This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Doug Casey: Sociopathy Is Running the US - Part Two

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Doug Casey of Casey Research

Sociopathy Is Running the US - Part Two (part One here)

I recently wrote an article that addresses the subject of sociopaths and how they insinuate themselves into society. Although the subject doesn't speak directly to what stock you should buy or sell to increase your wealth, I think it's critical to success in the markets. It goes a long way towards explaining what goes on in the heads of people like Bernie Madoff and therefore how you can avoid being hurt by them.

But there's a lot more to the story. At this point, it seems as if society at large has been captured by Madoff clones. If that's true, the consequences can't be good. So what I want to do here is probe a little deeper into the realm of abnormal psychology and see how it relates to economics and where the world is heading.

If I'm correct in my assessment, it would imply that the prospects are dim for conventional investments – most stocks, bonds and real estate. Those things tend to do well when society is growing in prosperity. And prosperity is fostered by peace, low taxes, minimal regulation and a sound currency. It's also fostered by a cultural atmosphere where sociopaths are precluded from positions of power and intellectual and moral ideas promoting free minds and free markets rule. Unfortunately, it seems that doesn't describe the trend that the world at large and the US in particular are embarked upon.

In essence, we're headed towards economic and financial bankruptcy. But that's mostly because society has been largely intellectually and morally bankrupt for some time. I don't believe a society can rise to real prosperity without a sound intellectual and moral foundation – that's why the US was so uniquely prosperous for so long, because it had such a foundation. And it's also why societies like Saudi Arabia will collapse as soon as the exogenous things that support them are pulled away. It's why the USSR collapsed. It's the reason why countries everywhere across time reach a peak (if they ever do), then stagnate and decline.

This isn't a matter of academic contemplation, for the same reason that it doesn't matter much if you're in a first-class cabin when the ship it's in is taking on water.

Economics and Evil

When I was a sophomore in college, I asked my father – a worldly wise man but one of few words – some cosmic question, as sophomores are famous for doing. His answer was, "It's all a matter of economics." Some months later I asked him another, similar question. His answer: "It's all a matter of psychology." They were unsatisfactory to me at the time, but those simple answers stuck in my mind. And I've since come to the conclusion that they comprehend most of what drives human action.

Let's look at the "matter of economics" only briefly, because it's covered at length elsewhere and because it's not nearly as significant as the "matter of psychology."

One definition of economics is: The study of who gets what, and how, in the material world. Unfortunately, it's been distorted over the years into the study of who determines who gets what, and how, in the material world. In other words, economic power has gradually been transferred from producers to political allocators. This has had predictably bad results, including not only the bankruptcy of the US government but of large segments of US society.

But what's happening today is much more serious than an economic bankruptcy; you can recover from financial woes by cultivating better habits. We're talking about psychological and spiritual bankruptcy. The word psychology comes from psyche, which is Greek for soul. When you look at the word's origin, it's clear that psychology is about much more than mental peculiarities. It's not just about what a person has or what he does. It's about what he is. The real essence of a man, his soul, is revealed by his philosophy and his beliefs.

In any event, it's rare that anyone goes bankrupt because of a single bad decision. It takes many missteps, and consistently bad decisions aren't accidents. Consistently bad decisions are the product of a flawed moral philosophy. Moral philosophy guides you as to what is right or wrong. The prevailing moral philosophy has so degenerated that Americans think it's OK to invade other countries that not only haven't attacked it but can't even credibly threaten to attack it. I'm not talking just about Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya – pitiful non-entities on the other side of the world. They were preceded by even weaker prey, closer to home, like Granada, Panama, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Not only that, but they think coercion should be used to steal wealth from the people who produce it, and give it to those who've done absolutely nothing to deserve it.

It's hard to pick an exact time America's moral bankruptcy started; perhaps the draconian Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were the first real breach in the country's ethical armor – but they were quickly repealed and subsequently served as an example of what not to do for many years. There were real moral problems that arose because of the Mexican War, the War between the States and the Indian Wars. There were early attempts to create a central bank, but they fortunately failed. But I believe the real change in direction came with the Spanish-American War, which resulted in the accretion of an overseas empire, particularly in the Philippines where 200,000 locals were killed. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state."

Then came the creation of both the Federal Reserve and the income tax in the very unlucky year of 1913, which made it possible to finance the country's completely pointless entry into World War 1. From there, with the New Deal, World War 2, Korea, the Great Society, Vietnam and so on, the US has gradually descended into becoming a very aggressive welfare/warfare state. It now has an overt government policy of inflating the currency, which constitutes a fraud, and running up the national debt, which is a swindle because it will never be repaid.

America is not the first to start with moral failure and move on to economic failure. In all the examples history provides, economic bankruptcy and political tyranny are invariably preceded by moral bankruptcy. It's bad enough that these things have happened. But it's even worse that they're celebrated and taught to students as triumphs. That guarantees that the trend will accelerate towards a real disaster. Most people accept what they're taught in school uncritically.

The pattern is no secret to historians. Machiavelli noted in his Florentine Histories (1532): "It may be observed that provinces, among the vicissitudes to which they are accustomed, pass from order to confusion, and afterwards pass again into a state of order. The way of the world doesn't allow things to continue on an even course; as soon as they arrive at their greatest perfection, they again start to decline. Likewise, having sunk to their utmost state of depression, unable to descend lower, they necessarily reascend. And so from good, they naturally decline to evil. Valor produces peace, and peace repose; repose, disorder; disorder, ruin. From ruin order again springs, and from order virtue, and from this glory, and good fortune."

This isn't the place to deconstruct Machiavelli, but he makes a couple of points that are worth pondering. Does "good ... naturally decline to evil"? In politics (which is his subject) it does, because politics necessarily attracts evil people, and evil necessarily brings ruin. Then order reasserts itself, because people despise chaos. And from order virtue arises, and from that good fortune. Machiavelli is right. Virtue does bring good fortune, and evil brings ruin. I believe it would be clear to Machiavelli that in the US virtue is vanishing and evil is on the rise. And Machiavelli would predict that things aren't going to get better at this point until they "sink to their utmost state of depression, unable to descend lower, they necessarily reascend."

In general, he's correct. But sometimes it takes quite a while for a society to reset. After the collapse of Rome, real civilization didn't return to the West until the Italian Renaissance, which was when Machiavelli lived. Interestingly, culture in Italy started a rapid decline in the 1490s, and the peninsula became a backwater – a quaint theme park at best – for hundreds of years. You can argue Italy is still headed downhill today. Perhaps it simply has to do with the nature of entropy: all complex systems eventually wind down, no flame can burn forever. But that's another subject. It would have been nice, though, to keep the flame of America burning for longer than turned out to be the case.

Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy

One element of moral bankruptcy is intellectual bankruptcy, to wit, belief in the effectiveness of statism and collectivism. This is one reason why I counsel kids who are thinking of going to college (unless it's to acquire very specific knowledge in science, engineering, medicine or the like) to do something more intelligent with their time and money. The higher education system is totally controlled and populated by morally and intellectually bankrupt instructors who are believers in socialism.

It's said Obama is a socialist. I don't doubt he's sympathetic to socialism but, to be true to the meanings of words, he's a fascist.

Let's define these terms and two others with a little help from Karl Marx. His recommended solutions are part of the world's problems, but his analysis of conditions was often quite astute. As Marx pointed out, political systems are all about the ownership and control of goods, whether consumer goods (houses, cars, clothes, toothbrushes) or capital goods (farms, factories and other means of production). Although he didn't break it down this way, his analysis gives us four possible economic systems – communism, socialism, fascism and capitalism.

A communist advocates state ownership and control of all the means of production and all consumer goods. That's a practical impossibility, of course, even in the most primitive aboriginal bands. The idea is even more absurd and preposterous for an industrial society. But that doesn't keep professors and politicians from pretending that it's a good idea, even if just in theory.

A socialist advocates state ownership of society's means of production but accepts private ownership (with state control) of consumer goods. While it's a big improvement over communism, socialism is also completely impractical and always either collapses or evolves into fascism. North Korea and (now to a lesser degree) Cuba are the world's only socialist states.

A fascist advocates nominal private ownership of both the means of production and consumer goods – but with strong state control over both. In other words, you can own mines, farms, and factories – but the state reserves the right to tax, regulate or even expropriate them. Fascism has nothing to do with jackboots and black uniforms; you can have those in communist and socialist states as well. It has to do with a corporate state and a revolving door between business and government, with each protecting and enriching the other. Fascism can be maintained for a long time but necessarily entails all the problems we now face. Almost all the world's states are fascist today; they differ only in degree and detail.

A capitalist advocates the private ownership of everything. An extreme capitalist may be an anarchist, who believes that anything people need or want should be, and would be, provided by entrepreneurs at a profit.

No country provides a perfect example of any of these four arrangements. But every government promotes one or the other as a theoretical ideal. In most places, certainly including the US, the "mixed economy" is put forward as a good thing; the "mixed economy" is a polite way of describing fascism. Nobody wants to call fascism by its name today because of its strong association with Hitler's "National Socialists." In any event, look and analyze closely before you use these words and attach any of the four tags to any country.

In that light, it's funny how the Chinese are still referred to as communists, even though communism was tried only briefly, under Mao. In fact, up to the mid-'80s, China was a socialist state. Now it's a fascist state. China's Communist Party? It's just a scam enabling its members to live high off the hog.

Sweden is usually referred to as socialist, but it's always been a fascist country. All of its means of production – businesses, factories, farms, mines and so forth – have always been privately owned but heavily taxed and regulated. The presence of lots of "free" welfare benefits is incidental. People often conflate a welfare state with socialism, but they're two different things. Socialist states necessarily become too poor to provide any welfare. Fascist states can better afford it and usually offer some in order to help justify the government's costly and annoying depredations.

There is no truly capitalist state in the world today; perhaps Hong Kong comes closest (although not very close).The early US came quite close in some regards. In fact, the West as a whole was quite free in the century from the fall of Napoleon in 1815 to the start of World War 1 in 1914. Almost everywhere taxes were low and regulations few; there was no inflation because gold was currency everywhere; there were almost no serious wars and passports hardly existed, which enabled most anyone to travel almost anywhere without permission. It's no accident that, in percentage terms, the 19th century saw far greater and wider advances in prosperity than any time before or since. Capitalism is both natural and ideal – but, oddly, it doesn't exist anywhere. Why not? I'll explore that shortly.

One sign of intellectual bankruptcy in the US is the absence of serious discussion about capitalism (except in small, specialized forums). Nearly all political debate is about how to fine-tune a fascist system to best suit those who benefit from it – or who think they do. Almost everyone in the public eye is a political statist and an economic collectivist. Those who start attacking the heart of the matter, like Andrew Napolitano or even Pat Buchanan, are quickly evicted from their bully pulpits.

In reality, there's little philosophical difference between the Republicrats and the Demopublicans; they're really just two wings of the same party. The left wing of the party claims to believe in social freedom (but doesn't) and overtly disbelieves in economic freedom. The right wing says it believes in economic freedom (but doesn't) and overtly disbelieves in social freedom. The right wing uses more aggressive rhetoric to build the warfare state, and the left wing talks more about the welfare state. But the net difference between them is minuscule. That's because they share the same corrupt intellectual and moral views.

What made America unique was its foundation in a philosophy of freedom. That word, however, has become so corrupted that the younger Bush was able to use it two dozen times in some of his early speeches without being laughed off the stage or targeted with shoes and rotten vegetables. Perversely but predictably, Bush is today presented in the mainstream media as a free-marketeer, in order to pin blame for the current depression on the free market. This is as much of a hoax as calling Hoover a supporter of the free market. One is forced to acknowledge a bit of respect for Obama's intellectual honesty, in that he almost never speaks of "freedom" or "liberty."

But pointing out the sad state of the world today serves little purpose. It's rare that an intellectual argument changes anyone's mind. Opinions are mostly a matter of psychology. But it's almost impossible to change someone's psychology and the attitude with which he views the world, simply by presenting facts and arguments. A person's beliefs have much more to do with his character and spiritual essence than anything else.

You'll hear some of the candidates for the upcoming elections talk about "American exceptionalism." The phrase makes me wince because it's so anachronistic. In the first place, America was only incidentally a place, a piece of geography. In essence, America was an idea, and an excellent one, that was unique in world history. But now America has morphed into the US, which is essentially no different than the other 200 nation-states that cover the face of the planet like a skin disease.

It's funny, actually, to see how quickly and profoundly things have changed in the US. Back in the '50s and '60s, kids used to say, when one of us did something the others didn't approve of, "Hey, it's a free country." I'll bet you haven't heard that expression for many years. Back in the '70s, there used to be a joke: "America will never have concentration camps. We'll call them something else." Guantanamo, and the long rumored FEMA detention centers, are proof that it wasn't a joke after all.

It's all a matter of mass psychology, which is to say a moral acceptance of collectivism and statism. These systems actually aren't serious intellectual proposals, despite being doctrine at almost every university in the Western world. They're psychological or spiritual disorders on a grand scale.

It's important to gain an intellectual understanding of why freedom is good and collectivism is bad, why freedom works and government doesn't. It's important – but it doesn't strike at the root of the problem. The root of the problem is psychological, not intellectual. Do you think for a moment that if you could make Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or any of the other sociopaths who control the state sit down and listen to intellectual arguments, it would change their attitudes? The chances of that are Slim and None. And Slim's anorexic.

Why am I so certain of that? It's not because these people have low IQs and can't understand the arguments. It's because most of the people at high levels of government are sociopaths. They're susceptible to reasoned argument against a police state to about the same degree that a cat can be convinced he shouldn't torment a mouse before killing it. People like Obama, Hillary or Cheney – which is to say most people with real power in Washington and every other government – do what they do because it's their nature. They're as cold, unemotional and predatory as reptiles, even though they look like people.

You may think I'm kidding or exaggerating for effect. I'm not. It's been said that power corrupts, and that's true. But it's more to the point to say that the corrupt seek power. A good case can be made that anyone who wants to be in a position of power should be precluded from it simply because he wants it. As a purely practical matter, the US would be far better off – assuming a Congress and a Senate are even needed – if their 525 members were randomly selected from a list of taxpayers. But that's impossible in today's poisonous environment because it would leave over half the population – those who only receive government largess and don't pay any income taxes – ineligible. This last fact is a further assurance that the situation in the US is now beyond the point of no return.

There are lots of ways to divide people into two classes: rich/poor, male/female, smart/dumb, etc. But from the perspective of political morality, I'd say the most useful dichotomy may be people who want to control the material world vs. those who want to control other people. The former are scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs; the latter are politicians, bureaucrats and assorted busybodies. Guess which group inevitably – necessarily – gravitate toward government? And I might also add, toward big corporations and the media. Big corporations are political arenas where the prize is economic power, and they're heavily populated by backslappers and backstabbers. The media specialize in a different type of power, manipulating opinion; one way they do that is by promoting an atmosphere of bad news, threats and general paranoia for which they imply government action is needed. Government, mega-corps and media – they are the triumvirate ruling today's world.


You may be thinking: Sure, I can see that Obama or Hillary or Cheney may be evil. But how about Bush or Vice President Biden or Prime Minister Cameron of the UK? It's sometimes hard to tell whether one is dealing with a knave or a fool. The fool does destructive things that may make him seem knavish. And the knave can do stupid things that make him seem like a fool. Isn't it a mistake to accuse someone of malevolence when Occam's Razor might indicate stupidity as a more likely answer? They seem more like fools than knaves. Pity the poor fools.

Stupidity certainly can account for many of the world's problems. As Einstein said, after hydrogen, stupidity is the most common thing in the universe. Unfortunately, the word "stupidity" is thrown about too carelessly, usually as a pejorative, and then often by stupid people. Let's define the word. It's important to be precise in the use of words, because if you're not, then how can you possibly say you know what you're talking about? A failure to define words properly invites sloppy thinking.

Most of the time people use "stupidity" to mean low intelligence. That's accurate, but it's a synonym, not an explanation. So it's not terribly helpful, because it doesn't really tell us anything we don't already know. Just look at how stupid the average person is (they're thick underfoot on Jay Leno's many "Jay Walking" segments) and then figure that, by definition, half of the electorate are lower than average.

It's helpful to use an example, and since we're talking about politics, let's pick a well-known political figure. George W. Bush was president recently enough that everyone can still remember him clearly. I've always said that the Baby Bush was stupid. Technically speaking, I believe he's actually a borderline moron. You may or may not know that a moron, an imbecile and an idiot are not at all the same thing – even though in common usage, the words are more or less interchangeable. In fact, these terms have clinical definitions.

Briefly, an idiot is so dim that he may have to be institutionalized. An imbecile functions at a higher level; he can get by in normal life, given some assistance. A moron does even better. He can conduct himself quite well in day-to-day society and even be liked and respected – a little bit like the character Chauncey Gardiner (who, as it turned out, was being groomed to become the president) in Peter Sellers' movie Being There.

A moron can carry on a conversation about the weather, the state of the roads, sports, TV sitcoms or even, with a bit of coaching – as Bush proved – the economy or a war. Bush seemed more or less normal, even though I suspect he only has an IQ of around 90. I'm not saying that just to be offensive to Bush fans. I believe I can back up that assertion, even if Bush could actually score above 100 on a standard test, by showing you some more practical definitions of stupidity.

Let me give you two of them. One is: an unwitting tendency to self-destruction. Another is: an inability to correlate cause and effect and thereby anticipate the consequences of an act. I would suggest to you that almost everything Bush has done, it seems his entire life, but absolutely while he was the president, would fit those definitions of stupidity precisely.

A moron can see the immediate and direct consequences of actions, even though the indirect and delayed consequences escape his understanding. At least to a cynic, that would seem to indicate that not only Bush but the average American voter is likely not just a moron but an imbecile. Such a deficit of intelligence almost guarantees that we'll see controls of all types – absolutely including foreign exchange controls – imposed as the Greater Depression unfolds. In fact, when the next 9/11-style incident, real or imagined, occurs, they're going to lock the US down like one of their numerous new federal prisons. It's going to be, as I've gotten in the habit of saying, worse than even I think it's going to be.

But stupidity is clearly only a partial explanation of Bush's character, just as it was only a partial explanation of Hitler's. Please don't misapprehend me on this. Bush wasn't in the same class as Hitler. Hitler was a criminal genius. But criminals, even so-called criminal geniuses, are basically stupid, according to our definitions – they show an unwitting tendency toward self-destruction. How stupid was it of Hitler to attack Russia, especially while he still had a front open with Britain? How stupid was it to declare war against the US shortly after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? How stupid was it to murder six million innocents in concentration camps? How stupid was it to throw the Wehrmacht's Sixth Army into Stalingrad? It's a long list.

Stalin provides another example. How stupid was Stalin to murder several million of the most productive farmers when Russians already lacked enough to eat? How stupid was it to liquidate half of the Red Army's most experienced officers and higher NCOs just before WW2? Or Roosevelt. How stupid was it of him to pour milk into the gutter and slaughter livestock in order to drive up prices while millions were hungry? How stupid was it to burden the US, in the middle of the last depression, with huge taxes and a score of new regulatory agencies?

A catalog of stupidities of these and most other famous political leaders fills libraries. As Gibbon said, history is little more than a chronicle of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.

There are different types of intelligence – emotional, athletic, mathematical and literary intelligence, for instance. A person can be a genius in one and an idiot in the others. The same is true of stupidity; it comes in flavors. I think a case can be made that liberty cultivates intelligence, because it rewards seeing the distant and indirect consequences of actions.

Conversely, statism and collectivism, by restricting liberty, tend to reward stupidity. Remember that political leaders are oriented toward controlling other people; they're clever about it, but they're basically stupid about the rest of reality. Nonetheless, their animal shrewdness is enough for them to gain and keep power over others. The immediate and direct consequences of that political power are gratifying for those who have it; the indirect and delayed consequences, however, are disastrous for everyone.

But wait. It sounds like stupidity is related to evil. Which it is. Stupidity is a signpost of evil. It's why it often takes a while, when things are going badly, to determine whether you're dealing with a knave or just a fool.

In that regard, Robert S. McNamara offers something of a counterpoint to Bush. When you look at the disasters he caused throughout his life – almost destroying Ford, then almost destroying the US with the Vietnam war, then doing immense damage to the world at large with the World Bank – one might say he was stupid. In fact, he had an extremely high IQ. McNamara underlines the often fine distinction between stupidity and evil. He was clearly a sociopath, but he's held in high regard among the ruling class. Henry Kissinger is a similar case.


I would like to suggest that what really distinguishes political elites from normal people is not just a predilection for stupidity but a real capacity for evil. Evil might best be defined as the intentional and usually gratuitous commission of acts that are cruel or unjust. A person who commits many evil acts is a sociopath. The sociopaths who are naturally drawn to government eventually come to dominate it. They're very dangerous people. They reset the social mores of the country they control. After a certain point, a critical mass is reached, and it's GAME OVER. I suspect we're approaching that point.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 04/17/2012 - 19:55 | 2353091 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Do you mean "I suspect we're approaching that point AGAIN."

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 20:09 | 2353111 Cdad
Cdad's picture

No doubt.  The author here takes great care to delineate socialism from fascism...and correctly so.  However, the true hit on the proverbial head of the nail is the complete failure of morality in the US.  Here, now, the absolute worst of the worst continue to profit from lies and the complete abdication of any sense of future in America, while the middle class is laid waste through inflationary policies THAT WE ALL KNOW ARE WRONG TO PURSUE.

And you can cite a thousand examples...but I was literally struck dumb by today's after hours announcement of W. Buffet's health situation.  It was not at all surprising that this old man would ultimately meet his fate in this way, but rather what was shocking was The Street's response, through the sycophants of the MSM, who rushed health science writers in front of the cameras to explain how "harmless" the situation is.  In this one instance, all decorum immediately leaves the building in service to the perpetual lie that is the US market.

As are rising Spanish rates, as are declining true economic data points, as is the continued collapse of housing...all slaves to the lie.  The people be damned.

It is over for America, I am quite confident.  All that remains is for the headless state to finally realize that the gig is up and for the body America to fall over.  

The sooner this nation rids itself of these banks, this media, these broken markets, the sooner we can finally get on with the true work of addressing our moral and financial bankruptcy.  It is all so obvious, and the work ahead that needs to be done is simply staggering to contemplate.


Tue, 04/17/2012 - 20:21 | 2353131 brewing
brewing's picture

"and the work ahead that needs to be done is simply staggering to contemplate".  is is mind-blowing to think of how our demise as a country has happened relatively quickly(1913).  many of us do understand how much pain there will be to come back from the "great reset"...

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 20:40 | 2353162 Cdad
Cdad's picture

What I find most interesting about the concept of the "great reset" is the fact that it is, in fact, the only real "medicine" to treat the body decimated by immorality.  You see, morality cannot be taught in a class, and morality cannot be imposed by a church.  Instead, it forms through parenting, and it is strengthened in work...perhaps much of it not rewarded in financial terms.

Failure is the greatest teacher, and the process by which one raises himself back up from failure, combined with a sense of love and duty to a creator, is the path of morality.  Only the experience of profound loss truly teaches empathy, which is a form of externalized morality, concern for others above self.

It gets pretty complicated in the dark recesses of humanity, but this I know to be true, that one cannot know success until one knows failure.  And one cannot truly raise himself out of failure if one is truly and entirely self-obsessed [which is a HUGE problem in America just now].

In essence, the "great reset" is just about the only proper cure at this point...if the goal is to get Americans back on a moral pathway.  And almost no Americans are prepared for this event.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 20:53 | 2353193 Westcoastliberal
Westcoastliberal's picture

I fully agree Cdad, and I've been saying we needed a "reset" since the economy went down the shitter in 2008.  Seems to me right now the economy is like a paraplegic sitting in his own crap and instead of pulling himself up or asking for help, he keeps ordering more toilet paper.  Of course with no effect.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:41 | 2353285 Cdad
Cdad's picture

The opportunity missed in 2008 was profoundly tragic, and the criminal syndicate, and especially Ben Bernanke, shall carry that to the grave.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:26 | 2353552 Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

I don't think the Bernank will, by himself, carry the burden and tragedy of his prolific and horrendous mistakes to his grave ... it is our moral responsibility to make sure he and his ilk carry the stigma to his and their graves and let it never be forgotten for the sake of future generations.  His name should be Mudd.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:32 | 2353977 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

With that excellent telling, the one under-lying thing that the author, as usual, did not mention is the slow take-over of the American mind.

What david icke calles the totalitarian tip-toe.

With false dreams of manifest destiny, New World etc., the horrors perpetuated on the native americans were shoved under a bulging carpet.

Building upon or blowing up or strip mining native power spots, making face statues of Freemasonic, Cruel, lying men as heroes (Mt. Rushmore, now a heavily protected monument)..... on and on and on.... over the decades, as my friend AnAnonymous never fails to point out, American Citizenism grew.

To a point where American's never did anything wrong. They were after all the richest, the fairest, the best right?

History is going to tell a very different tale. So, unfortunately, as a group, the whole of the American nation can be seen as sociopathic. Because it's al been done in their name. 

Even on this board, American exceptionalism and race-bigotry is barely sub-surface and comes screaming out on demand.

if there is such a thing as a "national" conscience, all americans need to peer in as they go abotu their day. Because everythign you participate in, from groceries, to work, to buying shit, so loading up.... shows that you are party to the sociopathy, like it or not.

Such grave and on-going in-justice, in the name of American Security and national's really up to you all to do something.

Not in your name? You better bet it IS in your name.

System has become too big, too powerful. 

I could tell, but the same exceptionalism coomes snarling out, as if a mere Indian can suggest something that can help this colossus. 

David and Goliath..... ;-)

And it's never too late!



Wed, 04/18/2012 - 06:25 | 2354059 BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

cdad is spot on.

A SUCCESSFUL outcome to any grand re-set requires that the family unit remains in tact.  TPTB know this.  Which is precisely why the family unit has been under constant attack since the 1960's.  Brave New World was as much a template as it was a novel -- the gene cleaners know this all too well.

Without strong families and communities, there will be no recovery from a re-set... at least not one that favors us.

Homosexuality, promiscuity, and broad acceptance of the PC agenda are all tools in the bag of the anti-family agenda.  If we fail to stick together as families, we fail to stick together as communities.  If we fail to stick together as communities, the state wins control.  Sound familiar?

Fight the attack on family.  Hug yours.  Know your neighbors.  Preserve what makes us worth breathing.  Without these things, we become truly 'useless eaters'.


Edit: Don't be distracted by my use of 'homosexual' in a seemingly negative context.  If you do, the anti-family, pc agenda has take root in you... there is nothing per se wrong with homosexuality -- letting it DEFINE the person is where the trickery begins.  No person is DEFINED by their sexuality.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 07:28 | 2354139 j0nx
j0nx's picture

Good luck getting to know your neighbors. Hope you speak one of 100 different languages in a 2 square mile area. Multi-culturalism and feminism are the two biggest culprits for the breakup of the American family and cultural morality. There is no more cultural unity in this country now thanks to MC and PC. Nope, it's every man for themselves when this ship starts to list.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 08:02 | 2354186 BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

Exactly!  Thanks for the assist.  I forgot to add those in my haste to get it posted before my next meeting.

In the U.K., Tony Blair once said (and I paraphrase), "we will open the floodgates to immigration until there is no 'British culture' left in Britain".

Anyone who doesn't think that multi-culturalism and diversity training aren't part of a broader geo-political and social agenda is still very much fast asleep.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 15:31 | 2355741 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

whelp, if it's "every man for himself" I hope you all will make lovely "families" together. . .

Tue, 04/24/2012 - 16:06 | 2371293 gangland
gangland's picture

i can extrapolate your argument to the entire human species, then what? who do you blame then? is it still the mericans fault? the white man? the man? what about the woman?

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:32 | 2353569 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

It would have been relatively workable in the late 90s after the LTCM business.  Brooksley Born saw it clearly but Rubin and that horrid blob Summers made sure nothing got fixed.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 04:24 | 2354009 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

and while we're at it, let's note hitler's responsibility:  persecution/annihilation of the jews leads to the establishment of israel and its "special" relationship with the u.s., which leads to, albeit a bit circuitously and with hat tips to mindless anti-"communism" and fossil fuel addiction, jihad and 9-11, after which it is a straight shot down a very steep and greasy slope.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 12:54 | 2355227 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Let's just make each person responsible for their own decisions and actions. That others presented/fomented opportunities to make bad decisions is beside the point. Why did you only go back to Hitler? Let's at least go back to Wellington beating Napoleon at Waterloo. If Napoleon had won, he might have reestablished French hegemony over Europe. There would, therefore, have been no Austria-Hungary, and no monarch to get assasinated, thus throwing Europe into WW I. There would have been no German defeat and subsequent reparations that led indirectly to the Nazi party....

We could go further back, bit by bit, but why bother? Let's just say it all went to pieces after Adam took a bit of the fruit offered him by the woman later named Eve. It kind of makes "It's Bush's fault" seem totally inadequate.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 17:07 | 2355751 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

another "woman is the downfall of man" post. . .

again, if "women" are a man's problem, and it's a "woman's" fault that the world is in the sorry state it's in - I look forward to you men abandoning your "downfall" and forming your own communities, nations, etc. - see how all that works for you, see how long you can remain peaceful. . . history says otherwise.

and while I'm at it, let me point out a very telling excerpt from the OP:

There are lots of ways to divide people into two classes: rich/poor, male/female, smart/dumb, etc. But from the perspective of political morality, I'd say the most useful dichotomy may be people who want to control the material world vs. those who want to control other people.

in classic dualistic thinking, he's given you some paired words, and the pairs suggest "good vs. bad" - rich is good, poor is bad, smart is good,  dumb is bad. . . male is good, female is bad?  well, that's how he frames his point, is it not?  and not a soul here points to this, merely gives it 5 stars and agrees. . .

when you allow those who control the story to occupy your mind-set, your opinions are theirs. . . nothing will change, and the situation will continue to deteriorate as long as you believe yourself to be superiour to the majority of humans on the planet - and I don't just mean "women" - I mean the MAJORITY of HUMANITY.  

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 17:54 | 2356264 akak
akak's picture

Well of COURSE "woman is the downfall of man"!  But being that every frail, overemotional, irrational woman thinks only with her uterus and her reptilian brainstem, you are naturally going to have a hard time digesting that concept.

In this one instance, I fully agree with Islam, one of the traditional (male) morning prayers of which was "Thank you Lord, that I was not born a woman".

It is no sin to be the inferior sex --- and you will finally feel liberated in the most meaningful and truest sense of the word when you can come to acknowledge the manifest reality of your inferiority.  We men will humor you none the less, and still take out the garbage.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 21:20 | 2356903 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

*raises eyebrows*

In this one instance, I fully agree with Islam, one of the traditional (male) morning prayers of which was "Thank you Lord, that I was not born a woman".

I give thanks for that daily as well.

and believe it or not, you "men" do "humour" me daily, and I take out my own garbage - such a *catch*!!


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 05:27 | 2354043 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

I have been saying we needed a "reset" since 1994, when I realized that the Republicans only wanted to make the system "work better" not bring it back to the Constitution. Only a crash can stop this train. In that sense the worse the elected government the better as it will hasten the crash.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 20:52 | 2353195 brewing
brewing's picture

quite frankly, the americans that aren't prepared are the very one's the great reset will rid us of...

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:34 | 2353271 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Like the sick, perhaps?  Or the subsistence elderly who toiled their whole lives and barely have enough to afford food and basic medicine even with Medicare and other programs?   Is casually observing that they will die off and stop sucking at your tax teat the morality of which this author speaks?

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:40 | 2353284 Cdad
Cdad's picture  You seek the preservation of the elderly through the state.  I would prefer care of the elderly to be handled within the family, and in the worse case, through charity.  

Your solution is worse than the illness, sir.  In fact, it perpetuates the problems we are suffering.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:52 | 2353312 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

And what if that's not enough?  And what possible evidence could you offer that it is?  I can offer lots of concrete evidence that your idea that family/charity will fill the gap is laughable.   Look around the world.  There are a lot of societies that do not have social safety nets.  A lot of people in those societies just plain die young because they can't afford to eat or obtain basic medical care.  America is made up of the same human beings that populate the rest of the earth.  Again, more great morality from the cheerleaders of this article.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 22:03 | 2353347 Cdad
Cdad's picture

On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for all of us drops to zero.


Tue, 04/17/2012 - 22:07 | 2353366 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So therefore a child dying at ten who could live to one hundred with some basic medical care doesn't matter?   Because we're all going to die anyway?  Again, with the great example of the morality you offer to replace the immoral sociopaths.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 22:36 | 2353429 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

You just don't get it, do you? Guns don't cure dying ten year old kids. Cdad recommends the loving care of family. If that is insufficient, the next step is the loving care of society, which is either organized into a charity, or arises spontaneously as needed, as evidenced by the millions raised after the tornado that went through Joplin, MO last year.

Only idiots, imbeciles and morons would believe that one can use force to make the world a better place.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 22:43 | 2353452 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I do get it.  I get that your ilk will always fall back on mythical voluntary giving as the answer whenever anyone points out the sheer brutality of the system you espouse.  History and the entire world prove me right, and prove that your theory that people will just lay out for the millions who would need food and serious medical care without government assistance is just utter bullshit.  Multiply Joplin by fifty million if you take away all public health care, food programs, aid to the elderly, etc.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 22:57 | 2353485 Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

Unfortunately, the world is about to find out the true ratio of sociopaths to humanitarians.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:15 | 2353515 rocker
rocker's picture

Goldman Sachs rules the World.  That's all Fools.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 04:31 | 2354013 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

it's not keeping the elderly alive through government care or charity that got us to where we are cdad and rand, et. al.  it's the perversion of law, markets and foreign policy by the banksters and the masters of war combined with a crusader mentality (anti-communism or zionism as the single lens through which the world is seen).

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 13:13 | 2355280 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Talk about  a perverison of law: theft is not a legitimate function of government. Taking from producers and/or savers to provide handouts to others is immoral. Government theft, aka taxation,  from producers is precisely what got us into this mess. The excessive taxation allows government to indulge in unnecessary wars, but it also allows the government to spend unaffordable amounts on Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. Charity should be a personally assumed obligation, but taxation restricts our ability to provide charity personally.

Or are you one of those who believe the individual should be subservient to the state, nothing more than a slave, a cog in the machine? If you do, in fact, believe individuals are subservient to the state, what basis do you have to complain about the decisions of our masters, elected or otherwise? Just do as you're told, ante up with your fair share of taxes. Or maybe you should be put in the army to go fight in a war deemed necessary by TPTB. After all, you seem to think the government is right in one instance - enforced charity - so you have no valid reason to complain about other government actions.

Maybe you're young and don't recall the selfless sacrifices by previous generations of Americans - and still evidenced by the events around Joplin last year. Your apparent attitude is part of the reason we're in the present mess.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:18 | 2353527 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

They even have their own social network:

Face Crook

Finding them is as simple as reading the news.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:41 | 2353591 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

You get it?  If you're reading this site to see how wrong you are, then you're spot on.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:40 | 2353834 malek
malek's picture

No you don't get it at all.

Somehow government forcing you at gunpoint to assist the needy (and it's government who decides who is needy too!) is not brutality.

Just simply answer the one central question:
Who knows better than yourself what is good for you?
Is it the majority?
Or is it the circle of experts, or otherwise termed "elite" group, who were first selected by... who exactly?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 06:17 | 2354073 slowimplosion
slowimplosion's picture

Don't waste your time.  These folks are so much in denial, they blame all of our economic problems on Keynesism without apportioning any of the blame to their very own sacred cow of deregulation.

This entire debacle could not have happened EVER without turning loose the revered "businessman" to do whatever they hell he wants in a almost childlike naivete of belief that they would "do the right thing".

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 15:23 | 2355721 lightning
lightning's picture

Actually, the poor, elderly, and infirm were better taken care of when this country embraced a more capatilistic system (basically 19th century) than today.  The world outside the US doen't give to charity in the same way we do, but that has to do with the perception that the taxes they pay "take care" of those "less fortunate".  As Dickens noted, many of the less fortunate can't get state care and others would rather die.  Dickens wanted Scrooge not just to pay his taxes but to give of himself to the poor.  The world is full of Scrooges like you who rely on their taxes and social safety nets to take care of the less fortunate.  The ironic part is that you will never accept the truth of this comparison because these government programs are your proof that you are a kind, caring, moral person who advocates for the poor.  Those of us who encourage individual charity are the evil heartless ones who care nothing for those less fortunate.  Sorry Mr. Dickens, it seems that even today people continue to fail to understand the moral of your story.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:23 | 2353803 Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

I think an error in communication. I do believe in local communities. (You don't want to know how I vote). And I do not believe in imperialistic ventures. I remember voting with my feet (as in a protest) against GB's opportunistic wars way back in 2002/2003.

I've never advocated the use of force so .... shut up. 



Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:26 | 2353700 brettd
brettd's picture

And that happens where in the USA?

Please don't conflate the public policy for 300 million people and the tragedy of a single child. 

Typical socialist dialogue:  Conflate medical care with insurance coverage.  

We've had the hard left-progressive vision now for 3 years straight:

Are we healthier now?

More unified now?

More just now?

More employed now?

Wealthier now?


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:56 | 2353758 Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

LOL - US is anything but hard left. WRT
"hard left vision for 3 years". Nope - but we do have pop and chip dispensers in schools which have been in place since the eighties. 

Left/Right - grow up.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:00 | 2353769 OpenThePodBayDoorHAL
OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

You call what we've had "hard-left progressive"? Whatever you're smoking, I want some. The only ones getting the fruits of "hard left" are the 1% with their endless giveaway bailouts and military profits. The rest of us get Scrooge Capitalism, we eat all the losses, jobs and bank accounts included.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:56 | 2353926 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

It doesn't matter becaue there's no shortage of human protoplasm. Human beings have overpopulated, over reproduced; now they will die back. Like all animals, like all biology. The greatest asshole in the world is Bill Gates; he wants to vaccinate Africans against malaria, to "save" 500,000 children a year, or whatever. What an idea. Of course, this is merely his own attempt at playing God, making himself feel better. As, has often been observed, WW11 was Hitlers Therapy program. What in the name of the great crucified Christ would this world, or any other world, do with another 500,000 Africans? Wake the fuck up for christ's sake.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 09:29 | 2354505 Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

Feed them of course! What we do now...with ALL the African children...wherever they may live. Agreed, "save" them from Malaria so we can spend money to keep them from starving.

Our guilt for slavery allowed TPTB to enslave us all with their diversity and equality BS. Can you think of any minority/woman who is the "go to" person? Not my lifetime.

Gotta love those INDEPENDENT single mothers who claim loudly how they don't need a man, they can "take care of their family alone" they live in Section 8 housing, use SNAP, and getting the free phone and whatever else welfare queens get these days for "birthing a child".

They've successfully neutered men by either imprisoning them or effeminating them. And we continue to let them...

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:25 | 2353541 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture



Theft is not required to help other people. If you can't understand that simple moral principle, you are a perfect example of what this article is about.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:45 | 2353598 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

How elegantly simplistic of you to say.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:49 | 2353610 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

There is indeed nothing complicated about property rights, unless you are a socialist of course.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:20 | 2353694 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Native Americans may disagree on some finer points.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:08 | 2353859 Ricky Bobby
Ricky Bobby's picture

I take it you are referring to the Solutreans a European culture who were in North America before the arrival of the Siberians.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:17 | 2353869 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

If that's what MERS says...

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:09 | 2353950 Cast Iron Skillet
Cast Iron Skillet's picture

Thanks for bringing up Solutreans - I wasn't aware of the Solutrean Hypothesis until I looked up the word after seeing it in your post. Learn something new every day ...

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:48 | 2359447 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

@ RB

Joseph Smith Jr. is that you?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:51 | 2353752 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Gosh I'd sure hate to give myself away, but I have a question:

Is inherited property earned by the heir?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:46 | 2353840 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

It depends on the generation.  It's often earned and given to the nanny.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:22 | 2353873 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

You ever put up with a rich asshole telling you how you don't deserve his wealth for most of a lifetime?

The rates are good, but it's earned just the same.

Full disclosure: my parents are all quite alive (and broke).

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 13:29 | 2355326 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

It doesn't matter. Private property belongs to the owner. If said owner wishes to bestow that private property on an heir it should be the owner' prerogative and the government should keep its hands off. Recently the Drudge Report had a sensationalistic headline proclaiming that Obama's kids got $48,000 tax free. Actually, they got gifts from each parent, $12K per parent to each of the two daughters. I'm anything but a fan of Obama, but I found nothing wrong with the gifts to the children.

From a different perspective, perhaps an heir does earn an inheritance, at least to the extent that the heir does not antagonize the giver and get disinherited.

It's amazing how so many posters seem to buy into the communist/socialist/fascist mindset that denies the sanctity of private property.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 18:29 | 2355951 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Thank you for your answer,

"From a different perspective, perhaps an heir does earn an inheritance, at least to the extent that the heir does not antagonize the giver and get disinherited."

That's weak, and implies that only the heir who knows they are to be the heir is entitled to the windfall; so if one unwittingly lucks into an inheritance they didn't 'earn' it and so have less claim to it. I'm pretty certain that is not at all what you think. In other words: don't try to tell us that inheritances are 'earned' wealth anymore than winning a lottery is.

"It doesn't matter"

Really? If responsibility comes with power, and wealth is power, who in your opinion is more likely to abuse that power: one who has done little or nothing to earn it, or the one who has built wealth by the strength of their own labours? I'm looking for what you would consider the general rule, and not the exceptions that would prove it.


"It's amazing how so many posters seem to buy into the communist/socialist/fascist mindset that denies the sanctity of private property." 

Brushing aside your apparent stereotypical conflation of three very separate and differing political ideologies, just as amazing to me is how many posters apply religious terms to their pet economic theories ostensibly to create the impression that their belief and/or opinion is some sort of divine axiom ordained by (insert monotheistic deity of choice here).

"I am a Christian. That obliges me to be a Communist."-George Bernard Shaw

Being neither of those myself, I have the idea that the 'sanctity' of private property is derived directly from how it is garnered, and how the power it confers on the bearer is wielded, rather than simply revering wealth for its own sake.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 19:01 | 2356468 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Just seen you go by and thought I'd take a shot at this...

"It doesn't matter"

Really? If responsibility comes with power, and wealth is power, who in your opinion is more likely to abuse that power: one who has done little or nothing to earn it, or the one who has built wealth by the strength of their own labours? I'm looking for what you would consider the general rule, and not the exceptions that would prove it."

It really doesn't matter.

If the inheritance is given to the irresponsible & "undeserving" it will be squandered, perhaps in very short order. The welfare mom has done nothing to "deserve" her lottery winnings was just luck or suddenly she is empowered by wealth. Whether thats good or bad we can leave aside...but the chances of her dying penniless are pretty high judging by her past choices of being responsible or not. In the outside chance she doesn't die poor...what has her children done to "deserve" an inheritance?

They were lucky at birth as well I would

What is not stated in your position is who or what is more "deserving" and who or what gets to decide who is responsible or deserving of inheritance or lottery winnings. Its where (I think) your position breaks down. I think it would be patently unfair for the state to step in and seize what they have not "earned" either...or to have any disinterested body do it for society as neither have they or society...that is, earned it, to deserve it.

My general rule is its none of my (or anyones) business as long as no laws were broken in aquiring the windfall...the last will and testament wasn't forged or rigged and the lottery game not compromised...well, no more than state sanctioned lottery games are compromised in the first place.

My two cents ;-)

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 01:13 | 2357048 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I appreciate your comment, but you didn't really answer my question.

Power wielded unjustly is dangerous directly in proportion to the degree of power being wielded.


In principle I agree with most of what you've written except at the tail ends of the power/capita curve.  Wherein, because the tails both contain so few individuals who possess so much/little power in comparison to the overwhelming majority, the deserving or not deserving parties become vividly clear and so easy to reach a consensus on, and perhaps even dangerous not to. At the lower end because abject poverty can result in revolution at best, or mass starvation at its worst. Or, at the upper end where the extreme concentration of wealth/power is so large that 'squandering' isn't even a realistic option, but egregious harm or good for populations potentially subject to this power is a very real possibility. IE at that end of the scale the greater the wealth/power the more potential it has to do harm or good; so the more it matters how it was obtained. Also, I would suggest that your carefully chosen example of a poor 'welfare mom' becoming rich by lottery is a much rarer tale than the already wealthy becoming ever wealthier from such gains, not to mention that their windfalls are many orders of magnitude larger.

Anyway, my main point is that inherited power/wealth cannot be considered earned, and this principle most certainly includes in its purview political power. They are the fruits of someone else's labour, transferred to another at the behest of the previous wielder sure, but excluding obvious exceptions the recipient can hardly claim that their newfound wealth was a result of their own labour, or earned,  legally acquired or no....agreed?

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 06:59 | 2357610 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"IE at that end of the scale the greater the wealth/power the more potential it has to do harm or good; so the more it matters how it was obtained."

I don't subscribe to the theory that wealth is corrupting. But I'm not wealthy so I really don't know for

As you say in your example it has the potential to be used for both good & evil. So I would say it is still how it was obtained. Was it legal? If the answer is yes, its no ones business.

"Anyway, my main point is that inherited power/wealth cannot be considered earned, and this principle most certainly includes in its purview political power."

Well I don't know.

One can "earn" trust without any money being involved.

Returning to the inheritance question...say the recipient has "earned" the respect and admiration of the one who passed away...does he not have a right to compensate and/or acknowlege them in his will? It can be gifts of land  or possessions not just cash.

Off to "earn" my keep ;-) 

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:03 | 2358263 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Ok, so now we're on the same page with regards to how wealth/power is obtained. After much circumlocution we've established that it does matter, and how much it matters is directly proportional to the amount of wealth/power being obtained. But you never struck me as a 'Divine right of Kings' kinda guy, nmewn, so I don't believe that you are being genuine when you say that 'regardless of the situation, if it's legal it's kewl'. 

I agree with your rationalization (GMad's too) that

 "One can "earn" trust without any money being involved....say the recipient has "earned" the respect and admiration of the one who passed away...does he not have a right to compensate and/or acknowlege them in his will? "

but that wasn't what I was driving at in my original question: in the circumstance where wealth/power purely by chance falls by default (legal to every letter of the law) to the last relative standing, there has been no  'earned trust'. Now I ask you, can this inherited wealth/power be considered 'earned'?

IMO the answer is not as complicated as you are making  it out to be; in fact, it's practically tautological.

and it isn't,

'It doesn't matter',


 'No it isn't earned, and how much that matters is a function of the magnitude of the wealth, and the character of the recipient'

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 18:33 | 2359754 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Well, I think I've been pretty consistent that good character matters as an individual (rich or poor) but bad character is not a disqualifier for gaining an inheritance matter how much we wish only people of good character gained inheritance.

I'm willing to accept this unfortunate circumstance (people of bad character inheriting) simply because ultimately there is no one to judge or should they judge in the present...people can reform...people change, its not a static world.

I can tell you here and now (that we're buried deep in the weeds), if it were not for the love a woman I would be a very different person...or

The premise of your position seems to be "bad actors" (legal or otherwise) should lose their inheritance to the state, if I'm reading you right.

"Now I ask you, can this inherited wealth/power be considered 'earned'?"

I like straight forward questions...not in the traditional sense, no...but I don't except your premise of wealth equaling power. 

So it doesn't matter.

I've had the good fortune to know very powerful poor people, made so by virtue of their good character and behavior. People listen to what they have to say based on their past speech & deeds. That is how good character is built up. Once lost, no amount of wealth (alone) can recover it.

Fri, 04/20/2012 - 15:40 | 2361727 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"... I don't except (sic) your premise of wealth equaling power."

Oh, come on.

It doesn't matter that you don't accept it. It's reality.

I think that I see your problem.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:10 | 2353672 akak
akak's picture

And so your logical argument in rebuttal to the condemnation of mass social coercion is .... what?

You are really one of the most infuriatingly clueless statist trolls I have ever encountered here (although Goin'Nowhere would rank a close second).

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:27 | 2353748 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Do you wish instant death to rain down upon him and his too? Did he make your 'tricky Dicky' list?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:40 | 2353817 akak
akak's picture

If I did, would it be any of your fucking business, you arrogant and incredibly annoying statist prick?

Yes, I still fervently wish for YOU to die, though --- my current favored method would be by dropping you into a school of piranhas (not to be confused with the IRS, by the way).

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:24 | 2353875 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

You are one sick bastard. Just remember that no matter how bad it gets for me, I'll always have the fact that at least I'm not you.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:40 | 2353899 akak
akak's picture

Die already, asswipe --- Satan is patient, but he is especially eager in your case.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:54 | 2353920 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Heh, what a wholly ironic comment...

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:46 | 2353984 akak
akak's picture

It must really suck to be you.

What is it that gets you off by being such a pointlessly antagonistic troll?

It would be one thing if you even tried to offer logical and intelligent rebuttal to the pro-freedom consensus (NOT groupthink!) here --- but your entire modus operandi on ZeroHedge has consistently consisted of nothing but personal attacks, needlings and insults.  Why should anyone offer a smidgen of respect to a troll such as yourself?  Go ahead, try to prove me wrong; we both know you can not, or will not.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:57 | 2353997 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

You get exactly what you give. And I don`t have to prove you wrong, you do fine all on your oddy knocky.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 07:57 | 2354190 BeetleBailey
BeetleBailey's picture


Bump dicks and piss on each other and get it over with.......jesus crimminy

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 09:38 | 2354544 Chaos_Theory
Chaos_Theory's picture

Gentlemen, please!  You can't fight in here, this is the war room!!!!!

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:26 | 2353549 Ajivani
Ajivani's picture

March of Dimes, the Junior Diabetes Foundation, the Shriner's hospitals, Make a Wish, Ronald McDonald's House... the US is still an essentially rich society compared to Mongolia or Bangladesh.  You want to do something helpful?  Trim thirty bucks out of your monthly expenses and donate it to the reputable charity of your choice, and encourage everyone you know to do the same.  If the damned gubmint won't help us, maybe we can help each other. 

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:09 | 2353670 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I'm prepared to help myself, therefore I can be of help to others.  It's my American heritage and blessing.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:30 | 2353720 brettd
brettd's picture

Better yet, trim 300 bucks from your tax bill!

Giving money to the government is bad stewardship.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:57 | 2353929 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

Fuck the reputable charity of your choice! As George Carlin said so well, Fuck Human Beings!.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:07 | 2353660 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

you won't be able to provide any evidence that the state  is better or more humane than Family/charity.  A lot of people in those societies die because they are from disfunctional societies.  

What types of govt are these societies you speak of??  By that I mean how would they classify themselves as a society/system of govt?     Monarchy? Socialist? capitalist?  American libertarian?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:37 | 2353731 geoffb
geoffb's picture

Life is risk. Forced charity does not change NET risk. You simply move it from one group to another.  Unnegotiated (or forced) risk transfer would, imo, make a good definition for war and it is also a trait of sociopaths. I honestly believe you have good intentions, but you presently have not made a significant intellectual argument for forced charity because you offer no principles to guide the transfer of risk. Need is not a principle.  I'm not advocating a Randian paradise nor am I even egainst safety nets in theory, its the practical implementation that always fails. Precisely, due to the oblivious nature of the people dreaming up risk distribution schemes vs the human desire to reduce personal risk. Safety nets will always end in war/strife until we understand how social organization is driven primarily by risk.  Essentially, people who want to force social arrangements on other people are attempting to produce better results with literally no information. That goes equally for the left and the right.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:20 | 2353800 MagicHandPuppet
MagicHandPuppet's picture

Not my obligation, Tyrant!

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:20 | 2353530 Havana White
Havana White's picture

It's easy, Cdad -- and convenient -- to prefer such a scenario, but for many or most of those in need of food, shelter, and care, familial and charitable support is, and would be, scant or absent.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:53 | 2353755's picture

Charity is necessarily lacking amongst a populace which is forced to give about half of every dollar it earns to the government. People are not free to be as charitable as they would like because their wealth is looted by the government. Then the government uses that transferred wealth in order to cause misery with prisons, land mines, agent orange, predator drones, nuclear weapons and so on.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:13 | 2353851 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

And this  has forever been and shall always be until the true gleaming rays of absolute deregulation shine their purifying beams on the blight of every and all governing bodies ever to exist or ever having existed, Amen.

Wait a second, so from whom exactly is Norway stealing the oil that blackens their national account balances? (write that question down kids)

And when did they create agent orange? So random....What you're selling sounds to me much more like an Usean priority problem than a putative ideological fact.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:18 | 2353870's picture

So many non sequiturs, so little time (or interest).


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:30 | 2353883 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

awwww. don't like getting all that you give?

I accept your capitulation.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:41 | 2353898's picture

As you express a proclivity for accepting what has not been freely offered I have no doubt that you are sincere.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:49 | 2353911 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Do I? I didn't realize that oil off the coast of Norway was yours. Better send the jolly green giants with guns to liberate it for you.

Screw you, I earned your submission, you're not in a position to decide whether or not you can 'freely offer' what is owed. 

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:56 | 2353924's picture

Why are you rambling on about Norway and oil? have you gone off your head?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:10 | 2353946 akak
akak's picture

Somehow, conjuring up the name "Norway" is this troll's favorite rejoinder to anti-statist arguments of all stripes --- apparently, due to their (temporary) oil wealth, the socialistic welfare paradise of Norway is now and forever a self-sustaining statist utopia which can never be questioned or assailed, and it is somehow proof of the superiority of statist central control and planning over a free market economy.

Bringing up Norway is GoinNowhere's favorite way of saying "I cannot logically refute your argument, so I am taking my (inferior, government-supplied) ball and going home".

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:13 | 2353957's picture

I do not envy your role as master of troll lore. That's some hard earned expertise you've got there.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:17 | 2353962 akak
akak's picture

It has, indeed, been a long and difficult battle, but smiting trolls is its own reward.

Fri, 04/20/2012 - 19:21 | 2354045 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

9 (and counting!) echochambermaidens are smitten with you and think that you should write for WoW

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:17 | 2353963 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Yep Norway`s success flies in your duped, narrow minded face, and i love it. I`m definitely guilty of that.

As for the rest of your unfounded and insipid commentary regarding me and things I have never said or implied,  well everyone knows you`re just playing a trole and willing to lie to do it.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:35 | 2353979 akak
akak's picture

Actually, Norway is a restrictive, wildly expensive society with a falling standard of living, even with their TEMPORARY oil wealth, and once that oil is largely depleted (as it is rapidly becoming) it will be just another failed former Euro welfare state/economic basket case.  A burst of natural resource income can fund many statist programs, no matter how ill-conceived (my own state of Alaska engaged in similar oil-soaked free spending on numerous, unsustainable, government-controlled programs in the 1980s and 90s), but in the 3nd all that spending, and all those oil-funded programs, will be nothing more than a flash in the statist pan, and go up in smoke.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:48 | 2353987 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Lol. Well, at least you still have your pipedreams Akak. I can plainly see that no amount of existing evidence will alter that in your short memory, regardless of its balanced books and Sovereign Wealth Fund strength.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 04:32 | 2354014 ebear
ebear's picture

>>Actually, Norway is a restrictive, wildly expensive society with a falling standard of living<<

Yeah, but you gotta admit, they have nice parrots.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:10 | 2353947 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I must have, thinking that you could follow such a simple, straightforward question.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 09:50 | 2354603 Gohn Galt
Gohn Galt's picture

I put up total strangers before condemning  them to government care.

scariest words "I am from the Government and I am hear to help" Ronald Reagan

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:44 | 2353289 brewing
brewing's picture

i'm thinking more of the fat fucks that can't go an hour without a big mac.  or the brainwashed idiots that watch e! 16 hours a day.  or the morons who think anyone really gives a shit about trayvon and zimmerman. should i keep going?

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:47 | 2353299 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

What about the millions of non fat fucks who are not prepared and who will die with the groups you don't like?  I'm so glad that moral folks like you are here to correct the greed and callousness of the sociopaths.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 10:18 | 2354697 Nostradamus
Nostradamus's picture

Well Sir, perhaps they won't die.  The benevolent state that you worship will surely be there to lift up the poor and destitute among us, giving them the much needed medical treatment, food, clothing, and shelter. Won't they?  This is all just fear-mongering anyway, correct, Sir?  The government would never allow such a devastating collapse to occur in American anyway. Right, Sir?

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:53 | 2353318 Cdad
Cdad's picture

I have no idea what your point is here.  We all suffer from sin, poor decisions, folly, selfishness, etc.  It does not matter what group you want to single out...the point is that govt. is not the answer...for any of them.  

And neither is it clear just now which groups will survive, and which will not.  When faced with starvation, extinction, collapse...there are unintended results...just as was the case in 2008 when the very folks that committed the financial crimes became the benefactors in the aftermath.

So whether we are talking about zombie tv watchers or the elderly, the answer still IS NOT the government.  

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:58 | 2353332 brewing
brewing's picture

well said cdad...

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:33 | 2353571 Havana White
Havana White's picture

Then hire your own fucking police and not a government entity to protect yourself and what you've collected and now jealously guard.  Cdad talks about respecting the creator.  Another hippocrital Christian defying His word to rid oneself of riches and help the sick and poor?  Yeah, give me the down arrow, show the Lord your true colors.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:04 | 2353652 Cdad
Cdad's picture

I would not be uncomfortable disbanding "the police."  After all, what do they do?  They show up after the fact, after the broken glass and blood is already on the floor.  Personal protection SHOULD BE a matter dealt with personally.

As for my hypocrisy, I have no idea what you are talking about.  I don't think you do, either.  

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:27 | 2353701 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I hear they sometimes arrest people and keep them in jail so they can't commit subsequent crimes. True story.

I'd love to see you try to hand out a ticket the next time you get cut off by some asshole in traffic.

I think I'd keep the police, but give them a more reasonable set of laws to enforce.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:58 | 2353761's picture

A plurality of "criminals" are kept in jail so that they don't put things into their own bodies by their own volition. True (and expensive) story.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:16 | 2353792 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

See "reasonable" which that ain't (no matter how many commercials the sheriff's union and big pharma put on the Tee-Vee).

I'm sure we can find some white collars to take their place so we don't have to lay too many guards off.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:59 | 2353850's picture

Fire all the guards and wardens. Prison is a terribly inefficient system for preventing crime, perhaps purposefully so.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:02 | 2353938 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Yeah, because if there are no laws, there will be no crime! Brilliant!

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:14 | 2353959's picture

Natural law prescribes natural penalties.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:23 | 2353967 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

May or may not include actual justice.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:25 | 2353969 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

So you're prescribing  crime/money=penalty

That's what the US already has, idiot.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:59 | 2353762 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Bah civil oversight is so passe. With zero elected officials or publicly funded police forces the world will be so much more transparent, just trust the echochambermaids.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:05 | 2353944 SoCalBusted
SoCalBusted's picture

That's part of the problem..."give them a more reasonable set of laws to enforce"  - layer upon layer of laws have been instituted, each one correcting inadequacies of the previous ones....  .gov trying to make the perfect world.  But laws are never repealed.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 11:26 | 2354932 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture


Could that be a list of repealed legislation, from one single country? Looks to me like a fairly obvious set of contradictions to your assertion.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 13:53 | 2355403 Chaos_Theory
Chaos_Theory's picture

Like the last sentence, but to the first...a whole lotta good that does if you're assaulted and your baby is kidnapped from your dying arms in Houston.  We live under the figment that the police prevent crime, when all they really do is offer some modest deterence via the threat of arrest and imprisonment. 

As for the second sentence, follow the a-hole, and as he parks at Walmart, park outside the parking lot grounds so the CCTV doesn't get your plate number, walk up to his vehicle, and slash the tires and dump a coke on the hood and etch "f-ck off you shitty driver" on the door.  Who needs a cop to issue that justice? 

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:16 | 2353517 Alexandre Stavisky
Alexandre Stavisky's picture

And few realize, here in the garden of good and evil, that the sowing and harvest is ongoing.  The provision of material goods seems the most important objective, but is really the most transitory.  The Great Shepherd works in mysterious, subtle ways, always prodding and curbing his flock, feeding and attending to their welfare.  But for the froward, those without any habituation to the LAW, those who haven't observed and learned from the GREATEST cause and effect, there is no sanctuary, safekeeping, or guardianship.

Here we learn by humility or the whip.  By hard rule of rigour or by polite observance and strict adherence to a Great Creator's command.

From thence, comes trancendency and transform into a new creature.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:00 | 2353937 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

No, you shouldn't. your should turn off your computer, learn to read, properly; and study books from the public library for the next ten years; then perhaps you will know something.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:26 | 2353703 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Rand, you seem to have a Hallmark cards or "Afterschool Special"  view of the world.   Do you honestly think there is a perpetually victimized underclass in the U.S. that is constantly trying to get ahead, only to be held back by "the Man"?     

"toiled their whole lives and barely have enough to afford food and basic medicine even with Medicare and other programs?"

I'm sure there are people who find themselves in this position.  How many (what %) of them have "toiled" all there lives?   I'm sure some, but what percentage?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:00 | 2353768's picture

LTER's true failing is his inabilty to recognize that the government which he sees as the savior of the poor and unfortunate is in reality the oppressor of not only the poor and unfortunate but also of the average man and woman.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:24 | 2353810 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Fortunately he doesn't seem to be an dewy-eyed ideologue who can't separate reality from fantasy, so he recognizes that pragmatism is far a better approach than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Neighbours can be a pain; true fact.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:02 | 2353855's picture

If you're waiting for either Obama or Romney to make everything better and you call that pragmatism then I've got to assume that you're going for a laugh.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:40 | 2353894 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

If you're waiting for me to accept one of your ridiculous false dichotomies as my own opinion in order to make your bruised ego all better and call that a refutation then I simply must presume that you are having a laugh.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:44 | 2353903's picture

I am not waiting for you to do anything.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:21 | 2353907 akak
akak's picture

You know, I don't think that out of the hundreds of ZH posters I have read and interacted with, I have ever found one both quite as gratuitously antagonistic, and intellectually worthless, as you.  Even the former vile Trav7777 could make provocative and interesting points when he wasn't consumed by his hatred for niggers and silver "bagholders".  You, on the other hand, offer literally nothing but arrogant and empty bluster, tired pro-state platitudes, simplistic anti-free-market ramblings, and unjustified personal attacks.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:27 | 2353973 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

have I mentioned before how rich that is coming from you?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:52 | 2353981 akak
akak's picture

Have I mentioned before that you seem to take great pleasure in being a pointlessly and gratuitously irritating prick?

I have to wonder if you are this disagreeable in real life --- if so, God have mercy on all those who are forced to live with or deal with you.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 04:04 | 2354000 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Well, it might be worse for them; consider if they were forced to live or deal with you.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 05:04 | 2354026 akak
akak's picture

Your rapier-sharp wit and scintillating riposte has left me deeply wounded to the very quick.  Mercy, mercy, I beg you!

However shall I ever recover from such an overwhelming barrage of devastingly soul-destroying cruelties?  I am left but a shell of the akak that I was, never to lift my head high again, exiled from the race of men, cast adrift on a sea of ennui and remorse, my only companions the dark twins of self-loathing and despair!  My world has crumbled, my reality shattered, my dignity destroyed, my credibility ground into the dust, my future nothing but an empty and meaningless limbo.

Oh noble ZH warrior, you have soundly vanquished me, and I cede my sword to your indomitable and invincible hand.  Indeed the State is everything, and I, a lowly individual, am nothing.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 10:07 | 2354033 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

That`s not true akak, you`re something all right;  or rather you're full of something.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:33 | 2353723 johnberesfordti...
johnberesfordtiptonjr's picture

Bravo. You are 100% correct.

It’s hard for guys like Casey to reconcile the strong performance of states with a wide range of government economic and political control.  Countries such as China, Sweden, Germany, etc.  are round pegs that don’t quite fit into his neatly arranged set of square holes.

Why, why, those Swedes are FASCISTS after all.


These days, true psychopathic behavior clearly resides with the 19th-century-Valhalla “free market” crowd that represents the current rising crest of insanity in the U.S.

Ayn Rand was once asked the question (at a speech at West Point as I recall) concerning the apparent lack of a true Randian society anywhere on earth (as mentioned in Casey’s article). Her response was identical… “Hong Kong is the closest.”

There you have it; right from the “free market” psychopath-in-chief.  

The true irony in all of this is that Rand’s “Objectivist” philosophy is now being used in support of “free market” government policies that serve to create a crony capitalist state akin to Mussolini-style Corporate Fascism. 

I’m starting to think that Casey is himself a classic crony capitalist as he snugs up to Argentinian politicians to create his Galt’s Gulch complete with polo and cigars. 

Argentina… now there’s a “free market” for ya.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 01:02 | 2353771's picture

Why should some people determine that some other people have no moral right to freedom, economic or otherwise?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:42 | 2353902 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

because some people, as determined by simple codes of justice, don't deserve freedom, economic or otherwise.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 02:47 | 2353909's picture

Is anyone allowed to transact freely in the marketplace in your opinion? What sin has the average man committed that gives an elite caste the right to bar him from making his own economic choices?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 10:07 | 2354003 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Well, ignoring your ignoring of crime/punishment.

My agreeing that fraud conveys an unjust advantage doesn't mean that the way to eliminate fraud is to remove it from the lawbooks.

You're off a bit tonight CA, the echochambermaidenss are having to pick up the slack... too easy. Hard day?

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 05:35 | 2354049 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

So your plan is to keep the crazy train on the tracks as long as possible, even though it is doomed, as simple arithmetic shows?

You are an intellectual idiot.

Do you really think that people were not helped before the 1930's? That there was social anarchy and nobody had health care or food or basic medicine? Are you really that ignorant of the facts? Did you fall off the turnip truck last night?

Do a web search for hospitals in the USA. Start counting how many have names that are from charities and religions, and compare them to those that are founded by government. That should start your education. Now investigate groups such as the odd fellows, the elks, the moose, even the Masons. Those groups were big providers of social insurance, etc.

Now study a little human [and animal] nature. The more you provide, the less able the person [or animal] is able to provide for themselves, until they become totally dependant. That is what you want? Total dependency on government? Really?

Read a little history, do a little thinking instead of reacting, maybe you might mature, just a little bit.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 06:12 | 2354065 Tator
Tator's picture

I love these puffheads like LetThemEatRand…Please show me one example of your beliefs ever working on any real timescale.....Please cite just ONE case where the following has not been true.

 In all of history, no government became more honest, less corrupt, or granted its citizens more rights as it grew in size. -E.L.


Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:37 | 2353279 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture



First of all, I think the "Great Reset" is bullshit..... many generations away, if at all.  

However, if it were to happen, I would bet that the US Military Machine would utterly decimate all the ammo-obsessed rednecks with their K-Mart bunkers and stash of guns.  The guuubbermint ain't gonna launch a war against innocent families... they're gonna go after all the GI Joe wannabe's who run through the streets like an urban Rambo, shooting up all the government buildings like McVeigh resurrected from the dead.  The anti-government rednecks will get smashed.... bad. And no one will care about those who escape to the woods to live with the animals.

But like I said, the "Great Reset" is bullshit.  It's no different than the sheep dreaming about the lottery ticket in their hand.  The Great Reset is just empty redneck rhetoric....a redneck dream.... an opportunity for all the doomer goons to dream about their moment of vindication, after all their friends and family have dismissed them as paranoid idiots.  All this rhetoric about who's prepared and who isn't... it's dreamy fantasyland, doomer style.  

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:52 | 2353316 Maos Dog
Maos Dog's picture

Regarding this:

" I would bet that the US Military Machine would utterly decimate all the ammo-obsessed rednecks with their K-Mart bunkers and stash of guns.  The guuubbermint ain't gonna launch a war against innocent families... they're gonna go after all the GI Joe wannabe's who run through the streets like an urban Rambo, shooting up all the government buildings like McVeigh resurrected from the dead.  The anti-government rednecks will get smashed."

Exactly right!!!

Just like Vietnam!!! oh, wait...

Just like Afghanistan!! oh, well, umm, 

Juke like Iraq!!!  umm, well....

Just like Grandia! Yea, that's right! We really pounded them!!

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:59 | 2353343 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture



WOW.  That's amazing!  Your examples have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything. 

The fair comparison is not the Vietnam or Iraqi War.... it's Waco when the US military turned the cultists (read: redneck militia) into dust.

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 22:49 | 2353466 Maos Dog
Maos Dog's picture

Let's see what the examples I listed have in common:

A Massive high-tech military against a small highly motivated civilian / guerrilla force using shit weapons ends in tragedy for the aggressors. Again and again.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:15 | 2353679 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

A highly motivated civilian/guerrilla force- half of whom are vets of same high-tech military, and have a constitutional mandate(so they/I would believe),  would be the biggest challenge yet to the US military.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 03:07 | 2353945 SoCalBusted
SoCalBusted's picture

Add the notion of urban warfare and the odds for the civilians with local knowledge get much better.


Wed, 04/18/2012 - 06:38 | 2354090 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Maos Dog

"A Massive high-tech military against a small highly motivated civilian / guerrilla force using shit weapons ends in tragedy for the aggressors. Again and again."

Afghanistan has proven you wrong.Repeatedly.

So has Vietnam.

But hey what you claimed sounded real good, didn't it.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 22:56 | 2353480 ronin12
ronin12's picture

Trying to decide if Max is a moron or an imbecile. Maybe just an idiot...

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:29 | 2353559 Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

Perhaps he is refining the definitions for the words

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:57 | 2353629 rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

Funny, I was working on that same problem, too.

Tue, 04/17/2012 - 23:26 | 2353550 Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

Ok, so you want to bash someone else's (curious) non-sequiter that was in response to your own ("First of all, I hate survivalists, blah, blah, blah")

Hey there, genius, did you have a "second of all?"  Because in your ivory tower wisdom, you forgot to impart it to us.

When I first started seeing your posts pop up, I thought:  "Here's someone I disagree with but he has an intelligent way of posing it so I'll see what benefit I can get out of the ensuing discussion."

With this last thread of yours, in response to an article that is, for me, the best socio-economic analysis I've seen in my time on the Hedge, I have lost any respect for what you have to contribute here, even if I disagreed with it. 

You sound (and take this to heart) like the intellectually deformed (Did Casey say 'imbecile?') love child of a neo-con military-industrialist and  a clip-haired, mean-faced Southern Poverty Law Center trial attorney.  Which explains why you seem friendless.

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:17 | 2353686 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Dude... nice...(ly said)...

Wed, 04/18/2012 - 00:29 | 2353707 Iwanttoknow
Iwanttoknow's picture

Mr Fischer,

What exactly were the sins of people at Waco.No ,MSM propaganda were wrong.They were not pedophiles.Some may have perceived them to be eccentrics,at worst.Same goes for Ruby ridge.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!