This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Doug Casey: Sociopathy Is Running the US - Part Two
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.
Stupidity
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.
Evil
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.
- 33185 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


If you take the case presented by the MSM at the time of the siege at Waco, it was because he thought he "was Jesus", that seemed to be the major crime. The pedophilia case was brought up after the fact to justify murdering the children in order to save them.
As for Waco, the FedGov entrapped Weaver, then persecuted [and prosecuted] him because he would not bow to their power and become an informant. He was absolutely no danger to anyone, so they killed his family members. Nice.
just a reminder to those who pay attention to dates. . .
"Waco seige" and "Oklahoma City bombing" share a date, April 19th - anniversary tomorrow.
aka Feast of Moloch, Sun----> Taurus, 9:12am.
this is not to say anything will happen, merely that it has in the past.
You dont know one single actual fighting soldier, do you Max? Once again, you have managed to compile a litany of stupidity so dense it approaches critical mass. How many of your friends or family ever joined the military to learn to fight? Rhetorical question- we both know the answer is 0.
You might want to look at the demographics of those who actually do. It isnt effeminate little city twerps like yourself and it isnt minorities, despite all the outright propaganda to the contrary. The guys who do the actual killing ARE predominately white rednecks from small towns and the country.
http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/ACCESSION%20POLICY/PopRep2010/summary/Sect_II.pdf
Take a look at figures 16 and 17. Guess where soldiers come from? It aint where your sort spawn, thats for sure. As you can see in figure 18, the small portion of the country that comes from small town to rural areas is barely less then that of urban/suburban- factor in the states and geographic regions that generate them and its pretty clear that you urban pseudo-sophisticates arent much of the picture. Your sort become technicians, bureaucrats, and clerks when they join- you would no doubt make a fine Diversity Compliance Officer or something.
Racially, who does the fighting? The media likes to pretend that poor oppressed minorities do, but its hogwash-
http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/ACCESSION%20POLICY/PopRep2010/appendixb/appendixb.pdf
Look at table B21. What numbers and percentages of various ethnic strains join the actual fighting troops? What ethncities form a disproportinately low number, and are overrepresented in adminstration? In table B9, who makes up the high and low quality recruits?
Think as you please but those are our relatives, friends, and neighbors that comprise the razor point and cutting edges of the American sword- not yours. Your concept of the military and its soldiers is that of someone with absolutely no familiarity with the subject. They are an "other" to you, but an "us" to us. Its also pretty clear that you dont understand guns beyond the fact that they make noise, but thats a side issue. They arent all equal.
Once again, a fine job abusing your right to ignorance.
so you take great pride in the fact that your brethren are voluntarily invading sovereign nationstates to kill humans - not just "soldiers" but whole families - on behalf of the Corporate Military Industrial Complex?
oh, well done.
This has little to do with what I said in response to his contention that the military is going to roll over "rednecks" or anyone who opposes the federal government if things come unhinged, but personally I favor an end to empire and closing the vast majority of foreign bases.
Even if We The People won the great reset the army would pump the environment with enough depleted uranium bullets to pollute us for the next dozen generations.....
The true term is Sociopathic Terrorists.....
for your down-voters Woodyg,
http://mauialmanac.com/2007/12/17/depleted-uranium-coverup/
I think your argument is most likely bullshit.
We are about to enter a new era of unprecidented unrest, violence, poverty and death. We have most likely the most dependant, apathetic, welfare funded, live for today, paycheck to paycheck, entitled, armed to the hilt, stressed out and socially ignorant society this side of a century. We have had our Minsky moment and no one knows it yet because the talking electronic box in everyone's living room still plays American Idol and the news stations are stroking whatever gets ratings (while dividing races, classes, sexes, sexual orientations, political ideologies, religions, etc.).
Do you really think this is just going to drag out for decades without breaking? I just dont see it. Too many people are already at the margins in more ways than just financial. Society is stressed to the maximum with both parents working (assuming finances haven't already broken the marriage). Likewise, there are so many potential economic and geopolitical triggers around that most of us are lost just trying figuring cause, effect, planned move, or contingency plan. Forget about the potential for peak oil in terms EROEI or even peak population versus social complexity layered into the mix.
Who knows what prepared really means. I wish I knew. I would share. But thinking nothing really bad could happen in a short period of time is reminiscent of Germany right before Hilter decided to round up the Jews. Wonder why they did not "prepare" or bail? Most likely a similar story... a tragic combination of underestimating the potential, not having any idea of what "preparing" might mean, not being alert enough, etc. I wasn't there, but I suppose event leading up to this desensitized them. Not unlike what is happening to us today. Frog in boiling water.
What is a short period of time? It might be months. It might be years. It isn't going to be decades though. Look around. There is on thing you can bet on. TPTB will everything possible to manage the mess. The police are being militarized. Drones being put into the skies. TSA/DHS being expanded. Legislation ramping up that provides controls over people, place and resources.
+1. You as well.
The whole thing sounds a lot like the death throes of an empire.
Think about how Rome collapsed due to internal rot, when the citizens of the republic lost their drive and while they slumbered, the disconnected elites accumulated more and more of the wealth. Rome lost it's drive to expand and eventually the whole thing just collapsed inwards.
In the time of Rome, travel and communications were slow, so the collapse took centuries (in fact, Constantinopla, the remains of the Easter Roman Empire, still oulasted the fall of the Roman Empire by more than a thousand years). Today, with speed of light communications, when you can get anywhere in the world in a day or less, the whole thing is unravelling much faster.
In a sense, I think that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the start of the fall of the USA: without a powerfull external enemy with which to competed, the US lost it's drive to advance and the parasites in the system turned inwards and started consuming the host.
Eventually the crunch will come and don't expect that the US will recover it's standard of living within the lifetime of any of us (or maybe never, just look at how the remains of the Egyptian, Greek and Roman empires are doing).
Max, you are such a fucking bore....
Hey people, what Doug is reading from (presume) is in a book called Political Ponerology by a Polish writer, Andrew Lobaczewski.
Ponerolgy is taken from Catholic usage and is roughly the study of evil. Recommended.
"I would bet that the US Military Machine"
And who makes up the vast majority of that machine that would do the fighting....the very brothers, cousin, dads, and uncles of all the ammo-obsessed rednecks.
Never going to happen. They will turn on the military leaders in a heartbeat.
Your comment Defines Sociopathy..... Aka the lack of empathy.......
Which of course leads to survival of the vilest......
The true consequence is EXTINCTION.......
Funny we blow up the world and spend the tens of trillions on 9-11 and the self induced bankster 3 card Monte and idiots like you bitch about poor people.....
Bite me......
Exactly. Thank you.
"quite frankly, the americans that aren't prepared are the very one's the great reset will rid us of..."
What? You think that the criminal elite are gonna kill off all the fat dumb and ignorant people and just let you be???
You're delusional! The sheeple will be the Hors d'vours and appetizers and you, my friend, will be the main course.
not without many .223's served with cocktails, asshole.
Please make mine 5.56 ball, thanks.
@Cdad: yes, the great reset that was averted in 2008-9 would have cured the country, rid it of the failed corporations, business models, failed personnel and even failed anachronistic policies and practices.
But it was prevented from happening. Why? So that the rot could live another day at the expense of the healthy. The massive Fed/Paulson interventions were the purest form of class warfare that the world has ever seen since the October Revolution of 1917. Only it was the Tsar and his incestuous aristocrats that won.
Beyond business there comes a time where every society comes to a fork in the road and must face change. Even a reactionary effort to resist change engenders change through unanticipated consequences.
We reached that fork in the road in 2008: it was High Noon for America and it's identity, it's dream. And rather than espouse the principles that once made the country great, the country chose the other path: the one it rebelled against at the time of it's founding. The decision was to carry on with a repressive aristocratic system as a parasite on the rest of American society. And that would be enforced through what is now a still moderate but quickly hardening police state.
I have not one argument with your thoughts here, CE. We are truly rotting fromt the head now...from the nexis of Wall Street and K Street. And we will continue to suffer as a nation as long as that head continues to rot without the proper cure.
Agreed.
I agreed with your luid comments above as well
Cdad - Your comment about the Great Reset is both a gem and a blessing.
I agree almost completely but what does ones view of the origin of matter have to do with morality?
I see moral folk with many thoughts about religion, god and the absence of; the hypocrite is the perfect of the morally bereft person who loudly proclaims his faith.
Morality, or fair and just treatment of ones fellow beings operates independently of ones beliefs about god. We have 4 or 5 major religions and while the treatment of those outside of the individuals belief system may suggest that some of these religions are more moral than others, inside of the belief system the individual's morality is judged by his treatment of fellow believers and what I have observed is that by this criteriion moral behavior is disributed evenly in these groups as well as in individuals who do not have well formed beliefs about creation, god or other matters that would make one religious.
But, but, but... President Barry says we cannot prosecute because they didn't commit any crimes, and he should know being a Full Law Professor and Harvard grad.
To Barry the constitution has only one amendment, the 5th, which most of his cabinet members and czars are taking.
Barry, if you're reading this, just go ahead and issue the executive order making you president for life. It's what this was all about from the start, right?
Coronation as emperor.
Barrack I.
Fixed.
Yeah, however fraud has always been. So I had two choices when I heard him say that shit, 1. To believe that fraud is totally legal in the US in all cases 2. He was talking out his ass to cover up his lack of love for truth, justice and liberty.
I chose #2.
Pretty good article by Mr. Casey. Nothing groundbreaking but a good summation of what many of us already know or suspected.
I do think Casey fails to fully explore the role of empire. It seems to me that there are vital differences between nation-states that are self-sufficient and maintain a "free trade" relationship with other nation-states (free trade in quotes because the IMF/Washington Consensus model of managed, mercantilist trade laws has sullied the term for many) and nation-states that are dependent on territorial expansion, colonial expropriation, colonial taxation, warfare, etc., even if they otherwise have similar property law systems in place.
Empires create parasitical populations at the top (and at the bottom, although I find those at the top far more worrisome) of the social pyramid that do not engage in productive enterprise but instead derive their wealth from, as Casey puts it, controlling other people (instead of controlling resources). They often realize their elevated social position is unjustified in any material way so they justify it by claiming intellectual, physical or spiritual superiority (see: academic elitism; eugenics; the "Divine" Right of Kings). That gives them carte blanche to act in the sociopathic ways that Casey is highlighting.
With regards to our present society, Casey doesn't even really go beyond surface-level (not because he can't, but because our society is so degenerated and there is only so much space for print). He doesn't touch upon the moral degeneracy that brings about Cults of Personality (and the biggest cults of personality aren't in North Korea, they're here in the U.S. ... witness the Obama cult and the way so many live vicariously through Hollywood celebrities). He doesn't touch upon the fact that religion has been completely watered down. In the U.S., practically all religious groups structure their religious practices in such a way so that it doesn't interfere with our consumerist lifestyles. Consumerism comes first, ideals and beliefs come second. To "opt out" of the consumerist lifestyle is an offense in the eyes of many people. Now we have a generation of young people who seem wholly out of touch with real human emotion. To express real human emotion (especially one that connotes vulnerability) or to stand by a particular conviction (especially one not approved by the mainstream media) is seen as bizarre, something to be avoided, uncool, etc. For much of Generations X & Y, all communication is tempered by sarcasm, cynicism or irony. Everything is a joke. It literally seems crazy to me and I'm a part of this generation. We have fallen quite a bit.
I personally believe there is no one-size-fits-all economic system for all human population groups and all geographic areas. There is just too much diversity, in so many ways. I think the keys to us returning to sanity are: (1) political devolution -- end the trend towards ever greater centralization and return political and economic decision making power back to localities; (2) self-sufficiency -- this should be a goal at the individual level, the family level and even the national level, no more monstrous inefficient empires and their parasitical populations please; (3) physical economy over finance -- this means the end of fiat and the end of political structures that allow FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) to hijack entire economies and loot them.
The very idea of debating which unitary economic structure is right for our entire planet is insane. I can see many societies where communitarian or collectivist economic structures make more sense than individualistic, capitalist ones -- say, in communities that are at the subsistence level. That should be decided on a local basis though and it should all be on a voluntary, consent-based model. It is central government and central banks that lead to tyranny (and standing armies and militarized police forces that enforce it).
Huh? I think he clearly addressed it under the heading of fascism...which is truly running rampant in America today.
I disagree. It's called freedom.
Casey defines fascism as de facto state control of enterprise (with nominal ownership in private hands). He argues that almost all nation states in the world today are fascist.
That doesn't equal empire or imperialism though. A state like, say, Peru could be classified as fascist under Casey's definition due to its economic structure but that doesn't mean it's an imperial power. Likewise, socialist states and capitalist states can be imperial powers too. So no, I disagree that it's as simple as you suggest.
"I disagree. It's called freedom."
I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest. That seems like a non-statement to me. I personally see political devolution/localism, free enterprise, economic systems based on consent and voluntarist principles (all of which I advocated for in my post) as paragons of freedom. I don't really see "freedom" as an "economic system" except in the most abstract sense, a platitude basically. When I say "economic system" I am referring to specific property laws, specific resource management systems, specific class structures, specific diversification strategies, etc. In that sense, no, I don't think there is *one* system appropriate for the entire globe and I think the forced-homogenization of global economies that the "Washington Concensus" has forced upon the world over the past century is a major reason for the structural problems we are seeing today.
Very well said, Chris. Fully agree.
Chris...is that Morningside Edinburgh??
The concept of freedom is anything but a platitude. Leave people to be free in how they execute their economic affairs. Period. This requires the acceptance of risk, unknowns, uncertainty. It has become passe' as freedom is very hard for banks to "frontrun." Freedom is also very hard for the government to "harvest."
I'm sure you can get your head around what I am suggesting here. It is only a matter of will, I suspect.
remember that the word 'freedom' now means freedom from want. This new lib definition type freedom can only come from a government that gives the individual what it needs. That old definition, not being subject to the rules of busybodies and tyrants is being lost. The theft of this word was planned and has real implications.
True freedom and liberty has been defined as too dangerous to try by the powers that be. You can't handle it, according to them.
Cdad
"Leave people to be free in how they execute their economic affairs."
And that's how we got where we are today. Yoo many rich were allowed to act "freely" at the expense of the workers they built their fortunes on.
Well said Chris. I am a big fan of Casey and I respect the way he presents his views, but as all borderline or full anarchists he has a blind eye for imperialism.
Yes, it's fine to pursue liberty on a personal level, but for a foreigner that lives in a country being trashed by a great multinational corporation the liberty-pursuing shareholder or even the worker of said firm is the imperialist, even if he professes libertarianism or anarchism and only unwillingly pays the taxes used to fund the navies and armies.
By defining fascism the way he does he could go back to the Greek and Roman Republics - which were based on their political outlook on how cities function. By his definition every city in the last 3000 years is fascist. Every large group of humans that has to cooperate in a high density complex environment where even simple things like sewers and trash removal require greater public works and communal coordinated efforts are fascist. Half of humanity lives in cities, btw, so by this argument they are locked into a fascist "state of reality".
You fool statistismist , haven`t you been reading the comments? It`s all
Libertarians for the further deregulation of the banks!
around here.
look, I like libertarians and their philosophical POV.
I sympathize with non-violent anarchists like Doug.
the fact that their de-regulate-everything outlook is used for a further deregulation of banks is a different matter, there I've repeatedly stated that it's pure lunacy.
retail and investment banks need a complete separation and a set of short, smart regulations
meanwhile, why don't you discuss in a bit more conciliatory manner with akak? you might discover the things you agree on... ;-)
I refuse to bang my head on that particular wall of ignorance anymore, thank you very much. I've tried, and you're absolutely correct about the crucial common ground, but there's no 'discussion' possible with absolutist ideologues. My efforts to bridge the gap on ZH are a matter of record, eg. I initiated an exchange with a 'Libertarian' where I was to take turns with him writing down suppositions that we could both agree upon... It failed miserably, but not before I came up with two critical points of agreement to his big fat zero; and I had two or three ringers left in reserve too. Since these were what I would consider low-hanging fruit I can only assume that he chose not to mention them and instead, for his own purposes, beelined to what would be obvious points of contention.
No, with zealots either you outright accept their prescribed level of 'statism', regardless of any contradicting facts, or you're against their religion. On top of that there are the repeated death threats/wishes which naturally don't encourage respectful discussion, neither is it their intention to do so, IMO. I don't see how being on the business end of such hateful derision indicates that I'm the one who needs to be offering a spoonful of sugar. Experience suggests that the answer would be,
"No thanks Turkish; I'm sweet enough." anyway.
Your posting seems reasonable enough though, that's heartening. And goes a long way to outlining how we are able to have an actual conversation.
Communitarian or collectivest societies don't work at any level. I know it may feel and sound good to say so, but it simply is not true. Reference the first pilgrims in the US; they tried "communalism", it was an immediate failure. Fortunately, they were smart enough to be able to change their beliefs quickly and go with a more "human proof" system- "free enterprise/ personal responsibility"
Aside from that, I agree with you.
sooo many cultures, sooo many contradictions
Mini Snickers Bars ( the so-called, "Fun Size") used to sell 10 for 80 cents.
I saw today there are now 6 in a pack for $1.00.
The lady standing there todl he rson, "no Johnny, we cannot buy them...too expensive"......
I tried to explain to Little Johnny and his delectible Mom why he better learn to eat dandelions and grass growing along the roadside, but he started crying and his mother swept him away from me. I never got to the 'juicy' part about catching pigeons and house mice ( a good skill indeed!) for the weekend BBQs.
Some people just refuse to embrace the New World of Frugality being thrust upon them.
you're going to get eaten first arnold...
The Colombian prostitute who triggered the scandal that has rocked the Secret Service got angry with two agents who refused to pay her full price for servicing the two of them, leading to a financial dispute over between $40 and $60, according to a government source who has been briefed on the investigation.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/17/11251326-nbc-prostitutes-50...
These SS agents deserve to be fired. They are not only stupid, they are also cheap!
And get this...they send MORE AGENTS to ahhh...mmmm..."interview"!!!!!
The Secret Service sent agents to Colombia to interview the prostitutes who hooked up Americans...
Baraka should have the Black Panthers guard him. haha.
The rumour is they refused to accept FRNs from Treasury agents.
Send those agents to the GSA for proper training on how to spend money.
Arnold Ziffel
"leading to a financial dispute over between $40 and $60"
That's what you get when using the highest class Columbian hooker. Bitch, bitch, bitch.
Arnold Ziffel
"learn to eat dandelions"
The ex's family were Italian and frequently used Dandelion in their foods.
"I never got to the 'juicy' part about catching pigeons and house mice"
Everyone enjoys Squab and Roman delicacies.
"Little Johnny and his delectible Mom"
If Johnny's Mom can't afford the buck for Snickers, I doubt she was delectible. Cheap ass bitch ain't on the SNAP, must be living out the car! Can't even scrub down her hoochie at a seven eleven bathroom.
Wow. Awesome post. Thanks.
The purported prognosis is not MSM spin. It's simply that indolent. Get over yourself.
Cdad
"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."
Did they use a live action shot from asshole to prostate?
I'm a sociopath too (especially when I'm high on oxy)
Rush Limbaugh in his own words: I'M A NAZI, OH YES I AM!
Non-sequitor much?
Seriously. There are a fair number of morons in this neighborhood who feel some internal need to grind their little axes when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic or even conversational spinoff at hand.
What an idiot.
ARE WE RUNNING OUT OF SILVER? Silver Guru David Morgan's Speech at the Texas Precious Metals Conference - Very good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KhGexysdIM
I swear I keep seeing the same post from you... I think you have two. Please stop.
IMHO it is moral bankpruptcy that is the root cause of ALL of of the other symptoms.
What I like to do! As your a man of the world,,
http://vimeo.com/10555652
Seems the war in Afghanistan is going well for SOME:
Stunning Alcohol Abuse at the US Embassy in Afghanistan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30316
This is a must read....some here might want to consider applying for a diplomat job there....lol
voting for the lesser of two "evils" is still, evil...
The concept of "voting for the lesser of two evils" is promoted by both evils (same evil, really) to help them maintain control. It sales 101. You don't want to set too high of a bar for people. Less dumb people who can see though some of the BS to realize that their flavor isn't going to solve much can buy the idea that they are voting for the "lesser of two evils". It's an easy sell. Almost everyone I know fits this description. They aren't passionate R's or D's... they just think they are doing the right thing by voting against the bigger evil that is the other.
The two-party system made simple:
Two worthless talking heads are on the ballot.
If you vote for one of them, a worthless talking head will win.
If you don’t vote, a worthless talking head will win.
It’s a pretty unappealing choice for a representative form of government. How did it last 200+ years?
I now get the silver, palladium, etc lower margin move last week and today... If excess liquidity is to find a place within the commodity markets, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAPPEN over and over, then better it find a home in silver, palladium, etc. right now RATHER than oil.
Raise margins on oil while lowering margins on silver/others...
Its as if 'they've' realized they can't decide where the money goes, so they'll decide where the money goes WITHIN where they don't want the money to go.
Throw in an Obummer Evil Oil Speculator Speech and...
Its all ECONOMICS and PSYCHOLOGY
Why give Bush an excuse for his criminality and arrogant stupidity?
Well said and in great detail. It's just about obvious and as clear as can be: Our leaders are simply re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
genocidal ben shalom makes madoff look like a saint.
an excellent article......the evil are drawn to power in order to act out their evils which are often animated by control freak self righteous ideas....it is unusual for a good man to be so inclined to power because he knows the gravity of such responsibility and his limitations for achieving good.....
"...it is unusual for a good man to be so inclined to power because he knows the gravity of such responsibility and his limitations for achieving good"
Comment of the year.
IMHO...a good man would have to know his time was short in the position...and when he felt "it" closing in on his soul, leave it...knowing "it" would come for him one day all along, long before he accepted the responsibilities of power.
I know I'll get flamed, but gotta say it....Ron Paul comes to mind as such a man.
You won't get flamed by me, I agree, he got my primary vote here in Fla.
I think Buddy Roemer (as an "outsider") has the right amount of common sense and intestinal fortitude to do good things as well...but neither will be allowed to be President.
In my mind...seeing as how the topic deals with psychosis...lol...I see the competing interests of whoever gets the job.
On the one hand, you have "the establishment class" and its interests. The military class, the entitlement class, the commerce class.
On the other, the working class, who are being asked to support the establishment class via currency debasesment and pure emotion.
It sucks, maybe Clive-Piven, who knows...doesn't matter now anyways, but I've never given up on us...and us figuring it out someday...it will be very painful for everyone I'm afraid because math (real math) never lies and the establishment is correct in saying the "hardest hit" will be the hangers on.
The survivors will rebuild...and I ain't goin anywhere ;-)
"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?"
I had forgotten about that.
Just as stupid as following bad judicial precedent, in a law made to drive up wheat prices where the wheat never left the farm...Wickard-Filburn.
Excellent article!
How can a man write so much and say so little? He didn't define his terms, his philosophy, his mentors - if any. In another article I believe he defined himself as an anarchist. No government, nada, zilch between you and your neighbor's private army.
I'll stick with Bush and Cheney.
And be littler for it...fixed it for ya.
You're such a douchetard.
Let me translate what you really said:
Idiot. You're the prototype of the street moron that we relish tearing to shreds in here.
You're not really worth a response, but I just wanted to say, that people like you are exactly what is wrong with this country.
Also warmongers :
http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_Po_detail.htm?No=89689&id=Po
US: Strike on N. Korea Possible if Nuclear Test Held
The commander of the U.S. Pacific Command says the U.S. may launch a surgical strike against missile bases and nuclear test sites in North Korea if it conducts a third nuclear test.
That, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia (with the missile shield) ... the US leaders love war.
Spot on analysis, Doug. Thanks for setting the record straight. May the force be with us and not with them.
Thank you.
"Sociopathy Is Running the US"
While I won't argue with that...
Mr. Casey, you left out (although maybe I missed it) the Entitlement part -- the most lethal and irresolvable trademark of the Sociopath -- obviously more lethal in places of power and infleunce.
And please don't leave out the Narcissist (same Entitlement issue). Though usually construed as being the "lesser" of the evils, I believe the impact of the Narcissist in government/leadership far outweighs that of the Sociopath, from their numbers only.
But who's counting... they all must find another place to exist.
They are the scourge of the planet, and they are destroying things to the very core -- that is their nature.
Cabreado, did you know the American Psychiatric Society recently decided to strike "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" from their list of "ailments"? Reason being since so many Americans are "tuned" this way, now it's normal and no longer a "disorder".
Kinda puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
Westcoastliberal... yep.
Here's my theory, though: "them who make the rules" (those human-types who dictate DSM) became uncomfortable as they increasingly recognized themselves in the symptoms list.
Funny. But true.
I really think it is just an effect of social acceleration. We are reaching fever pitch now in the rat race. Unsustainable and near a breaking point. We are churning out sociopaths, egotists, etc. at an alarming rate as a result.
and what's wrong with sweden? this is a horrible place?
The high, and growing, suicide rate in the Nordic "welfare state paradises" suggest that for a signficant and increasing number of their citizens, that is indeed the case.
That wiki chart that you in all likelihood used to draw your weak inference is based on stats from sources so varied in reliability/count that the only accurate observation that you might be able to make from it is that suicide rates seem to be a function of temperate zone; or do you consider South America to be particularly rife with 'anti socialism'? (Rhetorical question: I know accuracy, stats, and facts are nothing more than matters of convenience for you and the echo chambermaidens)
If by 'paradise' you meant 'fiscally prudent' , I agree that they are smarter than most. As do the facts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/27/debt-deficit-oecd-countries-data
akak, I'd be careful with this link... the Nordic europeans live in a very depressing environment in winter, with very little sunlight. And there are several cities in europe that have spikes in suicides when they have long spells of fog.
http://shine.yahoo.com/team-mom/kids-raised-gender-neutral-society-swede...
The Swedes have gone mad. Their kids aren't even allowed to be boys and girls any more. The independent play of children is to be suppressed because in free play children express gender roles and the Swedes insist on creating a gender neutral society.
You just know that's going to work out well.
Girls and boys playing games together?! Noooooooooo! Good grief, next thing you know they'll be becoming adults and having ... sex... <gasps>.
Damn, I looked, but I was completely unable to locate the 'not allowed to be boys and girls anymore' part. Could you show me where the article touched you in a bad way?
It's a stretch, I know, but was it this part,
"Instead of calling children "boys and girls," teachers are referring to students as "buddies." One school even stopped allowing free playtime during the day because "stereotypical gender patterns are born and cemented. In free play there is hierarchy, exclusion, and the seed to bullying." And the country just published its first gender-neutral children's book, "Kivi och Monsterhund."(?)
Mother of God, they have a book. It must be their bible now. And one school stopped allowing free playtime as a reaction to violent stereotypes being acted out; in a country as small as Sweden that must be like 3/4 of their entire educational system! I say let the bullies roam free! How else are they going to learn to make it in the real world?
Thanks for that link to that soccer Mom's take on Sweden. Luckily, like you , I was able to see past her glib attitude towards the creeping horrors of gender equality conditioning to which children everywhere are subjected on a daily basis. Oh god, won't anyone help the children? Sigh, what's a patriarchal dinosaur to do?
But in Sweden there will no longer be any boys or girls. That's the whole point of the policy and the article which describes it. Is your reading comprehension really so insufficient to the task?
If children are denied the ability to play independently in order to suppress gender roles do you expect them to grow up to be healthy and happy? Let's find out just how insane you really are.
If you didn't like the source in my previous post here are some more. Enjoy, oh neutered one:
Care2.com (blog) - 12 hours ago by Kevin Mathews Swedes are shaking up their language with a new gender-neutral pronoun. The pronoun, “hen,” allows speakers and writers to refer to a ...
Sweden leaps from gender-equality to gender-neutrality The Voice of Russia
all 2 news articles »
The Voice of Russia
Slate Magazine - 6 days ago But for many Swedes, gender equality is not enough. Many are pushing for the Nordic nation to be not simply gender-equal but gender-neutral.
His, hers, hens: Swedes' gender-neutral push gains ground Illawarra Mercury
“Welcome to Camazotz,” hen said The League of Ordinary Gentlemen
all 86 news articles »
Brisbane Times
Sydney Morning Herald - 5 days ago Sweden's bid to ensure equality between the sexes has reached another milestone with the gender-neutral "hen" being included in the online version of the ...
Blog: Swedish hens and singular "they" The Economist (blog)
Sweden Introduces New Gender-Neutral Pronoun: 'Hen' Asian Correspondent
Sweden aims to go gender-neutral Eesti elu
Lew Rockwell (blog)
all 8 news articles »
Sydney Morning Herald
Globe and Mail (blog) - 4 days ago Making the leap from gender-equality to trying to efface any differences between the sexes whatsoever, Sweden has officially recognized a new gender-neutral ...
Should we use gender-neutral pronouns instead of 'he' and 'she'? CBC.ca
Sweden 'Trying To Banish Gender' Through Toy Advertising And Language Huffington Post
all 27 news articles »
Globe and Mail (blog)
MinnPost.com - Apr 9, 2012 But what has sharpened the debate in Sweden has been the argument that schools should also be gender neutral, giving children the opportunity to define ...
"But in Sweden there will no longer be any boys or girls. That's the whole point of the policy and the article which describes it. Is your reading comprehension really so insufficient to the task?"
Yeah, I don't think it's me who's reading too much into this you goofy twerp. Sweden isn't planning to surgically alter all newborns to create a race of hermaphrodites, IE relax, contrary to your melodramatization there will still be boys and girls.
"If children are denied the ability to play independently in order to suppress gender roles do you expect them to grow up to be healthy and happy."
Well, as I noted previously, at that one school they'll miss out on recess, in all likelihood for reasons particular to that school and the students, which is a far cry from your implication that this is equivalent to every and all Swedish children being locked in a closet for the span of their entire childhoods,
The actual premise of this change in language, as I am sure you are aware, is that it is a tool to obliterate the unfortunate stereotypes that elitists of your type hold so dear because they allow you to maintain an increasingly desperate grip on your woefully outdated delusion of gender supremacy.
English Eg. Why should a woman have to indicate whether or not she is married to everyone she meets formally? Ans. Because dinosaurs are used to it and patriarchs want to keep it that way.
Evolving doesn't mean losing your testicles, it means realizing that you can't take for granted that you're automatically considered a worthier person than those without a 'pair that would breed'.
"His name is Robert Paulson."
and this is the worst you can say about sweden? we've gone from psychopaths eating the system to this to show the 2 systems are comparable?
But that is CA's operational purpose as one of the chief echochamberhandmaidens: misleading rhetorical obfuscation. As far as it goes he's not bad at it either, especially when compared to some of the other loons that post on ZH; though naturally as a result that means he doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on most of the time, so simply giving him enough rope usually does the trick.
What the fuck are you even doing here on ZeroHedge, when ALL you seem to want to do is attack and demean others rather than debate in honesty and good faith? Flaming and personal insults characterize your every post here, and that makes you a troll in the truest sense of the word.
In your case I'm just returning the 'favour'
Vislat.
One definition of economics is: The study of who gets what, and how, in the material world.
Not really. It's more like the study of incentives and how behaviors and outcomes adjust when incentives change.
When government grows beyond a certain point (discuss amongst yourselves) it changes lots of little and big incentives in everyday life. To the extent that sociopathy is a product of nurture (whereas psychopathy is a product of nature) the growth of government is probably positively correlated with and inevitably nurtures sociopathy because it alters the social fabric and culture of normal, everyday, socially interactive life.
One of the outcomes of ever expanding statism and government mission creep has been the official discouragement of human judgment from as many areas of life as possible. Believe it or not, there once was a time when every activity you can possibly think of under the sun didn’t have 1000 laws, regulations and official mandates attached to it (I think we still have sex and shopping to ourselves). Thanks to the millions of (let’s just say superbly well-intentioned) strictures brought to you by domestic security, environmentalism, identity politics, child advocacy, government entitlements etc. etc., almost everything is now arguably illegal in some way or at least it seems that way and that’s enough to make you think twice about “doing the right thing” like your grandparents never would have. This is all ostensibly to make society more civil and pre-empt any confusion about what is acceptable and what isn’t but it also short circuits much normal human social behavior and fosters a sociopathic mindset by incentivizing us all to play lawyers, defendants, snitches and victims whenever possible – which in my book is synonymous with sociopathology.
At the same time, the higher up the government food chain you go the less subject the politically powerful are to any restraint whatsoever (the original focus of most of our laws): vast federal agencies with limitless powers get magic-wanded into existence every time the oval office changes hands, we’ve clearly given up declaring war as a nation like…six wars ago and can you imagine a set of circumstances today where the government would even consider amending the constitution like they’re supposed to? Don’t make me laugh. Being a sociopath is that much easier the farther above you are from the consequences of wielding official power. And today, there are more such people above you than ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
Good Lord. I don't think it needs to be that complicated.
If you just think of economics as the study of incentives and behavioral choices under conditions of scarcity generally (and not just in areas which involves money) I think you can mostly dispense with this praxeology business, economics as a subset of praxeology etc.
An old, former editor of The Economist magazine once told me that the term "economics" as it was commonly understood back when his "newspaper" was founded, implied a much wider set of activity than it does now.
I wish I had the time to write a full, detailed response to this because I feel that Casey has it wrong here on a few points.
However, I will summarize what I feel is the most important point he has wrong.
The most dangerous type is not the Machiavellian sociopath, for these people always act in their own best interests, and have no set beliefs, and turn on a dime when things go bad (think Clinton).
The morons and the stupid self-destruct and are driven from power before they can do too much damage.
The most dangerous type of them all, which the government and the Fed is full of right now is the "TRUE BELIEVER"
The "TRUE BELIEVER", like Ben at the Fed, will keep doing the same thing, looking at the bad results, and continue to do it because they "Can't" be wrong. The TRUE BELIEVER keeps pushing the same policies, over and over, doubling-down on each failure. The TRUE BELIEVER gets violent when it all fails (STALIN), because they can't allow themselves to believe that their way is wrong. TRUE BELIEVERS can not review and be moved by evidence or counter-argument.
Please give me a Machiavellian sociopath any day of the week over a TRUE BELIEVER
I'm not at all convinced that Mr. Bernanke is a "true believer." He is under a mandate. The Great Reset/Great Default must come about in a way that preserves the power and status of those who currently run our society ("our society" = U.S. and Eurozone, since they're run by the same, integrated directory of financiers, bankers and corporate chieftains). It's not about avoiding a collapse. Anyone who thinks a collapse is avoidable is out in la-la land and I am positive that fact is recognized in the halls of power in DC and Wall Street. It's about managing the collapse and structuring it in such a way that "the powers that be" come out on the other-side with even greater power.
s' funny- that's what scares the britchez off me about ron paul.
(oopsy daisey- not a double post but not where it was intended to land. it was s'poosed to be in reference to the "TRUE BELIEVERS" comment.)
What this author and all free market purists completely fail to address is the reality that the same sociopaths who are running the government will exist without it. The author really doesn't seem to be able to answer his question about why there is not a single example of his pure free market in all of the world, when the answer is right before his eyes. It doesn't work and it never will. If you take away elected government, you will get Kings and Lords and warlords and thugs who will build armies and control the masses by force. Without even the appearance of elections. Ask our entire human history what happens when society has a power vacuum. The sociopaths will take by force and all the free market thinking in the world won't stop them. The author does a terrific job of identifying much of what is wrong in society but he does not have a clue how to fix it. I have a hint. Enforce anti-trust laws, take money out of politics, pass a Constitutional Amendment setting short term limits for politicians, make lobbying illegal because it is bribery and influence peddling, and end the Fed. That would be a great start and we'd still have an elected government rather than warlords running the show.
thank you, letthemeatrand. the answer is markets constrained by good government.
Thank you for personifying and demonstrating the classic moron which Casey discusses at such length above.
You claim that sociopaths will always exist (possibly, even probably true), so what is your answer to their potential damage to society? Give them power! There is NO position of power even remotely comparable to those in a centralized state within a free market, so the potential damage that such individuals can commit is vastly reduced, while at the same time many more incentives are in place to both recognize and punish them. But in your beloved centralized state, the gigantic levers of power inherent in political office is a prize that no sociopath can or could resist, and which will ALWAYS draw those most desirous of, and willing, to not just use 9and abuse) that power, but to expand it to their own benefit, and to society's detriment, as the history of the last century will attest.
The mind-boggling naivete and logical contradictions inherent in your argument would be laughable if they were not shared by so many within our society today, those who are so intellectually weak or morally bankrupt that they are willing to fall victim to the propaganda of their oppressors that those sociopaths are in fact their only possible saviors.
Given how obvious it is to you that you are right, care to show me a single example where your proposed system worked? Ever? You are the moron who is unable to apply reality to theory. The author ironically mentions how Marxism is still taught by some as a good idea "if only in theory." Your theory sounds great on paper but it has never worked for a reason. If it ever does come to pass, and when the sociopathic warlord next door unencumbered by a central government enslaves you and takes over your farm or business or whatever you do for himself, don't say I didn't warn you.
There is such a seething, writhing mass of logical fallacies and arrogant cluelessness within every one of your anti-free-market, anti-freedom, pro-statist diatribes that I do not even know where to begin to dissect the malicious statist nonsense that you continually espouse. Suffice it to say that you are a typical brainwashed statist victim in love with his captors in the finest tradition of Stockholm Syndrome.
Nice complete non-answer. "It's so obvious that I'm right that the words do not exist to allow me to show you. And you hate freedom, too!"
i think his non-answer was basically saying, "be gone"...
Sucks when your simplistic and hateful ideas are challenged, doesn't it?
Annoyance as a result of stupidity always sucks. At least all opinions are allowed here, without the risk of getting banned.
that depends on who you (can still) talk to
You should walk her through Marx's Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto...I did once...very revealing.
I bet she won't do it again ;-)
Here's a good one to start her on...
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
Yep, I'm a Marxist. And I hate freedom and all free markets. I probably hate everything else good and true. That's much more fun to say than that you cannot answer a single salient point I make. Carry on.
why not go to a website that cares what you have to say. i think you're in the wrong place...
So you want to take your ball and go home?
not at all. always enjoy a good debate, but the claptrap you espouse to is neither popular in this country, or on this blog. doesn't stand a chance with in a "rational" debate. you can't debate with the stupid/irrational folks the author is talking about. you just want to antagonize. i mean, you seem so angry, i bet you get tired of talking to yourself...
I didn't realize that fight club was a popularity contest. Again, the answer to why I am wrong and why you are right is so obvious to you even as you completely fail in any attempt to convey it. Yet your own inability to articulate any basis for your belief system matters not to you, nor does it cause you to disbelieve even for a moment. Ideology is King. When your ideology is challenged, you simply say that the challenger is a moron and does not deserve a response, and then you even revert to asking the challenger to leave you alone so you can resume your circle jerk with like minded people who will not question your insanely unsupportable views. Pathetic.
i love it when individuals like yourself think you know what i believe, just from a few posts on a blog. you obviously don't know shit. the fact of the matter is, i espouse do no ideology---i belong to no "party". i think for myself, and do not limit my knowledge because of a joke ideology. i'm an ideology athiest. you've been brainwashed by some professor, or book or website, whatever, and that won't happen to me. that said, i don't need to debate with you because, well, it's claptrap. i'll take pathetic over being you, anyday...
I could care less what you believe. I responded to what you said and I'm pretty sure this forum exists for the purpose of allowing people to do so. If what you say is not what you believe that is your problem, not mine. If you don't even know what you believe and you just spout things that you don't care to support when challenged, I will know in the future not to bother to engage with you. Thank you for enlightening me.
"pfew" (hand crosses over forehead)
I know I know brewing,
"...you think that you're going to be 6 years old for the rest of your life." - Bill Watterson
Good luck with that.
"you've been brainwashed by some professor, or book or website, whatever, and that won't happen to me."
For obvious anatomical reasons.
You don't really expect to make any headway here do you? ZH is an ideological circle jerk filled with idealists who think they actually know something. The mere fact that a Casey post appears here speaks directly to that. The guy's clearly a sociopath himself. It's not even a political philosophy that he espouses - just another religion. True believers, one and all. The only point in being here is to mock them, but even that's too easy.
Insert gratuitous ad hominems here:_____________________________
"Yep, I'm a Marxist."
Hell I've known you have Marxist tendencies for awhile LTER.
"That's much more fun to say than that you cannot answer a single salient point I make."
Have you ever made one?
I asked you who was evil on Soros' list, you never answered, yet you lecture others on morality Typical for you. Driven into a corner and asked point blank to make a stand on something (anything) you go deaf, blind & dumb.
I don't need a system to provide a solution.
Are you suggesting that individuals should not seek to accomplish that which has not been attained in the past?
Well then you just keep at it then and let us all know when you've figured out how to make 2+2=5
To help you maintain focus, make sure that you continue to ignore, disregard or outright deride any existing, or past functioning examples staring you in the face
You seem completely incapable of comprehending that there can be anything between a powerful central authority that governs hundreds of millions and anarchy. I cant decide if this is blindness or willful stupidity. We have two levels of government below the Federal level that could handle the vast majority of peoples needs, the problem is people like yourself who have a need to determine how other people that you will never meet want to order their own areas.
Most European nations are of a size that would be considered a state here, and somehow they have managed without a massive central authority such as the one failing now.
Never heard of a "robber baron"?
Never heard of the "company store" and "company scrip"?
Never really spent a second in the world you propose because it's a childish fantasy?
Your argument (such as it is) is specious and absurd.
Firstly, the so-called "robber barons" for the most part obtained their inordinate wealth and financial power in large measure through the coercive power of government, via cronyism, corruption, and the granting of special privileges that the truly free market would never have granted them --- not the least of which was government support, and often the direct intervention of government troops, in the violent suppression of the organized labor movement. It was often little different with them than it is with the vast governmental support for the parasitical "too big to fail" Wall Street megabanks today, which only a naive and clueless Marxist would ever claim were the product of the "free market".
Secondly, this idea that millions of people were locked into serflike conditions to one single "company store" whose debt they could never repay is a wild exaggeration. Yes, such abuse did take place, but those workers were always free to move to less onerous employment and living conditions --- and many tens of millions of them did exactly that, unlike my great-grandfather's generation in the Russian Empire, who were obligated BY LAW to remain living on, and working for, their landed masters.
Thirdly, and most damning, your ridiculous comparison of the power of "robber barons" to the awesome, concentrated, overwhelming power of government is both laughable and insulting --- you are not just comparing apples to oranges, you are comparing one apple to a veritable grove of oranges. I fail to note one historical example of a single "robber baron" compelling the nation's citizenry to go to war and lay down their lives in battle for him, or to claim the right to break down their doors and imprison them merely because they chose to ingest an unapproved herb or beverage, or force them to use their ever-depreciating scrip for every financial transaction upon pain of imprisonment, or extort money from them on an annual basis no matter what part of the country they might live in, or indeed no matter where on EARTH they might go.
Why beholdest thou the mote in thy brother's eye, and not the statist beam in thy own?
"but those workers were always free to move to less onerous employment and living conditions"
Pre-supposed to exist without benefit of actual evidence. Specious indeed! Free to starve as well, I suppose.
"in large measure through the coercive power of government"
Yes and no, Rockefeller had a monopoly in Standard Oil. Pinkertons were private thugs. Damn...I thought I was gonna be able to find "less onerous" work at a company not already owned by a handful of families.
Precisely whom do you think runs this town, boy?
I can see the flaws and pitfalls of the state, but can you see that your "free markets" are not without serious fault and just as illusory as "good governance" when all is said and done?
Who needs to "break down doors" when you can starve a man with a gesture?
Don't believe me? Keep watching!
;-) can't resist, can't resist:
the original Robber Barons were (small) lords in the Holy Roman Empire that taxed and sometimes robbed merchants travelling from city to city. They have left us a wonderful romantic inheritance of castles on important crossroads and rivers, for example in the Rhine Valley.
Their legal tool was Kidnapping, that was for them the act of a free/armed man engaging in noble combat with another man, who if unarmed was just deemed "not a man". Ransom was due to the victor - might makes right.
For them, the Free Cities of the Empire were pusillanimous concentrations of effeminate "burghers" under the dictatorship of collectivist/communalist trade corporations regulating markets and banking, giving women and serfs some rights, tolerating the buggers and the asexuals (monks), allowing prostitutions and often forbidding weapons inside the walls while taxing the population for armies used to eradicate the Robber Barons...
If you'd care to be disabused of some of your own fantasies then read this:
The Truth About the "Robber Barons"http://mises.org/daily/2317
This article is about Sociopaths in control.
and your solution is
"Enforce anti-trust laws, take money out of politics, pass a Constitutional Amendment setting short term limits for politicians, make lobbying illegal because it is bribery and influence peddling, and end the Fed."
Those are good ideas, but,
this article is about Sociopaths in control.
With sincere and due respect -- you missed the point.
All of the ideas I offered were intended to wrestle control away from the sociopaths, as an alternative to the author's desire for anarchy.
Sovereignty lies with the individual and not with government therefore anarchy (or more specifically voluntaryism) is the only just system of social or economic organization.
The funny thing is Casey's proposal to randomly choose members of congress from the tax-paying part of the population would yield the same results (automatic term-limits implied) in a simpler way.
No, you've missed the point.
LetEmEat enumerated effective means for removing sociopaths from government (i.e. don't elect them!).
Ahh... that clears things up.
I am humbled, fer sure.
It's a damn near perfect plan, and we should get moving...
Where do I vote to not elect them?
The constitutional convention.
I think he was looking for a non-fictional venue in which to cast such a vote.
I'm sure someone in Philadelphia made similar comments in 1774, but here we are.
So we get to vote every couple of hundred years? That's a fine system.
We get to decide how (often) we vote every two hundred years (which is not to say that the potential for another convention has not been sitting in the document the entire two centuries).
Should we ever meet up at a constitutional convention the drinks will be on me. I hope you're not especially thirsty.
I'll hold you to that. One Sam Adams, please. ;)
You need perspective.
Go back to 1700 (not terribly long ago in the grand scheme of human history) and a majority of human beings were illiterate, believed that royal families were literally "divine," and took religious texts at literal face-value. The majority of "us" (non-elites) were slaves, serfs, peons, peasants, etc.
Free markets have been so rare because tyrannical governments would behead anyone who suggested that humans should all be equal before the law, or that oligarchs shouldn't have the right to state-enforced monopolies, or that governments should be responsive to the populace at-large instead of just commercial interests.
In the grant historical narrative, the Awakening of humanity is barely beginning and it is doing so in fits-and-starts (with the American revolutionary period and the U.S. in the 1800s being one of the high-water marks so far). We're just getting started. Just because we haven't gotten there yet doesn't mean we should stop the march.
I don't think your point is too controversial. Many of us recognize that at least some form of limited government is still a prerequisite to a sensible society at the present moment. The reason you get down-voted is twofold. First, many see you as running cover for 'social democracy' and other failed left-wing ideologies that have created just as much misery as the historical evils you depolore. Second, you fail to see the impracticality of your practical suggestions. You point out the rank corruption in government (bribery, lobbying, selling access, collusion) and your solution is to bring in *more* government to police the pre-existing corrupt government. How is that going to work? How are you going to guarantee that you're going to get "good people" in there to clean out and police the bad people? How are you going to guarantee that they won't be swallowed up by the same corruption?
The author of this article does not share your middle of the road viewpoint. He is an anarchist and many here lap up his zero or near-zero government drivle like it is fine coke as reflected throughout this thread. I do support the social democratic system. I don't buy for a moment that in a society as large as ours, voluntary charity could possibly replace government support for all of the elderly, infirm, poor, etc. A true free market society would quickly devolve into a rigid class system where the middle class would disappear almost completely. Robber barons unencumbered by rules would literally work people to death as they did in the early industrial revolution, and they would begin acting in very real ways like kings and queens. Those who want to do away with all social programs, labor rules, environmental laws, in my view are intentionally ignoring reality in favor of ideology. As for guarantees that the corruption rampant in our government can be reigned in versus throwing out the baby with the bathwater, there are no guarantees. It would take a generation and major changes in how politicians get elected.
The government appropriates every penny it uses to create the "safety net" from the very society which you believe is insufficienbt to the task of providing a safety net. If you are suggesting that society would be unwilling to provide voluntary charity and therefore the government must do so then you ask for a government which works against the will of the people. You can't have a government which is not evil if it has the power to effect massive social and economic change against the will of the people. Your system contridits itself in every respect.
The "quis custodiet..." rhetoric is nice, but you're really acting as a lame apologist for neofeudalism by your abuse of it.
The term limits lower the temptation of corruption and make it much more difficult to continue in perpetuity (sorry Chawlie Rangel).
The elimination of money as speech (via amendment, if necessary) would make for viable 3rd, 4th, etc parties (or are you of the opinion that RP is not "good people"?).
Are you saying you wouldn't vote for good people if they stepped forward?