The Infomocracy Dilemma: Revolution or Disengagement?

A very small yet conscious minority has come to the realization that the current world regime is one giant corporate infomocracy that needs to be terminated with “extreme prejudice”, disengagement being the weapon of choice.  The next revolution will not be carried out by mobs of angry people, guerrillas, terrorists or, god forbid, politicians.  It will be accomplished by a small (10%) militant minority that will simply unplug the matrix.

A Very Condensed Case for Revolution

An enormous, dictatorial corporate cartel is ruling the world through its proxies in government, banking, academia and media.  Our entire western culture has become an insidious farce with the sole purpose of maintaining the enslaved masses in their conjured up democracies, religions and histories.  Two developments have increased its control exponentially:  globalisation and the information revolution. 

The world is entering the final acts of a great social, political and economic shift.  The international currency regime, the keystone of control,  is peering into the abyss; the middle east is being turned upside down; the bankrupt United States government is fighting several wars and maintaining more than 560 military bases in over 120 countries.  The insatiable greed and desire for world control have created a breach in the system.  People are becoming aware while their masters scramble for control as the chaotic climax approaches.

The Love-Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

Portrait of T.S. Eliot  by Wyndham Lewis

by T. S. Eliot  (September 26, 1888 – January 4,1965)

S'io credesse che mia risposta fosse
A persona che mai tornasse al mondo,
Questa fiamma staria senza piu scosse.
Ma per ciò che giammai di questo fondo
Non tornò vivo alcun, s'i' odo il vero, 
Senza tema d'infamia ti rispondo.

Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question. . .                            
Oh, do not ask, "What is it?"
Let us go and make our visit.

  In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.

Zionism vs Dominionism

Both Eric Cantor and Michele Bachmann have extreme religious views.  In Cantor's Zionism  God expressly desires a piece of land in Middle East be ruled and occupied by Jews.  Bachmann's  Dominionism asserts that Christians should play a special role in the American Republic.  However, the major news outlets have treated their religous beliefs very differently.  While it is open season on Bachmann, Cantor's Zionism is off limits.  In a bizarre marriage of extremism, Zionism and Dominionism are joined at the hip; one never speaking a word against the other.  But which one is truly dangerous for America?

Michele Bachmann

David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, and Jann Wenner, editor of  Rolling Stone, have a problem with Michele Bachmann’s religion.  Two recent articles by both magazines focused almost exclusively on her religious convictions, which, in the words of Matt Taibi make Mrs. Bachmann “batshit crazy. Not medically crazy, not talking-to-herself-on-the-subway crazy, but grandiose crazy, late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy”.

Recent American history has for the most part avoided deep discussions regarding the "validity" of personal religious beliefs in politics.  This is no longer the case and a can of worms has been opened by The New York Times, The New Yorker, Newsweek and Rolling Stone that will have implications for all the political forces in Washington, not just the Christian right.   

Taibbi’s piece came out first, and he painted her  in very Taibbiesque colors as a politically shrewd religious fanatic. The copycat hatchet job in The New Yorker came off as boring and tactless with far too much cringe factor.  Ryan Lizza’s 8,500 word piece began with the shocking revelation that the middle aged Bachmann is careful not to be photographed in casual clothes.

The New Yorker of years gone by could have summed up Michele Bachman's religious beliefs with a terse sentence describing how God spoke to her and told her to become a tax attorney for the IRS: enough said.  The remaining 8,450 words could have been spent on William James or the origins of Lutheran communities in Texas.

What QE3 Will Look Like

The recent financial fireworks in the US and in Europe have made it clear that QE3 is close at hand.  The third installment described herein is much more than just another revving up of the printing presses, as it will involve a paradigm shift intent on restoring currencies and maintaining the current  power structure.

It's an all too common mistake to see the central bankers and their mainstream media propagandists derided as incompetent fools.  These “fools”control the money and the message and it's their game to lose.  Most pundits think the powers that be have lost control and can do little more than kick the can down the road. They are wrong.  We are about to witness one of the greatest orchestrated events in human history; a monumental sleight of hand that will restore economic prosperity, keep the masses happy and most importantly- maintain the parasitic elites in power. 

Tin Hats or Tin Men

Mainstream sources deride conspiracy theorists as simpletons unable to  deal with the complexity of the world;  the tin hat crowd are in need of a “God” or “bogeyman” to explain the evils of the world.  The sophisticated academics and journalists tell us that history is the product of countless interests fighting for limited resources. The cabal of bankers is nothing more than a mirage conjured up in the thirsty imagination of simpletons.

If one wears a shiny tin hat then the problem, and the solution, are very different: the 1%  crowd have created an enormous pyramid scheme supported by magnificent lies preached from schools, televisions, governments, churches, newspapers, universities and the like.  The mission is to wake up their brothers and the whole misbegotten scheme will melt into a sea of crisp consciousness.

What is is not in doubt is that the world reserve currency is nearing the end of its viability at least in its current form. The only other two options, the euro and the yen, are in as bad or worse shape.  The end game has arrived for the current monetary system which began with Bretton Woods in 1944. The sub prime crisis, the Fukushima earthquake and nuclear disaster and the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece & Spain) were the final nails in the coffin of the dollar reserve system. 

Who's Afraid of Ron Paul?

Congressman Ron Paul

Bankers, War Mongers, Drug Dealers, The New York Times, The  Military Industrial Complex, the Neo-Cons, The Wall Street Journal, The DEA, Organized Crime, The CIA, the FBI, The FDA, The Department of Education, The Federal Reserve and the IRS.

“With politicians like these,who needs terrorists?” Ron Paul

Ron Paul is neither a big man nor a loud one and his polite demeanor effectively disguises a vicious fighting spirit. No other politician in recent history has been the been lone dissenter on so many congressional votes.  From Mother Teresa to Gaza, only one man dissented: Ron Paul. He transcends party lines, confusing the mass media who are not sure whether he is a radical left wing peace nick or a John Birch Manchurian candidate.

Right or Left?

“We can achieve much more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars.” Ron Paul

As shocking as it may seem to The New York Times, Fox, The Wall Street Journal and CNN, The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence actually call for a peaceful, free Republic unencumbered by Government.

What other member of Congress is for ending the war on drugs, phasing out Medicare and Medicaid, making Social Security optional, legalizing prostitution, ending The Fed, halting all aid to Israel, lowering taxes, and closing all American military bases abroad? How do you define Ron Paul within the current political spectrum? You can’t. He simply doesn't fit into any of the convenient labels available for the two party charade. The Ivy Leagued Wall Street/Washington nexus doesn't know what to make of man who is against two of the most dreaded things in life: war and taxes.

Three Questions Trump DIDN’T ask Obama

Donald Trump stirred the pot regarding the Obama "birther" issue and the President reacted quickly, releasing the long sought after "long form" and effectively killing the issue.  Trump opted for prime time over campaigning to be the POTUS; nonetheless, his stunt created a precedent for candidates to call out the president on issues and pressure him to respond.

Unfortunately, the "birther" issue was only relevant for those wishing to occupy the White House. As for the American people and the Republic in general, it would not have resolved any major issue. The best case scenario for the "birthers" would have meant Joe Biden taking over from an impeached Obama, which would  have changed almost nothing except the quality of late night comedy.

There are, however, serious questions that need to be answered which no candidate or the the traditional media goes near less they be accused of treachery by their corporate masters.  It's time that the People created the agenda and demanded thorough and convincing answers.  They have no qualms about using their power, and we shouldn't have any about using ours.  How many candidates have the integrity and stomach to demand answers to these questions?

Bankers & Fools

After a tense week with world markets teetering on the edge of collapse Angela Merkle finally met with her French counterpart Nicholas Sarkozy and they ended the seventh month chill in their once cozy relationship. According to  The Independent, they faced a serious impasse regarding bank haircuts in the "déjà vu all over again" Greek financial crisis. Sarkozy fought tooth and nail to guarantee that the largest holders of Greek debt, the French banks, wouldn’t get a clipping. Merkel made a valiant effort to demand accountability from the banks but she finally caved in, giving great comfort to the second largest holders of Greek debt: the German banks.

According to the Financial Times, French banks are holding $53 billion in Greek debt, Credit Agricole alone is $30 billion invested, while German banks are holding $34 billion. Colloquially speaking, Frau Merkel and Monsieur Sarkozy know who their daddy is.

Follow the Money

One key question is missing from the discussion of the Greek sovereign debt crisis. Imagine a close friend is moaning non-stop about a debt owed to them that looks like it won’t be paid. Worst of all they borrowed the money from someone else in order to lend it! Most attentive and caring friends would make that most indelicate but necessary of inquiries. Who did you borrow the money from?

We are blessed to have a corporate media so polite  that they don’t burden us with these embarrassing questions. Where did the French and German banks get the $87 billion to lend the Greeks? They would have you think that these are the deposits of hard working Europeans, small businesses, corporations and maybe even tax revenue from governments. This is not the case. Banks use their assets as reserves against which they either “create” money to lend or borrow "created" money  from central banks, in this case, the European Central Bank. When buying government bonds, which supposedly have no risk, they use maximum leverage and actually have no reserve requirements.

The Fake Bull Market: A Dollar Mirage

José Tomás

The SP 500 hit an apocryphal low of 666 during the financial crisis  in March of 2009 from which point it has surged to more than double in price in about two years. This bull market is one of the most robust in  US equities history; its only rivals are the end of the roaring 20’s and the late 1990’s.

There probably couldn’t be two more diametrically opposed moments in US history as the to late 1990’s and the post financial crisis period. The late 1990’s were a period of massive innovation, relative peace, budget surpluses and low unemployment. The US military was resting on its laurels after a swift, definitive victory over Saddam Hussein and the once ominous Soviet threat had disappeared, mired in a decade of decay. Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, EBay and the like had made advanced technology once again part of the America brand after the 1970’s and 80’s when it seemed Japan would overtake the US as both the world's dominate economy and innovator. But the nineties were a lost decade for the Japanese and saw a serous decline in their economic power relative to the United States. The 1990’s were the culmination of an American century and victory in the Cold War;  the long, sustained bull market made sense.


The post 2008 world has been a much different story. Unemployment is hovering around 10%, budget deficits are reaching 10% of GDP and are almost as large as total government income if unfunded liablities are included.  The Federal Reserve has begun a money printing campaign to buy mortgage backed securities and Treasury bonds. Throw in two seemingly unending  wars, a housing market so dismal that one has to go back to the 1960’s to find housing starts so low (when the population of the country was two thirds what it is today) and you have arguably the most bleak time in the nations history outside the Civil War.

The Artist and his Demons

Arthur Rimbaud - 1872

All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the bottom of their motives there lies a mystery. Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention.  GEORGE ORWELL

The urge to create is a fundamental expression of human existence, from the first cave fitted for living to the great symphonies and novels of the nineteenth century. This desire  to construct was galvanized by the birth of consciousness and has been honed by natural selection ever since.

Sometimes it's clear that what began as a practical, useful creation like the wheel can quickly become an expression of something much more complex as in a Bentley. Man creates both to quench an existential need and fill a practical purpose. As our resources and technology advance, the ego, insecurities, narcissism and occasionally an enlightened sense of form and function begin to play out. From weapons to architecture, the practical is overtaken by the need to express the esthetics's, worldview and insecurities of the creator and his milieu.

The Need for Narrative

Narrative emerged as the necessary antidote to consciousness. Once humans became aware of their own existence (probably as favorable mutation that gave crucial political advantages to our distant simian relatives), they needed a story to help them survive psychologically. As Edward Edinger put it “History and anthropology teach us that a human society cannot long survive unless its members are psychologically contained within a central living myth. Such a myth provides the individual with a reason for being.”

Individuals, tribes, ethnic groups, nations and religions must have a narrative to navigate them through linear time and prepare them for their eventual demise. The most dogmatic of these are the religious and patriotic myths that paint big pictures with broad strokes in their mission to explain and unify.

The Moral Hazard of Modern Banking: How Banks Create and Destroy Money

The Money Lenders by  Quentin Metsys - 1466

"I'm just a banker do doing God's work."  Lloyd Blankfein

Much has been said about both the moral hazard of banks being bailed out and people bailing out of mortgages. The major question raised was, would this ‘bailout’ contagion infect the integrity of our economic and political system?  But far more interesting and much less discussed are the mechanics of modern banking and their moral implications.

During the housing boom trillions were loaned out in mortgages creating a housing bubble and the eventual collapse of the financial markets. But where did all that money come from? The vast majority of people think that banks borrow money from the Fed or depositors at one rate, lend it at another and make a spread. This concept is completely false. Banks create money, loan it out, make their margin through compound interest, and destroy the same money that they created as it is paid back.

The Mechanics of Fractional Reserve Banking

The mechanics of modern banking are opaque, misunderstood and arguably dishonest. Modern fiat money, the dollar, euro, yen etc are all based on debt. For every dollar in existence, there is somewhere an IOU for the same amount. This is best illustrated with an example of a typical mortgage.

Imagine Jack wants to by Jill’s house for $100,000 and he has no money to buy it so he goes to his local bank and asks for a mortgage which is approved. The bank will ask Jack for a promissory note, an IOU, for the $100,000 and once he signs it, they open an account in which they create from nothing $100,000 for Jack in exchange for his IOU. That $100,000 is a liability for the bank, their asset is the IOU. The bank just ‘created’ $100,000 which is backed by the good faith of Jack to pay it back as well as the deed to the house he bought.  Now the bank loans that money to Jack, with compound interest. The interest is the fee the bank charges for monetizing the debt. Jill would not have wanted an IOU from Jack for the 100K, so the bank did him the service of converting his IOU into dollars, and for this service they charge him interest. As Jack pays down his mortgage principal, the value of the IOU will be drawn down as well, until all the money ‘created’ is destroyed, and the IOU is worthless.

From Liberal to Libertarian: Bush, Obama and the Final Bubble

America’s once vibrant Republic has morphed into an imperial oligarchy. The regime has weaved a new dogma preached faithfully by pundits and politicians of both parties. As that dogma crumbles in the face an impending economic collapse, the vast majority of citizens will be left in an ideological vacuum.

Palin or Obama, Fox or CNN, The Drudge Report or The Huffington Post; they simply affirm to their followers and viewers different shades of the same worldview. From within this paradigm it’s impossible to grasp the enormous manipulation and dysfunction that besets the nation. In the past there was sufficient diversity of ideas within the mainstream to offer adequate solutions for the challenges of the time. This is no longer the case.

A Liberal Democrat

Born in the late 1960’s, Cold War mythology was very real. The Soviets were bad, the West was good yet the echoes of Vietnam left a crack in the armor of the ‘noble’ United States. Nonetheless, FDR saved the nation and American GI’s saved the world. Government was good, if not perfect. It protected us from Nazis, Communists as well as from the greed and ruthlessness of bankers, oil men, and dirty tricks. The Left was for civil rights, workers rights and sympathized with the plight of the poor.

I watched Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life and was sure George Bailey was a Democrat and Harry Potter was a Republican. Toss in a strong dose of Irish Catholicism and you get the picture.

Kennedy was good, Nixon was bad. But many thought otherwise, and saw the Democrats as the architects of big political machines and powerful unions bent on taxing, controlling and stealing from hard working people. For them, the Republican Party represented fiscal responsibility, religious values and the war on Communism.

Banging the Drums of War: Iran and the Neo-cons

All the Usual Suspects

In the last few years Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, Norman Podhoretz of Commentary, Charles Krauthammer of The Washinton Post, Bill Kristol from the The Weekly Standard and Thomas Friedman of The New York Times have all clamored for an attack on Iran. The debate has been shaped. Do we or don’t we attack Iran in order to destroy or delay their supposed nuclear weapons program.

All the usual suspects that hyped a war in Iraq which was started on false precepts and lies.  Here are some excerpts from their new project.

Kristol (The Weekly Standard)

“In a speech to the House of Commons in late 1936, Winston Churchill warned, “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”

Podhoretz (Commentary)

“It now remains to be seen whether this President,… will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.”

Goldberg (The Atlantic)

“..a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people.”

Krauthammer (The Washington Post)
“..Iran, which is frantically enriching uranium to make a bomb, and which our own State Department identifies as the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world.”

Friedman (The New York Times 2008)

On how Obama should deal with Iran "a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm."

Consequences

There is a question we must ask before even beginning to discuss the Iranian nuclear problem. Why do we allow the same people who fought the ideological battle for the invasion of Iraq to continue to shape American foreign policy? From reading these gentlemen’s pieces you would think the Iraq war were a great success. Instead, it's the largest foreign policy blunder in our history. One would expect these journalists to be shunned and stripped of their soapboxes considering the tremendous amount of blood they have on their hands. Let us not forget the consequences of this tragic, unprovoked war.