhappy.

But again, don’t let the feeling of being unfree convince you that you are actually unfree. If you aren’t convinced that you have this much control over your own life, start by reading the 1973 classic, How I found Freedom in an Unfree World, by Harry Browne.

How Economics and Voluntaryism Informed Roger Ver on Bitcoin

By Vin Armani

In this video, Vin Armani interviews Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com, about how economics and libertarian philosophy informed his discovery of Bitcoin, and why he believes strongly in improving its usefulness as money. Currently high transaction fees for legacy Bitcoin are preventing it from being used in everyday commerce. Ver recommends using faster, cheaper, more private altcoins if Bitcoin devs continue to stifle on-chain scaling.

Visit Roger at Bitcoin.com
Follow Roger on Twitter

Watch the full broadcast here

Vin Armani is the host of The Vin Armani Show on Activist Post, author of Self Ownership, agorist entrepreneur, and co-founder of Counter Markets. Follow Vin on Twitter and subscribe on YouTube. Get the weekly podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. Vin is available for interviews at email – Vin (at) VinArmani.com.

Paul Craig Roberts On "The Weaponization Of History And Journalism"

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

"...we don’t need no stinkin’ facts..."

In the United States, facts, an important element of truth, are not important. They are not important in the media, politics, universities, historical explanations, or the courtroom. Non-factual explanations of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings are served up as the official explanation. Facts have been politicized, emotionalized, weaponized and simply ignored. As David Irving has shown, Anglo-American histories of World War 2 are, for the most part, feel-good histories, as are “civil war” histories as Thomas DiLorenzo and others have demonstrated. Of course, they are feel good only for the victors. Their emotional purpose means that inconvenient facts are unpalatable and ignored.

Writing the truth is no way to succeed as an author. Only a small percentage of readers are interested in the truth. Most want their biases or brainwashing vindicated. They want to read what they already believe. It is comforting, reassuring. When their ignorance is confronted, they become angry. The way to be successful as a writer is to pick a group and give them what they want. There is always a market for romance novels and for histories that uphold a country’s myths. On the Internet successful sites are those that play to one ideology or another, to one emotion or the other, or to one interest group or another. The single rule for success is to confine truth to what the readership group you serve believes.

Keep this in mind when you receive shortly my September quarterly request for your support of this website. There are not many like it. This site does not represent an interest group, an ideology, a hate group, an ethnic group or any cause other than truth. This is not to say that this site is proof against error. It is only to say that truth is its purpose.

Karl Marx said that there were only class truths.

Today we have a large variety of truths: truths for feminists, truths for blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, homosexuals, transgendered, truths for the foreign policy community that serves the military/security complex, truths for the neocons, truths for the One Percent that control the economy and the economists who serve them, truths for “white supremacists,” itself a truth term for their opponents. You can add to the list. The “truth” in these “truths” is that they are self-serving of the group that expresses them. Their actual relation to truth is of no consequence to those espousing the “truths.”

Woe to you if you don’t go along with someone’s or some group’s truth. Not even famous film-maker Oliver Stone is immune. Recently, Stone expressed his frustration with the “False Flag War Against Russia.”  Little doubt that Stone is frustrated with taunts and accusations from completely ignorant media talking heads in response to his documentary, Putin, based on many hours of interviews over two years. Stone came under fire, because instead of demonizing Putin and Russia, thus confirming the official story, he showed us glimpses of the truth.

The organization, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, published a report that completely destroyed the false accusations about Trump/Russian hacking of the US presidential election. The Nation published an objective article about the report and was assaulted by writers, contributors, and readers for publishing information that weakens the case, which the liberal/progressive/left in conjunction with the military/security complex, is orchestrating against Trump. The magazine’s audience felt that the magazine had an obligation not to truth but to getting Trump out of office. Reportedly, the editor is considering whether to recall the article.

So here we have left-leaning Oliver Stone and leftwing magazine, The Nation, under fire for making information available that is out of step with the self-serving “truth” to which the liberal/progressive/left and their ally, the military/security complex, are committed.

When a country has a population among whom there are no truths except group-specific truths, the country is so divided as to be over and done with. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The white liberal/progressive/left leaders of divisive Identity Politics have little, if any, comprehension of where the movement they think they lead is headed. At the moment the hate is focused on the “alt-right,” which has become “white nationalists,” which has become “white supremacists.” These “white supremacists” have become epitomized by statues of Confederate soldiers and generals. All over the South, if local governments are not removing the statues, violent crazed thugs consumed by hate attempt to destroy them. In New Orleans someone with money bused in thugs from outside flying banners that apparently are derived from a communist flag to confront locals protesting the departure of their history down the Orwellian Memory Hole.

What happens when all the monuments are gone? Where does the hate turn next? Once non-whites are taught to hate whites, not even self-hating whites are safe. How do those taught hate tell a good white from a bad white? They can’t and they won’t. By definition by Identity Politics, whites, for now white heterosexual males, are the victimizers and everyone else is their victim. The absurdity of this concept is apparent, yet the concept is unshaken by its absurdity. White heterosexual males are the only ones without the privilege of quotas. They and only they can be put at the back of the bus for university admissions, employment, promotion, and only their speech is regulated. They, and only they, can be fired for using “gender specific terms,” for using race specific terms, for unknowingly offending some preferred group member by using a word that is no longer permissible. They can be called every name in the book, beginning with racist, misogynist, and escalating, and no one is punished for the offense.

Recently, a professor in the business school of a major university told me that he used the word, girls, in a marketing discussion. A young womyn was offended. The result was he received a dressing down from the dean. Another professor told me that at his university there was a growing list of blacklisted words. It wasn’t clear whether the list was official or unofficial, simply professors trying to stay up with Identity Politics and avoid words that could lead to their dismissal. Power, they tell me, is elsewhere than in the white male, the true victimized class.

For years commentators have recognized the shrinking arena of free speech in the United States. Any speech that offends anyone but a white male can be curtailed by punishment. Recently, John Whitehead, constitutional attorney who heads the Rutherford Institute, wrote that it is now dangerous just to defend free speech. Reference to the First Amendment suffices to bring denunciation and threats of violence. Ron Unz notes that any website that can be demonized as “controversial” can find itself disappeared by Internet companies and PayPal. They simply terminate free speech by cutting off service.

It must be difficult to teach some subjects, such as the “civil war” for example. How would it be possible to describe the actual facts? For example, for decades prior to the Union’s invasion of the Confederacy North/South political conflict was over tariffs, not over slavery.

The fight over which new states created from former “Indian” territories would be “slave” and which “free” was a fight over keeping the protectionist (North) vs. free trade (South) balance in Congress equal so that the budding industrial north could not impose a tariff regime. Two days before Lincoln’s inaugural address, a stiff tariff was signed into law. That same day in an effort to have the South accept the tariff and remain in or return to the Union—some southern states had seceded, some had not—Congress passed the Corwin amendment that provided constitutional protection to slavery. The amendment prohibited the federal government from abolishing slavery.

Two days later in his inaugural address, which seems to be aimed at the South, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln’s beef with the South was not over slavery or the Fugitive Slave Act. Lincoln did not accept the secessions and still intended to collect the tariff that now was law. Under the Constitution slavery was up to the states, but the Constitution gave the federal government to right to levy a tariff. Lincoln said that “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence” over collecting the tariff. Lincoln said he will use the government’s power only “to collect the duties and imposts,” and that “there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

Here is Lincoln, “the Great Emancipator,” telling the South that they can have slavery if they will pay the duties and imposts on imports. How many black students and whites brainwashed by Identity Politics are going to sit there and listen to such a tale and not strongly protest the racist professor justifying white supremacy and slavery?

So what happens to history when you can’t tell it as it is, but instead have to refashion it to fit the preconceived beliefs formed by Identity Politics? The so-called “civil war,” of course, is far from the only example.

In its document of secession, South Carolina made a case that the Constitutional contract had been broken by some of the northern states breaking faith with Article IV of the Constitution. This is true. However, it is also true that the Southern states had no inclination to abide by Section 8 of Article I, which says that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” So, also the South by not accepting the tariff was not constitutionally pure.

Before history became politicized, historians understood that the North intended for the South to bear costs of the North’s development of industry and manufacturing. The agricultural South preferred the lower priced goods from England. The South understood that a tariff on British goods would push import prices above the high northern prices and lower the South’s living standards in the interest of raising living standards in the North. The conflict was entirely economic and had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, which also had existed in the North. Indeed, some northern states had “exclusion ordinances” and anti-immigration provisions in their state constitutions that prohibited the immigration of blacks into northern states.

If freeing slaves were important to the North and avoiding tariffs was important to the South, one can imagine some possible compromises. For example, the North could have committed to building factories in the South. As the South became industrialized, new centers of wealth would arise independently from the agricultural plantations that produced cotton exports. The labor force would adjust with the economy, and slavery would have evolved into free labor.

Unfortunately, there were too many hot heads. And so, too, today.

In America there is nothing on the horizon but hate. Everywhere you look in America you see nothing but hate. Putin is hated. Russia is hated. Muslims are hated. Venezuela is hated. Assad is hated. Iran is hated. Julian Assange is hated. Edward Snowden is hated. White heterosexual males are hated. Confederate monuments are hated. Truth-tellers are hated. “Conspiracy theorists” are hated. No one escapes being hated.

Hate groups are proliferating, especially on the liberal/progressive/left. For example, RootsAction has discovered a statue of Robert E. Lee in the U.S. Capitol and urges all good people to demand its removal. Whether the level of ignorance that RootsAction personifies is real or just a fund-raising ploy, I do not know. But clearly RootsAction is relying on public ignorance in order to get the response that they want. In former times when the US had an educated population, everyone understood that there was a great effort to reconcile the North and South and that reconciliation would not come from the kind of hate-mongering that now infects RootsAction and most of the action groups and websites of the liberal/progressive/left.

Today our country is far more divided that it was in 1860.

Identity Politics has taught Americans to hate each other, but, nevertheless, the zionist neoconservatives assure us that we are “the indispensable, exceptional people.” We, a totally divided people, are said to have the right to rule the world and to bomb every country that doesn’t accept our will into the stone age.

In turn the world hates America. Washington has told too many lies about other countries and used those lies to destroy them. Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and large chunks of Syria and Pakistan are in ruins. Washington intends yet more ruin with Venezuela currently in the cross hairs.

Eleven years ago Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez resonated with many peoples when he said in his UN speech: “Yesterday at this very podium stood Satan himself [Bush], speaking as if he owned the world; you can still smell the sulphur.”

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that America is a font for hatred both at home and abroad.

Ending the Golden Age of Nothingness

Sir Isaac Newton once famously said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Well, Ike knew a thing or two; for it is indubitable that he would never have had the necessary foundation of knowledge to whip up the law of universal gravitation without the works of Euclid or Copernicus before him. If not for Bach - and his father"s strict hand - perhaps Beethoven would have been a bricklayer. Without Langton and Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers never write the Constitution.

Those giants of Western Civilization were once of a sort that served mankind with wisdom, guiding their antecedents to look towards a future of beauty, freedom, and existential meaning. One Golden Age developed after another as great men were inspired to outdo the other or even to reach for the heavens in art, architecture, music, and literature.

Lately, though, it seems we"ve decided to perch instead on postmodern beings who, while great in technological stature, are cultural ogres. 

When we peer through the looking glass today, all we see, both immediately surrounding and far afield, is a desolation of ugliness and mediocrity:

• Soulless architecture that betokens our standing as utilitarian drones.


• Popular music sung (or mumbled, rather) in the gutter-mouthed patois of degenerate gang members.


• Pointless films - often written by committee and informed by focus groups - that wallow for two banal hours in quick-cut action scenes without dramatic tension; one-dimensional characters as performed by two-dimensional celebrities in third-rate productions.


• An educational system that replaces the canon of Dante, Donne, and Mallory with The Red Wheelbarrow.

Modern art affirms nothing except for mindless consumerism and appealing to our basest instincts. For all our advanced tools and broad access to them, mankind should be practically minting new artistic genius. Yet nothing today can top the achievements of those of ages gone by.

So why then does Nature no longer, to paraphrase Forster, "throw out a god" to stand out as divine amongst the "thin-hammed mediocrities", than when there were billions fewer in the world?

Because when it comes to art, profit motive suborns beauty and invites the average.

This wasteland came about when the best and most talented minds - those who could have been the next Shakespeare or Michelangelo - departed the land of the arts in favor of a life serving as cogs in a corrupted, increasingly statist machine that separates individuality and spits out utility.

When potentially great creators go where the money is, the fields of cultural endeavor are left to be tended by fools.

Soon after the best and brightest left for semi-lucrative STEM careers, the lands became fallow and our current Cultural Dark Age is the result; this abandonment has left the arts securely in the hands of green-haired Gender Studies majors and Nietzsche"s Last Man in skinny jeans.

Each passing generation then subsists off this degraded fare which nourishes neither the intellect nor the soul. Eventually, there will be no one left who can remember tasting anything better and thus the negative feedback loop is in full motion.

It will only worsen until conservatives realize that those who pump the imagery of art into the minds of the young wield infinitely more power than any engineer or writer of computer code could ever dream. That is why the left won the propaganda wars of the past few generations so completely. The cycle only breaks when the political right starts grooming their children to Make Culture Great Again.

One is constantly reading well-meaning advice in the columns and comments sections of alternative media stressing that parents should continue to nudge their children towards the hard sciences, because that"s the sector where they can procure the best livelihoods.

This is sound on the surface, especially for young adults whose gifts are geared for such work. But if you do push them towards those disciplines, make sure they are on the path to self-employment or starting their own companies. Because even in the STEM fields, conservatives hold little power.

Those kids will eventually be forced to toil for the leftists of Silicon Valley who grew up immersed in, and proudly adhere to, subversive culture.  Or the budding scientist must supplicate to those in Washington who dispense the science grants. Kiss advancement goodbye if you hold the wrong opinions.

They"ll be employed by a corsortium of elitists whose ultimate goals are not only antithetical to tradition and morality, but will hasten its extinction.

These are the oligarchs whose philosophical ends are to bring about the Singularity, to silence dissent, or level humanity under one-world governance where cultural greatness, or even humble simplicity, will be made impossible. Better that your kid become a blue-collar laborer or even a NEET with a free mind than to be servants to a wicked system.

But for those of you with children of a creative bent, consider home-schooling them (or enrolling them in carefully-selected private schools) so you can bypass an educational system that is actively airbrushing Western Man"s achievements out of the history books; a system that has perverted the traditional liberal arts beyond recognition and almost out of remembrance.

Once a sufficient number are again steeped in what is the best of mankind, they will be back on the shoulders of proper giants.

They will then write the great novels, paint the sublime portraits, and direct the spiritually fortifying films that can make the fields of culture fertile once more. In so doing, the mediocrities will be banished to their romper rooms where they can frame each other"s finger paintings in deserved obscurity.

By reclaiming education and the arts from the left, we can end our current Golden Age of Nothingness and maybe even repair capitalism in the process.

A new Renaissance - moored to beauty, truth, and ethics - will ennoble the Man of the West, restoring him back to a balanced, fuller humanity. It will be as a torch to burn off the fraud and moral hazard that has attached itself like a leech to our increasingly globalist going concerns. Where virtue exists in abundance, such shady and mercenary practices are reviled.

Economic patriotism and handshake deals will be back in vogue. Instead of capitalism making utility of man, man will make utility of capitalism as originally conceived.

Lord Feverstone of Dystopia USA

Professor Teaches Students About "The Problem That Is Whiteness"

Authored by Nathan Rubbelke via TheCollegeFix.com,

Serious explorations into race should focus on the problem of whiteness and be grounded in the claim that it’s a hegemonic “power apparatus,” a Fairfield University professor suggested at a recent conference aimed at pushing “radical social change” in higher education.

The remarks from associate professor of philosophy Dr. Kris Sealey, who spoke about her strategies for discussing race in the classroom, were presented at a diversity conference for employees of Jesuit colleges.

“So more and more, the courses that I teach on race have become courses in which I expect my students to engage in the hegemonic power of whiteness,” said Sealey, who’s taught courses such as “Black Lives Matter” and “Critical Race Theory.”

Sealey, a scholar of color, said her approach toward teaching race has much to do with teaching at Fairfield University, a predominately white institution, and requires difficult conversations that force students to reevaluate how they understand themselves.

“Hence, part of what makes pedagogies of racial justice particularly difficult are the stakes that they invariably include for all parties involved,” she said.

Sealey’s comments were based in the book “Black Bodies, White Gazes: The Continuing Significance of Race” by Emory University philosopher George Yancy.

Discussing Yancy’s work, the professor said she’s moved by his premise that “any inquiry into the experience of blackness must include some genealogy or some history of the white gaze.”

Taking the thesis seriously, Sealey said, means “to acknowledge that any critical investigation of race should devote some time to the problem that is whiteness.”

While saying there’s no single strategy on discussing race that works best for all students, Sealey touted what she called the “proven advantages” of her approach. Those advantages, she said, establish “objectively grounded claims” that she listed as the following:

Whiteness means a specific power apparatus that exists at the expense of the disempowerment of black people.

To be white in the U.S. is to be a perpetuator of the power apparatus unless one actively and consistently resists.

It is possible, perhaps necessary, to acknowledge one’s personal implications in the white power apparatus.

Sealey said it’s helpful for her students to see that their time in the classroom isn’t about existential conversion or evaluation of one’s character, but rather “the goal is to understand the role of the white gaze in the confiscation of the black body.”

In a 2013 op-ed published by The New York Times, Yancy described the white gaze as “hegemonic” and wrote that it includes “poisonous assumptions and bodily perceptual practices.” Recalling an experience he had with a white police officer in the late 1970s, he said the white gaze includes seeing “the black male body as different, deviant, ersatz.”

Drawing on Yancy’s work and speaking in philosophical terms, Sealey said she frames her class toward the concept of “un-suturing” — an idea she described as opening one’s self to what is other.

Expanding on the concept, Sealey said that “if to suture is to keep closed,” then to un-suture means being able to be influenced by sensibilities or attitudes that run counter to one’s worldview.

Sealey said Yancy applied this approach to suggest when white people engage in un-suturing, there’s an “undoing of a white-centric universe.”