End

28 Dec 2017 – This blog has been terminated, owing to lack of reader interest.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 17 Comments

It’s still silly

I don’t know if this writer has heard of MMT, but he calls for an MMT-style “jobs guarantee.”

It remains as silly as ever.

Lately some have promoted the notion of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). To the extent that a UBI were funded by redistributing wealth from those at the top to those below – a principle that is by no means guaranteed by the concept – a UBI could be a positive reform. But a UBI is no substitute for a guarantee of jobs for all. Why not?

Because labor is power. The only power that can counter the concentrated riches of the ruling oligarchs is the collective organization of millions of every-day working people, who produce all of society’s wealth. The root of working class power is the fact that the labor of millions of people generates the riches enjoyed by those at the top, as well as the considerably smaller share currently allocated to the majority. By withholding their labor en mass, working people have ultimate veto power over any government policy. Guaranteeing jobs for all strengthens the ties of working people to production, maximizing the number participating in the labor force and, thus, the number who have a hand on the lever of society’s productive apparatus. A UBI by itself, by contrast, does nothing to reinforce people’s connection to work – that is, to the fundamental engine of wealth creation.

This comment makes four basic errors.

[1] Since the U.S. government does not run on loans or on tax revenue, there is no need to fund a UBI by “redistributing wealth from those at the top to those below.” We can simply create the money. The rich would never allow redistribution anyway.

[2] Power rests not with labor, but with money, capital, and ownership. This is why the 1% rule laborers. Give workers a UBI, and they will have more power. At least they will not have to submit to awful jobs with rock-bottom pay. They can wait until they find better jobs. They will not need employers as much.

[3] Ever-increasing automation and self-service operations are making workers more irrelevant in any case. Furthermore, actual unemployment is much higher than the official figure. For every worker that strikes, there are ten workers eager to take his job (assuming the job has not already been taken by a robot).

[4] The writer does not understand the difference between the financial economy (i.e. Wall Street) and the real economy (i.e. Main Street). He says that, “every-day working people produce all of society’s wealth.” No. This may have been true a century ago, but most wealth today (or at least most of the money) is made in the financial economy, which has little use for workers, and is also made by ownership, meaning the lower classes must pay rent whether or not they have jobs.

The author lives in a nostalgic past when rich people needed workers far more than they need workers today.

In addition, the rate of any UBI will necessarily be too low. There is a built-in imperative for a UBI to be small enough to encourage people to work. In order to induce people to work at all, the UBI has to be inadequate (or “barely adequate”) to live on by itself. But in the absence of guaranteed jobs for all, “encouraging people to work” means compelling them to compete for an insufficient number of low paying positions. When the supply of labor exceeds its demand in available jobs, wages are driven down, all other things being equal. And if the UBI is to be low enough to encourage people to work, it must ultimately follow wages downward. So, contrary to the assertion of UBI boosters that it would exert upward pressure on wages, a UBI without a job guarantee is just as likely to lead to a race to the bottom.

Wrong. This author, like all “jobs guarantee” proponents, hates ordinary people. He thinks that the lower classes are all lazy, and that they would sit around doing nothing if they had a UBI.  In reality the Mincome experiment in Canada proved that people with a UBI tend to work more, not less.   People with more freedom and flexibility become more daring and enterprising. With fewer money worries, they have more spiritual energy. And since they would be less desperate for jobs, employers would have to raise salaries to get workers.

Suppose you are working for minimum wage, and suddenly you are given a UBI equal to the minimum wage. Would you stop working? No, you would enjoy the doubling of your salary, and you would have more money to spend. This would boost the real economy. The rich don’t want this because, in a world where money equals power, the rich want the lower classes poor.

In today’s automated world, power rests not with physical labor, but with money, and with spirit — i.e. the freedom to dream, explore, experiment, create, and innovate.

This author wants mass strikes so workers can get more money. I say just give workers more money via Universal Social Security.

A UBI is also susceptible to other kinds of manipulation. If a UBI is used to justify cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment compensation and other social programs, it’s all too easy for the programs replaced to be inadequately covered by the UBI, or for some sectors of the population to benefit at the expense of others.

A UBI could not be used to justify any cuts if this author (and most other people) accepted the facts about federal finances. But why face facts when you can escape into the “jobs guarantee” dream world?

A UBI can be used to pit employed workers against those without jobs. And, a UBI would do little to address conditions on the job or provide more than a palliative remedy for the unjust distribution of gains from increased automation and productivity.

Huh? With a UBI, if there are not enough jobs, you can survive without them. If the rich continue to get richer, at least you won’t be starving on the street.

A job guarantee is different. It would establish a principle that strengthens the hand of working people as a whole. And the concept of “jobs for all” is automatically adjustable: As productivity or the relative size of the work force increases, the workweek can be reduced from 30, to 25 or fewer hours to spread the remaining work around. That’s what a rational society, freed from profit-driven tyranny would do.

A UBI would also provide freedom from profit-driven tyranny. The “jobs guarantee” is like Russia-gate. It sounds plausible on the surface, but when you look at the particulars, they all dissolve. There are too many questions.

The next time some pundit or politician tells you we can’t guarantee jobs for all, recognize that they’re playing you for a chump. They’re drawing an artificial box and counting on you not thinking outside it. Remind them that their assertion is only true if profits are prioritized over human needs. Explain that 30-for-40 solves the problem handily, at great benefit to the vast majority. And who knows? With guaranteed jobs for all, even narrow-minded pundits and politicians might be able to find socially useful work.

This author is the one in an artificial box. He thinks like a peasant. He thinks that money is scarce, that people are lazy, and that worker strikes still have meaning.

Ironically, some highly paid CEOs, (especially in the high-tech industries) agree that with increasing automation, we need a UBI.

We can’t guarantee jobs for all, and we don’t need to. We need a basic income guarantee.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIVIA: If you have to go to jail in the USA, which is the worst place to be? I was a state prison guard for 2.5 years. Everyone who has been in “the system” will know what I’m talking about. Here they are, starting from the worst.

[1] City jail

[2] County jail

[3] Privatized state penitentiary

[4] State penitentiary

[5] Federal prison

City and county jails are awful because they are always starved of money, and must therefore scrimp wherever they can. Privatized jails are awful because their owners want to cut costs in order to boost profits as much as they can. State pens are slightly better, since people are there for long terms, and facilities are more permanent.

The best in terms of food quality and living conditions are federal penitentiaries because, being federal institutions, they have limitless money. If you doubt this, ask anyone who has been in a federal pen to compare it to the other places. Jobs are available, but inmates don’t work for private contractors. Below, federal inmates sew uniforms for U.S. soldiers. Again, work is a privilege. Note how they don’t wear the orange jump suits. Everything in the federal pen is more professional. Even the Bureau of Prisons web site is the best of any prison in terms of ease of use.

Some federal pens offer college courses. Most federal inmates are there for money-related crimes such as credit card fraud, bank fraud, bank robbery, organized crime, corrupt cops, corrupt public officials, etc. You rarely find rapists, murderers, etc. However inmates cannot get packages from outside, nor have conjugal visits with spouses.

The one exception to this might be Alcatraz, a maximum security prison that operated from 1934 to 1963 on an island that was only 22 acres which, if it was a perfect square, would only mneasure 692 x 692 feet. Alcatraz was shut down because its structures had deteriorated from wind and salt air.

Another exception are people like Joaquín Guzmán Loera (“El Chapo”) who are tortured in federal prison because they made fools of corrupt politicians. El Chapo is in solitary confinement in the Metropolitan Correctional Center, a federal prison in lower Manhattan. His cell light is always left on, and he is fed through a slot in the door. There is no clock and no window, so he doesn’t know if it is night or day. He is let out one hour a day for solitary exercise in another cell that contains one treadmill and one stationary bicycle. On weekends he is not allowed out at all.

(Among average people in Mexico, Guzmán is a hero.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Who is to blame?

Our personal situation is a product of [1] our environment and [2] our own choices and attitudes.

If we ascribe primary importance to one or the other (as opposed to both) we are a bullshitter.

Right-wing bullshitters claim that everything is a product of our choices and attitudes, and that environment is irrelevant. Thus, if you are born to rich parents, it is because you “worked hard.”  Your environment (e.g. rich parents) is irrelevant. Likewise if you were born into poverty and hardship, you didn’t “work hard enough,” and in any case, anyone can become rich by “working hard.” Luck is irrelevant. Everything is a product of “hard work.”

This is a lie.

Left-wing bullshitters reverse this. They claim that everything is based on environment, and that “hard work” is irrelevant. They imply that our personal situation is a product of forces beyond our control. Our choices and attitudes don’t matter. Everything depends on luck.

This too is a lie.

Pick any dichotomy you choose. If you lose your balance, you become a liar and perhaps a hater. For example, if you claim that everything is a product of “hard work,” and that our environment is irrelevant, you may deny that institutional racism exists. You will think that ghetto blacks are poor because they are lazy. And because blacks are lazy, they congregate in ghettos.

This is a lie. All racism is based on lies.

If you lose the balance, you become a fake “leftist” or a fake “conservative.” For example, if you are a leftist who blames all your problems on your environment, you might be prone to Ellen Brown Syndrome; a mental illness that makes people think all money is created by banks as loans, and that the Federal Reserve is omnipotent.  You become a fake leftist because you are not truly concerned for the welfare of everyone. You just want to hate the Fed.

Jews tend to be fake leftists. They pretend to care about racism, immigrants, and “human rights,” but inside they blame all their problems on the Goyim (a Yiddish word for sub-human cattle — i.e. non-Jews). They preach “tolerance,” when in fact they are as intolerant as any people who ever lived. If you doubt this, try questioning the “holocaust”™ in the presence of “tolerant” Jews. (Make sure you are wearing a helmet and body armor.)

On the other side, suppose you are a right-winger who ascribes all fortunes to “hard work.” If you become an extremist, you don’t really believe this. You just enjoy hating blacks and poor people. Your bullshit about “hard work” justifies your hatred and selfishness. You are a fake conservative — i.e. a mere hater.

THE REASON I MENTION ALL THIS is that, being a leftist about most issues, I am tempted to blame all our problems on our environment — e.g. on rich people and their puppet politicians. But when I see how ordinary people reject the truth about money, or how they push the Russia-gate farce, I see that poverty is sustained not just by rich people and their puppet politicians, but also by average people’s choices and attitudes.

I use the word “peasant” to refer to someone who insists on choosing poverty. That is, “peasantry” is a mental state. You can be affluent (i.e. born into a good environment) and still be a peasant. You can be poor (i.e. born into a bad environment) and not be a peasant. It depends on your mental state, not on your environment or your wealth or poverty.

To reiterate, our personal situation is a combination of [1] luck and environment, and [2] our own choices and attitudes. Yin and Yang. Both are equally important.

Many people lose the balance so badly that they become psychotic. Leftists become Social Justice Warriors who launch eternal witch hunts for villains (i.e. for homophobes, anti-Semites, sexists, racists, “fascists,” etc).  Right-wingers become White Supremacists who launch their own witch hunts for villains (i.e. for “Communists,” “liberals,” “race traitors,” etc).

Extremists on either side manifest traits of the opposite side. On the left, Social Justice Warriors become extremely hateful in their “war against hate.” They become pure fascists in their hunt for fascists. On the right, White Supremacists claim that everything is a product of personal choices, yet they whine about their environment (“Blacks and immigrants are taking over!”).

OKAY, SO WHAT DO WE DO WITH THIS?

I am saying that if you think that all your problems are a product of luck and your environment, you are half correct. Just remember the role played by your own choices and attitudes.

Or, if you think that everything in our lives depends on choices, attitudes, and “hard work,” you are half correct. Just remember the role played by our environment (i.e. forces beyond our control).

All of this is obvious, but it’s easy to forget. I just read numerous comments by readers who 100% believe in Russia-gate, and who attack anyone who exposes their idiocy. These people claim that, “When you combine all these endless items, there are so many that it becomes impossible to deny that the Russians rigged the election.”

However if you investigate any single one of these “endless items,” it always turns out to be nonsense, as does every other item.

When you expose their bullshit, the Russia-gaters always resort to childish name-calling. “You’re a Putin agent / Kremlin stooge / apologist for Russia / troll / traitor / Trump supporter / disinfo agent / etc / etc.”

Given this mentality, who is to blame for inequality? The rich or the poor?

The answer is both.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Clarity please

Failure to think and speak clearly is a major reason why we have rich and poor.  Yes, it really is that simple.

Consider the 90-second video below by Matthew Yglesias of the Vox blog. The video is mostly correct, but it makes a serious error at the end.

Its assertions…

[1] The US government can never run out of dollars. (Correct.)

[2] Dollars are created by the Fed on computers. (Partly correct.)

[3] The only real hazard is inflation, which is very low right now. (Correct.)

[4] If inflation got out of control, the Fed could control it by raising interest rates.  (Correct.)

[5] Therefore debt isn’t a problem right now. Whoa. Wrong. This statement makes people dismiss the entire video, and therefore remain enslaved. You can see this dismissal in all the reader comments below the video. Millions of Americans have a lifetime of student loan debt servitude. Tell them that “debt isn’t a problem.”

Yglesias starts his video by addressing the public debt (i.e. the “national debt”). That is good. However he ends his video by saying, “Debt isn’t a problem.” That is an error. The “public debt” is trivial and harmless, but private debt will eventually destroy the USA as creditor-parasites suck the nation dry. Public and private debt are two very different things.

We must be clear at all times about the difference between public and private debt (and about the difference between foreign and domestic currency).

What about contention #2: dollars are created by the Fed on computers? Let’s clarify this so we don’t become victims of Ellen Brown Syndrome (EBS). Coins and currency notes represent money, and can be used as money, but technically they are not money. Actual dollars (true dollars) are not physical, and only exist in computerized bank accounts. However the fact that true dollars only exist in bank accounts does not mean that all dollars are lent into existence. Some are. Some are not.

Since true dollars only exist in banks, a currency bill is a currency “note.” And since the Fed is the U.S. government’s central bank, a U.S. currency bill is a Federal Reserve Note. But remember, we are only talking about physical currency. Money in your own bank account is not a note, and did not come from the Fed unless you purchased a T-security and you were paid interest when it matured.

Now let’s be careful. When the U.S. government orders your bank to credit your account (e.g. for Social Security benefits), who creates those dollars — the U.S. government, or the bank? Both. The bank creates dollars by obeying government instructions. Those dollars are not lent to you, although you turn around and lend them to the bank for as long as you leave them in the bank. Your dollars are deposits. (The “national debt” is deposits with the Fed.)

The Fed creates dollars in order to pay interest, on T-securities, but the U.S. government also creates dollars by ordering banks to credit accounts. These U.S. government orders ultimately come from the U.S. Treasury, not the Fed.

Don’t believe me? Before 1 March 2013, about seven percent of Social Security recipients still received their benefits by physical check in the mail. (Today all benefits come via direct deposit.) As you can see below, the checks came from the U.S. Treasury, not from the Fed. Today, benefits by direct deposit still come from the Treasury, not the Fed. Money from the Treasury is not a loan (although it is taxable).

All I’m asking is for people to think clearly about these things. Otherwise they will remain slaves.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Somebody make him stop

I must be very brief today, since I have a number of personal tasks to perform.

Paul Ryan said on CBS This Morning that, “We have to cut entitlements; otherwise we can’t really get a handle on our future fake debt.”

Ryan also said he wants to cut programs for low-income people: “We are trapping people in poverty. Trapping people on welfare programs, which prevents them from hitting their potential and getting them in the workforce.”

For this cruelty Ryan collects $223,500 a year, plus benefits, plus bribes, and all he can steal.

The rich pay politicians to be cruel, but in addition, Republicans enjoy keeping people on edge by constantly threatening to cut social programs, and by constantly threatening to start new wars; even nuclear wars. Democrats also threaten to start new wars. Politicians stay important by keeping people worried. They say one thing but do another, reverse themselves, contradict themselves, and laugh as the peasants scurry about, trying to dodge the geyser of excrement blasting out of politicians’ mouths.

On a different topic, here is another example of why China is on the verge of eclipsing the USA.

In both China and the USA, various creditors (banks, hedge funds, etc.) engage in predatory lending to local and regional governments. Creditors do this because they can’t lose. They know the central government will bail them out if debtors default.

This causes [1] a crippling debt load for local and regional governments, plus [2] financial bubbles, as debt instruments and debt-based securities are bundled, traded, stacked, and leveraged. Bubbles threaten the entire financial system.

The difference between China and the USA is that the Chinese government is starting to threaten to not bail out predatory creditors, both foreign and domestic. In other words, the Chinese government is starting to say that if creditors screw up, they’re on their own.

China’s government says this is necessary to offset the two problems I just mentioned above.

Xu Zhong is head of the research bureau of the People’s Bank of China (China’s central bank). Mr. Zhong says, “China must have an example like the bankruptcy in Detroit. Only if we allow local state-owned firms and governments to go bankrupt will investors believe the central government will break the implicit guarantee.”

Translation: In China, “too big to fail” is too big to permit. We must let one or more local and regional governments declare bankruptcy without us reimbursing the creditors, so that all creditors will think twice about their predatory lending.

Last week, China’s National Audit Office pledged to dispel the “illusion” that Beijing would foot the bill for local government debt.

“Financial institutions must not provide financing to projects without a source of stable operating cash flow or that do not have compliant collateral,” the office said.

Translation: Bailing out the predatory creditors makes them worse and worse. We must stop it.

It would be nice if US politicians said the same thing, but they are too corrupt. Student loan debt, for example, is out of control because the U.S. government reimburses lenders in case of default.

The U.S. government has infinite money to bail out lenders, but when it comes to the U.S. government paying for college directly, there is “no money.”

CHANGE OF TOPIC

Here is a quiz for you. The Sri Lankan government obtained a long-term credit package of $200 million from Credit Suisse Bank in order to keep Sri Lanka’s debt-ridden national airline afloat. (Sri Lankan Airlines.). $50 million of the $200 million was obtained right away.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe says Sri Lankan Airlines faces a debt of $3 billion, which is a “landmine” for Sri Lanka’s economy. Mr. Wickremesinghe blamed the previous administration for being corrupt and for mismanaging the national airline.

Here’s your quiz question. Sri Lanka’s government can create infinite Sri Lankan rupees out of thin air.  So why did they need a loan from Credit Suisse?

(TRIVIA: Merv Griffin invented the Jeopardy game show in 1964, and composed the Final Jeopardy tune, Think, as a lullaby for his son, originally titled A Time for Tony.)

The purpose of this quiz is to remind you that whenever someone talks about a “debt crisis,” you must ask three things.

[1] Who is the creditor?

[2] Who is the debtor?

[3] In what currency is the debt denominated?

If you are not given answers to these three questions, then you are probably being fed bullshit.

Sri Lanka’s government can create infinite Sri Lankan rupees out of thin air, but Sri Lankan airlines needs foreign currencies in order to buy the planes in the first place, along with equipment, replacement parts, fuel, and so on. (Airline employees are paid in rupees.) Any debt that Sri Lankan airlines has in rupees is trivial, but the airline is 3 billion US dollars in debt.  That’s how much the company has borrowed from foreigners to keep operating.

The U.S. government’s “national debt” is in U.S. dollars created by the U.S. government. Hence there is no “national debt crisis.”

The U.S. government doesn’t need foreign currencies, since everyone accepts the U.S. dollar. If the U.S. government was not so obsessed with crushing average Americans, the USA could indeed be a superpower, instead of edging closer each day to collapse.

CHANGE OF TOPIC

Here’s a load of nonsense from a blog called “Money Crashers.” How to fix the United States’ debt problems & reduce federal deficits

First of all the US government has no “debt problem.” Second, deficits should be increased, not reduced.

However these clowns are “financial experts” (i.e. morons.) They recommend the U.S. government increase taxes in ways that only hurt the lower classes. This includes increasing the tax on Social Security benefits. They also recommend reduced spending on assistance for the poor, for disabled veterans, and so on. Plus “entitlement reform” – all the usual trash.

I only mention this because the article is written in a way that its garbage seems serious and authoritative.  There are 100 reader comments. Not a single one has a clue, yet they all regard themselves as geniuses.

CHANGE OF TOPIC

Ellen Brown suffers from EBS (Ellen Brown Syndrome) but if we ignore that part of her comments, she sometimes has valuable things to say. I shall summarize…

Q. Why is debt slavery better then chattel slavery (i.e. direct ownership of humans)?

A. Because with chattel slavery you must feed, clothe, house, and medically care your slaves. With debt slavery you just collect the money.

Ellen Brown notes that this was understood during the US Civil War. Therefore direct chattel slavery faced extinction in any case.

A common form of debt slavery today is the student loan scam.

Unlike mortgage debt, student debt must be paid. Students cannot just turn in their diplomas and walk away, as homeowners can with their house keys. Wages, unemployment benefits, tax refunds and even Social Security checks can be tapped to ensure repayment. Most students are granted a nearly unlimited line of credit. This has led to skyrocketing tuition rates, since universities know the money is available to pay them. Skyrocketing tuition rates has created the need for students to borrow even more. Today nearly one-third of borrowers have made no headway in paying down their loans five years after leaving school, although many of these borrowers are not in default. They make payments month after month consisting only of interest, while they continue to owe the full amount they borrowed. This can mean a lifetime of tribute to the lenders, while the loan is never paid off, a classic form of debt peonage to the lender class.

There’s more. I recommend you check it out.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A typical betrayal

Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno spent his life pretending to be a leftist (he was even named after Vladimir Lenin), and did an about-face as soon as he was elected president in April 2017. Everything Moreno opposed he now supports. As vice president he called the previous president Rafael Correa the “eternal president.” Now Moreno calls Correa evil and corrupt, and even claims (with no proof) that when Moreno was Correa’s vice president, Correa planted hidden cameras in Moreno’s office to spy on him by cell phone.

Moreno’s treachery is so extreme that on 30 Oct 2017 his own political party revoked his membership. (The Alianza Pais, i.e. National Alliance.) Not that it mattered, since Moreno had stopped meeting with his own party as soon as he took office.

Such betrayals are common throughout the world. The rich choose and install candidates who speak like leftists, but who promise the rich that they will do an about-face once they are in office.  Carlos Andres Perez of Venezuela condemned the IMF for years, but as soon as Perez was elected president (1988) Perez did an about-face and imposed IMF austerity measure on his people. When the masses revolted, Perez ordered thousands of them killed.

Likewise, Ecuador’s new president Moreno spent years condemning the IMF. But last month he invited the IMF to come to Ecuador and impose austerity on behalf of the rich. Already Moreno has slashed public spending, and cut civil servant salaries.

In Ecuador, all electronic payments had previously been controlled by the central bank so that then-President Rafael Correa could keep the bank honest. Moreno has granted financial sector demands that all private banks be allowed to work with digital cash.

As I said, such betrayals are common worldwide. Many candidates are “leftists” before the election, and become neoliberals immediately afterward. Obama was for Universal Medicare until he got elected. All this is by design, and the rich are the designers.

The socialist ideal is that everyone works for each other. The neoliberal ideal is that everyone works for the rich.

The socialist ideal is that everyone shares ownership of the major means of production of goods and services. The neoliberal ideal is that the rich own everything. For neoliberals, a “free market” is one that rich people are free to own and control. Neoliberals want deregulation and privatization so that they alone can be the government. This is what Moreno is now bringing to Ecuador.

This is not new. Neoliberalism arises whenever a civilization becomes so large that neighbors no longer talk to each other, and the ambient mood of society becomes “Screw you, I’ve got mine.” This selfishness is cumulative as we move up the social ladder, expanding like a rolling snowball.

Ultimately the 1% rule because the 99% will it. One person cannot rule millions unless the millions give him power via a mass attitude of “Screw you; I’ve got mine.”

In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa had made great progress in reducing poverty and inequality, and in upgrading the country’s infrastructure. His vice-president, Lenin Moreno, rode Correa’s coat tails, and praised Correa’s policies. But as soon as Moreno won the election, he repudiated everything he had previously stood for.

The rich despised Correa and Moreno. Privately owned media giants never stopped vilifying them. Now the rich and the media giants adore Moreno, since he is undoing all of the social progress that Correa made. Moreno even used false charges to have his own running mate (Jorge Glas) sentenced to six years in prison for “conspiracy” — i.e. because Glas opposed Moreno’s treachery. No doubt Moreno will boot Julian Assange out of Ecuador’s embassy in London.

Right wing dictators and neoliberals (like Moreno) know that the peasants believe whatever the media outlets tell them. Therefore right wing dictators always control the media outlets, or they align themselves with the media owners.

Most leftist leaders have not learned this lesson. They leave the media outlets in private hands, thinking that if the masses are helped, the masses will “see the truth.” To some extent this is true while the leftist leader is in office. But as soon as he leaves, the “truth” for the peasants is whatever the media outlets tell them it is.

If the media outlets call someone a “dictator,” then for most people he is a dictator. Even Bernie Sanders calls Hugo Chavez a “dead Communist dictator.”

The media outlets call right-wing dictators “enlightened leaders.” And they call genuine leftists “dictators,” and claim that they are guilty of “human rights abuses.” Anyone who questions the Empire is “Hitler.”

Note that when Moreno won the election, the corporate media outlets celebrated it as a “great win for leftists.” The media outlets told this lie in order to put the masses to sleep. Moreno had already met with the rich and agreed to do an about-face.

Indeed, the more a Democrat or a Social Democrat is a right-wing neoliberal, the more the media outlets call him a “leftist” and a “socialist” in order to tranquilize the masses.

Also, when a “leftist” candidate meets with the rich and promises to do an about-face after he is in office, the rich find and support an extreme right-winger as this opponent, in order to make the masses vote for the fake “leftist.” In Ecuador’s case, the rich ran Moreno against Guillermo Lasso, a neoliberal banker, in order to make the masses vote for Moreno, who was chosen by the rich. Lasso would have been just as much a puppet as Moreno, but Lasso did not have a reputation as a “leftist.” By making sure that the Moreno won, the rich cynically called Moreno’s win a “triumph for leftists.” Again, this was done to tranquilize the masses.

In 2008 most Americans were tired of W. Bush, and wanted “hope and change.” The rich settled on Obama because he would falsely represent “hope and change” by screwing the masses while giving the rich whatever they wanted. To make sure that Obama won in 2008, the rich ran Obama against two right-wing buffoons (John McCain and Sarah Palin). In 2012 the rich ran Obama against two more right-wing buffoons (Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan) and made sure that Romney’s insults about “makers” and “takers” was widely published.

The masses never catch on to this, no matter how many times they are fooled. When the bankers installed Alexis Tsipras as Prime Minister of Greece (21 Sep 2015) I commented on several blogs that Tsipras was a fraud, since he supported the euro. Therefore he would not be able to reverse austerity even if he wanted to (which he didn’t). Many people attacked me, saying Tsipras “deserved a chance.” Of course I was right about him. And the media outlets still call him a “leftist”!

When the bankers installed “leftist” François Hollande as French President, (15 May 2012), I called Hollande a fraud for the exact same reasons. I was right about him too.

The fake “leftists” justify their treachery by claiming that they know how to “get things done” (i.e. how to follow orders from the rich). They claim that they are bringing “stability” to the nation (i.e. bringing poverty and inequality).

There is more information about Ecuador here: Lenin Moreno betrays the revolution that elected him and here: Lenin Moreno is a fraud, but how far to the right can he take Ecuador?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Russia-gate explained

Would people believe the item at right without any proof or evidence? Perhaps. Many people believe in Russia-gate without any proof or evidence. In fact, as I’ll discuss below, people believe in Russia-gate because there is no proof or evidence.

If a lie is told often enough from many different angles, people accept the lie on faith.  Once that happens, the believers dismiss all proof or evidence to the contrary. Facts become heresy. Logic becomes blasphemy.

Believers even regard silence as proof of their faith. For instance, the U.S. Air Force declines to comment on flying saucers, knowing that the public will go crazy no matter what the Air Force says. Believers in flying saucers take this silence about flying saucers as “proof” that the Air Force has flying saucers. The lack of proof becomes “proof.” (“It’s a cover-up!”)

With Russia-gate, believers condemn non-believers as “collusion deniers,” “Kremlin stooges,” and “hacking Truthers.” Whoever is not interested in their nonsense is a “collaborator.” Whoever doesn’t believe in their conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist.”

Despite their irrationality, there is a logical reason why they do all this, which I’ll explain farther below.

Accepting bullshit on faith can be a problem, but to some extent faith is necessary for society to function. For example, what “backs” the U.S. dollar is the “full faith and credit of the United States.” That is, what “backs” a dollar is not taxes, or the U.S. government, but everyone’s agreement that a dollar is worth a dollar. We take it on faith. The “credit” part means we give a dollar full credibility.

This is why I often use sports scoreboards as illustrative examples. Points have value because everyone involved in the game agrees that points have value. Indeed, society consists of a network of agreements. For example, all English speakers agree that the word “red” refers to a certain color. Many such agreements are “backed” by their practical usefulness in the physical world.

The problem is when we know that something is a lie, and we join the lie by agreeing that the lie is “true” (e.g. Russia-gate). Being liars, we experience a cognitive dissonance that leads to a collective psychosis.

You got’em because you control people’s desperate efforts to maintain their sanity while they knowingly support a lie. Put another way, the problem is not that people are gullible, but that people are not gullible. Simple gullibility does not entail madness. But when people “agree with what they know in their hearts ain’t true,” they become insane (e.g. Russia-gate).

Russia-gate is a fad. A craze. A mania. A stampede. Believers form a mob that randomly twists and turns like a vast flock of birds. The more ridiculous their cult becomes, the more fanatically they defend it.

MY POINT: I think it’s all a diversion; a way to avoid facing the pain of downward mobility. Average people become more powerless and impoverished each day. To cope with this, many people withdraw into the fantasy that if only Trump was removed from office, everything would be “all right” again (as though everything was all right before Trump.) Anti-Trump people become angry when we debunk Russia-gate, because we threaten their delusion and their escape.

Meanwhile the pro-Trump people likewise want an escape from the pain of downward mobility. They have withdrawn into the opposite delusion: that Trump is the only barrier against liberals and political correctness — i.e. the only thing preventing the sky from falling. If only people would leave Trump alone, everything would be all right. This is just as silly as is Russia-gate.

The pro-Trump and anti-Trump people feed off each other. Their squabbles help both sides escape from reality. That’s why both sides pretend that their empty chatter actually “means something.”

I said above that people believe in Russia-gate not despite the lack of proof or evidence, but because of the lack of proof or evidence. In order to flee from a painful reality into a comforting delusion, we must be willing to believe without question. We must bow to mystery and obfuscation (i.e. we must bow to bullshit, and become bullshitters ourselves). We must have evil enemies to defend the faith from. In short, our bullshit will only serve us as an escape if it is all-consuming. And for that to happen, our bullshit must be mysterious and faith-based. It can only function as an escape if it is fact-free.

One blogger says that believing in Russia-gate, or arguing with believers, will “make you crazy.” I say that’s the whole point. In order to escape from a painful reality, our bullshit must become so fanatical, so absurd, so self-contradictory, and so all-consuming that it drives us nuts.  This is how all faith-based systems work.

This is why the masses are at each other’s throats. Nazis. Antifa. Sexual witch hunts. Pro-Trump people. Anti-Trump people. Trans-gender mania. All of these ideologies, and the squabbling between them, are escapes from the reality of downward mobility.

The item below is an actual book. Do the people actually read it? Of course not. Who could sit through 368 pages of innuendo, “what ifs,” unnamed “sources” and empty nothings? People buy the book in order to have a physical token that helps to sustain their escape from reality into delusion. It’s like having a bible.

Downward mobility and the desire to escape into fantasy are global phenomena. We see it in many forms. One example is religious fanaticism. Statistically speaking, religiosity increases in proportion to poverty. By “religiosity” I mean faith based delusions of all kinds (for example, Russia-gate, or the Trump-as-savior nonsense). Another example is the obsessive belief that the government is “covering up” UFOs.

The phenomenon occurs when civilizations go into decline. Examples include the ancient Greco-Roman mystery cults that exploded in size as the Greek and then the Roman civilization started to die. Again, these are escapes from a painful reality.

And of course the rich love all this. As long as the masses are at each other’s throats, and are desperately withdrawn into delusions, they will not defy their owners.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment