Health of Nations

The divisions of labor, faced with fluctuating prices in the market flow, guides the Invisible Hand noted by Adam Smith. Communism, in other words, is the fantasy of the tired and starving, and thus, disillusioned people of whom foolishly fear any problematic factor involving the only economical system (capitalism) that will endorse the assurance of a nation’s freedom.

No factor is more perilous to the masses than that of socialism; it is merely a societal cop out — and I am aware of no system that has done more damage to the peoples it has served throughout history than that of communism. Even the French revolutionaries of 1789, like those in the politically powerful head-severing Jocobins, were stern fanatics of the Rousseauian vision comprised in the Social Contract — which is a primitive rendition of Marx and Engels’s Communist Manifesto.

Moreover, and not that I blame any single puppet in Washington, it was Bill Clinton that set the recession in motion. People tend focus on Bush’s deregulation of the market and assert it to be the cause, but if Clinton hadn’t repealed Glass-Steagall (not that the banking bill contained in it the power it did in 1933 at the time it was repealed in 1999), banks simply could not engage insofar as they currently do in speculative markets and the corruption of the democratic processes in this country.

Corporations and retailers of finance investing in the interests of government and government, in return, protecting the concerns of these institutions (cronyism) have created this problem — not capitalism. American’s lack of willingness to resist the oncoming Age of Acceptance, which is a euphemism that I find to be as insidious as the Committee of Public Safety or DHS, seems to be the most likely destination.

About these ads

Slave Ages

Market socialism (or pseudo-consumerism, as F.A. Hayek dubbed it) is crucial to understand, as it is where we are presently. America has entered the predicted serfdom financed by this system of Keynesian monetary ethics, but does the road that has led to it provide an outlet, or does it leave people to deeply mine for a desperate escape from Wigan Pier?

Capitalism, though unpopular to many people of whom do not understand it, allows for the free markets to work, but market socialism does the opposite, in that it restricts, not regulates, them. Reaction is the retort of defense, and to defend is to protect oneself from that which possesses the ability to inflict harm — usually against projected and propagated fear.

The more serious and aggressive the damage made possible by the potential harm, the more people grow accustomed and conditioned to face the likelihood of protesting oxygen. Market socialism, fascism, cronyism, whatever one calls it, has become the New Deal of the 21st century.

This is an age where the rich will rule with impunity over any of those who are not, and it is worth it for one to consciously keep the notion that this powerful group of affluent people care little about the state of humanity overall. They merely find it reasonable to protect themselves from losing their power to anybody — so the natural result will be totalitarianism.

This, in the end, is not about retaining democracy, as such a system cannot survive without capitalism, which, as said, allows for free markets to emerge, for it is only through these channels that America can recover the loss of freedoms.

The Statement

Originally posted on Matters in Mania:

“Animals, they are animals, I say — products of the most rotten breeding human kind has to offer. They protested me outside my home, threw eggs at my house and hissed and screamed at me, comparing me with swine — as though it is I who has begotten all of their miserable troubles.

“Look at them. They stand proudly in the very gutters they are at the same time looking to escape. They salivate over the dressings of my kind, yet they find me at error for tasting them. They are like Nero — children of the spoiled womb, and I am Claudius awaiting a poison plate.

“Those fools! What makes them think they can destroy my upstanding image? They will receive my vengeance. What makes them assume that I’m not coming to destroy them?

“Well, perhaps that is what they think, and so they’re attempting to dress me in…

View original 287 more words

Democratic Empires

Originally posted on Matters in Mania:

Empire building, as history shows, is no safe business to establish. And those throughout history who have taken on the task of world domination have left their legacies in ruins, which in itself attests a clear message.

Ancient Rome became an empire, for example, not because of Octavian, as Caesar Augustus did not create the conditions that engendered the Roman Empire. No. Summer weather exists in both July and August.

Although July generally reigns over the season in a milder way, it is still just as much a part of the season’s existence. But eventually the month of July sets into waters of the Mediterranean Sea, saturating the rising air of August.

Militant force, like the oppressive summer waves of heat, is always what negotiates the contractual captivity of people who cannot afford to guard their flesh from sunburn, and Julius Caesar was just as much a practitioner of force…

View original 3 more words

The Mafia Party

Originally posted on Matters in Mania:

The members of the US Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are akin to that of 2 mafia families and the division of powers within the organization to which all of whom belong. In fact, the US government, in order to secure its goals for obtaining power, uses tactics that differ little from the dictatorial characteristics involved in organized crime. Fear, intimidation and murder are all routes the government is willing to take if something has been by the party members collectively anointed as being bad for business. The scale of brutality and fear employed by these powers is not exactly prone to contain any intrinsic value — it is more a fiat currency. The economy has been taken over by criminals, who, like the mob, covet more of anything that determines them to be “exceptional.” Money purchases but a singular thing, which is of course power, and Lord…

View original 8 more words

A Rainy Vacation

The term “market reset” sounds, to the average ear, innocuous — but to assume this is a grave misnomer. The term is just another euphemism woven in to the fabric of the vast political line of rhetoric, and the definition of its actuality is acutely repugnant and stylishly disinclined.

Some major US banks, like Wells Fargo, have applied caps to the limits of money that can be withdrawn by any with whom hold funds in accounts with them.

One should regard actions such as this, which basically deny a depositor access to all his or her funds, as very disturbing — but it should also be considered a dark omen foreshadowing what is coming.

The limits have been set merely because the banks do not have enough capital in their reserves to assure depositors that their money is being safely kept. This illusion is further believed in because the FDIC claims that one’s money is protected by the government if anything unsavory should transpire.

The moral hazard promoted by FDIC was created to offer peace of mind to depositors of the Depression era, as it insures all deposits up to $250,000. But what it asserts is a fallacy, because the FDIC does not possess enough cash to cover all deposits.

The measures taken by Franklin D. Roosevelt, though some will disagree, in hindsight, were just gimmicks used by to sucker people into regaining confidence in putting their money in the hands of crooks.

In truth, the US government is out of money and, as it was in during the Great Depression, is completely incapable of insuring any deposits, because 40 plus billion dollars, which is the approximate sum of capital the FDIC has reserved, is far from being adequate enough to insure deposits that number in the trillions.

In fact, it is seeking a way to take money from people, not insure them, as the trillions of dollars in all those private accounts have become targets of sequestration for salivating politicians and corporate lobbyists.

In 1933, for example, FDR declared a what is called a “bank holiday,” meaning, summarily, that all of the nation’s banks were closed for a short but indefinite period of time. Nobody, as a result, could obtain their money until the banks reopened.

The people suffering from this could not afford to haggle with the president on the price of gold, and most people gave it over to the government without much resistance when it was demanded that they sell it their gold for the good of nation at $20.62 an ounce, after which the dollar was again pegged to gold at $35.00 an ounce.

The “bank holiday” enabled the government to devalue the dollar, and when the banks returned home and people were again able to access their money, they found that they had much less than they did before the banks locked their doors. The US government, in short, mugged its own people.

In the event of a “market reset,” games akin to those played out in ’33 are to again be played out in the future. The only difference is how the the wealth will be lifted from the US citizenry, because it won’t be gold that is confiscated, but credit.

As is the case in the bankrupt City of Detroit, the government will literally take a percentage of pension funds, 401Ks and other private bank accounts nationwide by devaluing the currency after banks close their already empty volts to the public, this way no one can prevent it from doing so.

This action will be the beginning of what will ultimately become a total economic collapse, because there countries are not quite as comfortable as they once were in investing in the dollar.

Only the Federal Reserve — whose only option is to create money comprised of debt that fewer and fewer have the confidence in to share — is buying US Treasury bonds, and even it is starting to engage in less of this activity. The coming months are likely to unveil the truth about the condition of the US economy, which is that it is in decay — not recovery.

The Debt is Set to Blow

Has the United States become a system poised to forever bear the burdens of debt? It is surely accurate to assert that such a task is much too difficult to accomplish. So the answer to the question seated in the former is that the system will at some point weaken and might collapse.

The debt is so heavy at this point that it cannot possibly be upheld. This is because the “solution” to the to the problem is not worthy of the a moniker. The “solution” is to infect the infected by way of quantitative easing, which is nothing more than money created out of debt held in bonds that are purchased by the Fed at the cost of 85 billion dollars a month until January of 2014.

This money is equipped to travel way beyond any realistic boundaries, because ethical economic guidelines have long since been a levied tax the government is unwilling to pay. What the government essentially does in order to maintain the economic illusion is not very different than someone spending loaned money and not paying it back to the lender.

Instead, the government just gets another lender to finance its debt — but it does not pay back the debt with the funds it borrows. In reality it just allocates it to various facets of the system, where it is spent — making it necessary to borrow more money.

This is a trend of bad consequences, as it has been throughout recorded history. The French Revolutionaries would not have found themselves drinking the blood of Louis XVI in the streets of Paris had they not suffered a long era of famine, after all. The debasement of currency means the displacement of society.

This usually provokes public ado, and force is traditionally the measure used in place of persuasion when maintaining the conditions of a broken and hostile society. Its use is akin to that of bombing commodity lucrative countries that use a monetary policy the Fed is unable to gain control over. No matter what, power needs to dictate.

Past is Present

Not everyone is apt to notice the enormous changes taking place in the United States, yet the effects of them can, as one struggles to make meager ends meet, be palpably discerned. Sometimes all one need do is stop and look at the world he or she seeing and question things for a minute.

“Why is it I work so much and have nothing?”… “Why, after years of schooling, am I working a job that requires that I apply none of the skills that I’ve acquired?”…”Why is it that the government suddenly feels the need to take care of me as though it knows me and what my personal needs are — or that it sincerely cares about what my needs are?” “Furthermore, why is it so interested about my Internet activity?” “Why is it that I am not allowed to determine where I am to stand in this world?”

These questions will not be appropriately answered, because it is not the people’s business to know the answers to them. This is, of course, paradoxical and might pique one’s interest to yearn for an explanation as to why, though no approval was given to the government by the people do so, it feels it has the right to spy on its citizens. In order to find answers to the above posed queries, history is the best place to investigate, because those presently at the helm will not expose the truth.

Neither the NSA nor any other limb of the government was conceived, as history mentions, to put the citizens it claims to protect and be subservient to under scrutiny — or at least that’s the word. Yet the more one ponders these questions, the easier it becomes to understand that perhaps the government is only protecting the interests of certain citizens, in that it is protecting its corporate citizenry — not the citizenry of the people. Because, as per Amendment XIV, corporations are considered just that — citizens.

The language regarding the American people was altered from the moment the 14th was adopted to the US Constitution in 1868 to refer to people as citizens, as to accommodate space for the idea that corporations were to also be considered citizens. And here begins the hegemony of what would ultimately become corporate dominance in the 21st century.

But societal control is no new form of lust, and the ancient historical text of Plato’s Republic can dignify this assertion. In the book it can be early understood that Socrates is suggesting in a dialectical way how to construct the perfect city (State), which in Plato’s mind means establishing a firm set of guidelines for all of the city’s people to live by.

This hypothetical city’s (a Utopia called Kallipolis that was to be presided over by philosopher kings) guidelines consisted of: indoctrination of the youth, doing away with poetry and art, propaganda (noble lies) and excluding any of whom did not fit the standards of being or becoming that of a Socratic letterman.

Of course when both Hitler and Stalin would much later in history discourse the realities of such a system, what resulted was the unveiling of the fact that no such system could exist without becoming tyrannical and genocidal.

Today, political and economic distress is taking place globally. And all signs warn that a worldwide dystopia is forming, that an economic collapse is on the loom and that fascism is back in fashion. If so, the times that humanity is to confront in the soon-approaching future will likely be difficult and perilous for the masses.

During Plato’s time, the destruction of democracy was open to bared eyes, he knew this and, being the extremist he was, devised what he considered to be an ideal society, living under the ideals of what he himself concluded was just. Submitting to totalitarianism has proven to be what human beings do when the existing system slowly deteriorates into ruin.

Today, it is the corporations and governments in this world that consider themselves the philosopher kings, who know what’s better for the rest of the people, and who make decisions about what is and is not ideal for the people. The issue is, though, that there is nothing ideal about slavery, extinguishing civil liberties and inhumanity.

Allusions to a Modern Love Song

Originally posted on Matters in Mania:

I would like to convey to the reader that the point of this poem is not to mock T.S. Eliot’s J. Alfred Prufrock, but, rather, mimic its integrity. It is meant to serve as a parody to a parody — as to revisit that which plagues us seems to be the ahistorical nature of human habits throughout the ages. The modern degeneration in society, its vices and the corporatist government that feeds it with an adequate diet of its materialistic desires has made America a culture lacking any. Every social illness is spreading, whether it be violence, crime, indifference, poverty, war, misplaced power over asinine and glutinous greed and a near-total disconnect with the valuable virtues laden in the arts and scripts left to be rediscovered in every age of the humanities. This is a course through the fog — and Virgilian guide is wading in the mist. Let the…

View original 820 more words

March Madness, 2014

March Madness happens every year. But in March of 2014 it may very well be the case that college basketball teams in the NCAA are not the cause of the madness. Instead, it might be reasonable suspect teams like the Bears and the Bulls to helm the charge of this very possible oncoming pandemonium — and not the ones from Chicago either.

Rather, it will be those that roam the corridors of Wall Street. The bookies in the firms lining New York’s financial sector will be making hysterical bets of sizable proportions if something suddenly urges the economy to crash, like a run on a major commercial bank.

If so, all bets will likely be bearish in character when it comes to the economy, because the injuries to it have not be given proper care — just a shot of steroidal numbness lest the game continue.

Yet certain investments, such as in gold, silver and other precious and semi-precious metals (copper), or in foreign currencies like the Russian Ruble, with likely be bullish wagers. The tail risk and moral hazards exist because, and declare as a result, that no bet is a lock.

Still, there are of course those who seem to think that QE measures are actually curing the injury, that there is real economic growth holding up the numbers, but the matter is as juiced up as Barry Bond’s home run records, in that the numbers have been fabricated and grossly inflated by the invented strength faux funds.

And just as in the case of Lance Armstrong and his arrogantly boasted recovery, none has been received at all, and the chance of recovery is as banished as Pete Rose is from baseball. The dollar is on its way to being banned from competition, and Charlie cannot keep up the hustle much longer.

What exactly will cause the collapse is not a privy notion, as debt mines are everywhere, and tripping over any of these many wired grounds will ultimately lead to a fall. Regardless, the stats are backed by nothing but debt and are the equivalent to betting on a limping horse.

For now it remains unclear as to when this global madness will formulate its fruition. Though, as has been reported by certain people like onetime Harvard Professor of Economics Terry Burnham, it may just take place in March, 2014, but the Fed has yet to pitch its last play. When it does happen, however, madness is surely a lock.

The False Advertiser

Originally posted on Matters in Mania:

Certainty is a gimmick of thought, but when it is bought into by irrational thinkers the value it possesses is depreciated when everything goes wrong. Trust has this notion of certainty up for sale everyday, and it never fails to sucker people into incorrectly assuming that it won’t fail.

It is an idea that has everything to do with everything — whether large or particular. The key is turned by one who expects the vehicle to start. The flip is switched with the certainty that the lights with go on. The button is pushed on the elevator with the assured feeling that one will be let off on the floor that he or she desires to be on.

It is not until these certainties are challenged that one will know what to do in order mend an issue: to wit — see a mechanic, change the light bulb, yell for…

View original 108 more words

The Fashion Show

Originally posted on Matters in Mania:

The hardest values to live by are those that are engendered by principles that are not coined based on the valuations of personal views.

The majority of society agrees upon certain conditions with which to live within. The truth is a perceived reality, lacquered in a coating and fitted into the workings of time and space.

The nominal reality, however, is that most people have to maintain a fronted self to those also living under the guidelines of this generic perception. An accepted form of reality must be crafted in order to consistently convey to others an understanding of the moral codes patterned in the design of a “proper identity.”

Coercive and manipulative economic and political tactics, like Internet spying, are crafted to enforce the people to engage in a blind participation of unquestioned common beliefs. Some of these people include those who are not tailored of the same fabric…

View original 47 more words

Unseen Perceptions

Originally posted on Matters in Mania:

To engender the notion, perse, as the thing in itself may exemplify, that Immanuel Kant was, in fact, correct in his findings, thus, too, is Arthur Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer, who was, yes, a supporter of the Kantian perception that all in existence inhabit 2 worlds that are essential synergistic ingredients in the formula of existence: 1) phenomenal, which is the world apparent to people’s perceptions in terms of time, space and causality — making conceptual knowledge adherent to determine conclusions concerning its perceptions.

2) nominal, which rests its assertion firmly on non-representational knowledge to be cultivated by means only of which pertain to the repealing of the prohibition laid to constitution by Kant.

And the first valid burden to the context of Kant’s condition was Schopenhauer’s contention that such a impediment could, in theory, be circumvented by avenues laden in the fabric of what can be distinguished ultimately — even if…

View original 83 more words

The Health of a Dynasty is Depedent on the Public

It seems as though, presently, because of the government’s fondness for its corporate offspring and all their massive success and affluence around the world, that its other begotten citizens have ceased to be distinguished as people.

The durable knit of relationships between government and corporations has cast off the rest society and orphaned it to serve this Cinderella State and the list of chores determined by its step-siblings in the 14th Amendment.

Obamacare, then, being that it is big citizen taking from small citizen under the guise of governmental demand, cannot be considered socialized medicine, as that would require the efforts of socialism to be at work. Socialism, as it so often has been, is merely a red herring.

The fact that one is required by the State to buy health insurance from private institutions demonstrates that the Affordable Care Act is merely cronyism between the State and its favored class of children, but the State would be the sole health provider if it were actually socialism.

But what is actually happening is wholly different. What can be seen, ultimately, is yet another glimpse at the development of totalitarianism in America. Fascist implementations do not adhere to the liberty of the individual, but to the liberty of the crooks — big brothers preying on the vulnerabilities of their siblings.

Yet in order to protest the mandates of the government, one must take the issue to the businesses that contrived the reasoning behind the issuing of them.  To wit: make the grievances bad for business, not for government.

Large numbers of people voicing displeasure with a specific corporation for a specific and significant reason will threaten its profit margin — which is its sole concern. The baker contends that bread requires dough to bake it, after all, but without demand for bread, the oven is rendered useless.

Duck Dynasty fans, for instance, made business bad for Cracker Barrel when it removed merchandise representing the show from its Country Store shelves, after a member of the Dynasty cast made what are to manly inflammatory statements conversing homosexuality.

The show’s fans proved dismayed over the actions taken, however, and the aggressive posturing of the show’s fan base toward Cracker Barrel’s politically correct PR grab led the restaurant-chain to worry more about losing profits, and it promptly changed its mind.

The government is elderly and dependent on its legacies to nurture its continued survival, but the corporate kids were given over the assets of the estate in its living will, and unless they are somehow made to change their minds, the government will continue to allow them to live in the estate’s luxuries until they burn the place down.

Philosophical Crossroads

Originally posted on Matters in Mania:

Roads that intersect can be dangerous and are, thus, difficult to cross at times.  This inconvenient circumstance is ardently so when they are ventured by vast passengers meshed in entangling routes of travel.

However, business aside, if the path heretofore ends at this point, navigating around the trafficked paths can be discerned as that of an absurdly unreasonable fare tolled to roam them.  Remaining still, though, is self-denial — which escapes the consequence of the will with which life is driven to comply.

Yet very few devout societal evangelists, it seems rational to conclude, are prone to Buddhistic contemplation.  Most people are conditioned to strive to reach the highest level possible, like those that make up the dialectic stages of an increasingly complex video game.

Still, an avid gamer is doubtful urgent to be resigned to feelings of satisfaction in the idea of never again playing the game due to…

View original 47 more words

Mythical Ideologies: Distorting Perceptions

On October 17, 2013, after a 16-day government shutdown, certain Republican members of Congress and President Obama were able to compose their disdain for each other.  On the day of the deadline, both parties agreed to open for business on the condition that the debt ceiling be raised.

No matter where one turns, from the media to the press to the web, opinion polls rendering the idea that Tea Party members. Thus, the people polled, who obtained their information from any 1 or more of these sources, blames the republican party for the recent government shutdown.

This is an example that accurately demonstrates how commentary reiterated throughout these various forms of news outlets molds the malleable opinion log of public testimonials.  Of course it is true that both Libertarian and moderate republicans in Congress caused the shutdown — that goes without saying.

Yet the dogma preached by these different conservative sects of whom discovered a symbiotic common voice is not, on its own, enough to shutdown the government. There needs to be a counter opinion in order to allow this type of situation to even justify using this recourse — there would have been no conflict if not for liberal opposition.

That truth alone eliminates the idea that red end of the aisle is the only side shelving the inventory for sale — as liberals were in no real position to say no to raising the debt ceiling. The government has no money to pay back its lenders, and no party is obliged to suffer default.

Each party needed the other, and what can be discerned from all this is that it takes a deliberate, bipartisan gimmick in order to sell the intended image to the public. Polling the opinions of the corrupted dupes the perceptions of the masses.

So it was a tremendous staring contest between the democrats and republicans, and ideologies on both ends were given to endanger their sakes. But a troubling condition to arise out of the shutdown is who the general public seems to be holding accountable for its taking place.

The president is quite skilled when it comes to extemperaneous speeches, and when he gives it his all, he is very insidious in his methodology to let the wrong impression impress people. The media is also guilty of aiding President Obama in helping him achieve what is a great deception to the citizen of the US.

Obamacare, once again, was rendered as a cause to wage a battle between the liberals and conservatives, and the generic understanding among people is that republicans, specifically the Tea Party, are to blame for shutting down the government. But no single party is to blame — both are.

What seems to be probable is that the sole purpose of the shutdown was contrived in order to raise the debt ceiling — and this point is clear. What the media and press are forgetting to mention is that both parties were not merely involved in closing down the place, but were eager to do so, and both wanted the roof raised.

It is reasonable to speculate that the US government is becoming insolvent, and that the only way to sustain it is to continuously dump more debt into the system in order to fund its functionality. But it seems to be obvious that the government is incapable of being able to coherently function.

Economic Descent

It is increasingly understandable that Americans are nearing the edge of everything they have been bread and baptized to condone as truth. Things are not going to improve economically, and it is deranged thinking to expect to recover from a recession that hasn’t been addressed, only expanded.

There is now a 100% chance that the United States of America will soon find itself in an economic disaster — and a wealthy figure of people do not possess an inkling of what is about to unfold within the next few years.

A gigantic reason people won’t see it is because the profound voices of the media and press will speak on the behalf of the assurance that everything is fine. Troubled, yes, but fine — this is the institutions of propaganda’s way to placate the idea of the disease, not the disease itself.

The media and press are the entities that inject viral anticipation and fear into society, and promote everything that is of minor relevance to what need crucially be candid. One’s mind discovers news without substance to be the equivalent of an empty stomach that receives no food.

Whether it is inflationary or deflationary, no matter how the collapse occurs, the 1 certainty is that it will collapse, because ventures of mass borrowing and inflating result in a faux money supply in order to serve the demands of a GDP — not consumers. The consumers get taxed via inflation due largely to the borrowing of money backed by US debt secured in Treasury bonds, coupled with an unproductive GDP. In light of the enormous inflation, less and less people have the resources that allow them to neither consume nor save.

It can be surmised that the government shutdown was contrived by both parties so it would appear legitimate to raise the debt ceiling — again.  It seems that this approach will be a guide into hell, and hyperinflation vs. deflation is immaterial when either form of normality settles in. A runaway balloon taken by the wind would be just as perilous if it were to lose the hot air governing its flight, and the passenger(s) would likely want off.

Shutting Down: The US Dollar

Obama remains hopeful that Congress will use its common sense, but in a house perpetually divided — as the 2-party system maintains it is — there cannot exist a common sense — as neither party feels the same. Albeit, the government shutdown seems to hover more around the government spending budget than Obamacare.

President Obama is, arguably, looking to raise the debt ceiling because it would nurture the growth of the Affordable Care Act — as it is now available to anyone regardless of the shutdown. The fight is an issue without backing, and it is a worthless venture to spend time on funding that battle.  The shutdown seems to be the media and press’ choice of topic, so it is therefore a likelihood it might all just be a ruse — a false argument manufactured and sold to the public.

The focus on republicans should veer its speculation to the left as well, as neither the democrats nor the republicans are against the Affodable Care Act — as they all stand to benefit due to the growth that will be incurred in the private insurance market — that people are being forced to buy.  But not always understood is that it is employers who have to purchase and divvy out health care insurance to their employees — but what does it cost?

It really all depends on the size of the business and whether or not an employer requires many hands to balance its overall dexterity.  But this puts the employer in a position to downsize and not hire as many workers, resulting in an increase in unemployment.  Plus the employer has to get the money to pay for the insurance itself from someplace, so it will mean that wage rates won’t go up so “free” health care can be paid for — but prices fostered by inflation will go up simultaneously.

The dollar is worth nothing anymore due to there having been too much of it risked in bets under its name. But the Fed driving down interest rates in order to allow for the unethical creation of money makes it lose its value, because there is nothing that can vouch for its worth when all the fake wealth created by inflation manifests itself in the cost of consumer prices.

What seems to have been left out of the budget talks is that the debt ceiling is a euphemism that defers the notion that the US economy is out of money because inflation has reached its maximum. The deeper motive behind Obama’s refusal, it can be surmised, is that the easing of QE is now being suited for disguise — pushing the public to look at the healthcare bill — which is a bill that’s already been allocated to taxpayers and upheld by the Supreme Court.

It also seems reasonable to mention that the car chase/shooting incident on Capitol Hill took place when everybody had the day off.  All these distractions belie the idea that there is simply not enough money to pay for things like parks and other programs and functions attached to government spending. As much money as possible has to find its way into funding the system to keep it afloat for the moment, so shutting down the government opens up access to the looting of those funds, one can say.

Perhaps some of these functions may never again be operational — remaining temporarily out of service until the dollar dies and the bond market subsequently bursts. Of course consumer spending is permitted and encouraged to continue. Yet, assuming that the context of this analysis is creditable, when Fed Chairman Ben Bernake steps down in January, 2014 — after all the holiday spend fests have subsided and credit interest rates are massively inflated — there’s a possibility that the collapsing economy will remove its recovered-patient costume, and no care will be provided to its sickly state.

War: A Good Cause?

What is a just cause, and under the authority of whose discretion is it proper to acclaim that a cause be deemed just? Charities, for instance, especially non-for-profits, are very often suspect in their usage of the funds raised, and then worked into some kind of budget in order to profit from them.

The charity may, yes, donate a portion of the proceeds it collects to those in need and/or in search of what those funds are capable of affording. The other money is squandered about, for administrative costs, various expenditures on things like permits and renting properties for which to hold their charitable fests.

Other costs are incurred by T-shirts, hats, etc., branded by the charities logo in order to payoff production costs, which makes it easier to skim off the top of the budget and fatten the pockets of many others involved in running so-called charitable affairs — which is not activity that’s unusual when large budgets are set — in any arena. This is especially true when these budgets charter large donations of federal money.

Charities intoxicated with federal funds are like government sponsored enterprises, and become ridden with bureaucracy and financial corruption until they get into trouble — the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did — and ultimately come under the full proprietorship of the government. In fact, former US President George W. Bush, in 2002, declared the government back the Congressional-fab Fannie and Freddie affordable lending programs as a socialistic encouragement for home ownership to those who could not afford a down payment — charity indeed.

As a just cause, is just a cause, really — and the recent events surrounding the invasion of Syria are perfect examples of this contention, in that the government deems invading Syria as being the proper approach in order to justify the virtues of its causes. Yet the only virtues have only to do with appeasing the causes of special interests.

The vast amount of the US citizenry see the invasion as yet another attack on the nation’s economic recovery, yet the government has already made commitments to the arms industry, so war with Syria, and then with Iran, is inevitable. Lawn mowers would be difficult to sell, after all, without there being any grass to cut. The arms industry depends on war in the same way, and hundreds of billions of dollars go to fund a business that earns only the burdens of debt and death.

US foreign policy contributes immensely to domestic inflation, and military spending has emerged itself to lead to disastrous debt — setting limits on the potential of what that same money could do for useful efforts of various kinds in both the US and abroad. But instead more money is borrowed, while the Fed bank-rolls the infrastructure with bogus, theoretical money. On top of this, commercial bank’s use of demand deposits keeps interest-free money coming in, and going out with a price tag.

Another shaky, though seemingly mighty, economy is China’s. Its GDP is swelling due to the constant construction of massive pieces of real estate that make up cities that house almost no residents — using cronyism to lure investors — because prices, as a result of over-building, are too high for ordinary Chinese people to afford, as most of them make only between $6,000 and $10,000 yearly.

But there are not remotely enough investors to keep up with the supply, so the balance sheets are all baring signs that China’s economy will fail in the near future. It is a sufficient assumption to query, due to slowing economic growth, that even if the Chinese government starts easing prices in an attempt to attract more buyers, it will not attract enough of them.

Because it is a communist, thus, exporting country, it is wholly dependent on the global economy, which would provide minimum help due to the fiscal crisis plaguing the entire world presently, and the Chinese funds the US merely to keep things going. It is Geo-political quid pro quo between the world’s 2 major superpowers.

When it does fail, the whole world will feel it, and poverty levels will blast off — much like they did during the French Revolution in 1789. Luis XVI and his frivolous handling of France’s economy — such as financing the American Revolution in order to vicariously defeat the British as payback for losing the 7 Years War to them. What followed was social unrest and rioting provoked mainly by starvation.

Fearing that Louis XVI would declare Martial Law because of the spreading unrest, spurred on further by “enlightened voices”, like Maximilien Robespierre and George Danton, a revolution began. But things would not turn out well for the French under the rule of such men, as it is well known. What seems to be needed is a period of enlightenment of the American people, and for the people to form a revolution that uses not bombs and guns, but civil disobedience.

Peaceful non-cooperation and the invoking of the exuberant rejuvenation of the humanities which have throughout history provided the measures of societal evolution by limiting the tolerance of the banking industries role in economic policy. But returning to the basic practices that once made America a nation that people once revered not feared is required in order to truly progress as a global community.

The United States Bill of Rights: In Modern Terms

BILL of RIGHTS, Amendment I: Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition (1791)

Congress shall have the power to make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Congress cannot lawfully prevent the creation of any religion, and it cannot, once a religion is created, hinder its survival in any way, such as burdening it with any cost or taxation; nor can it disallow any speech — whether vocal or written; nor is it allowed to deter or force groups of non-violent protesters from drawing up petitions and/or gathering in order to convey to the government that it wishes to have an issue corrected.)

BILL of RIGHTS, Amendment II: The Right to Bear Arms (1791)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(Citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms incase the country finds itself under the attack of a foreign or domestic enemy.)

BILL of RIGHTS, Amendment III: Quartering of Troops (1791)

No soldier shall, in times of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in times of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.

(Without the passing of a law that states otherwise, no military person can hole up in any house without the owner’s permission — during neither periods of peace nor of war.)

BILL of RIGHTS, Amendment IV: Searches and Seizures (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrants will issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.

(Citizens are to contain the right to privacy over their individual affairs and possessions of various kind, and they do not have any obligation to submit to any searches or seizures that a court of law has not issued a warrant endorsing the allowance of; and without the proof of apparent probable cause, warrants of such nature are not to be issued, and any warrant that is issued must specify where and who is to be searched and/or seized based on the premise of apparent unlawful activity.)

BILL of RIGHTS, Amendment V: Rights of the Accused; Property Rights (1791)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except on cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in times of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(No one is to be held accountable for any serious crime, of any degree, unless a Grand Jury finds reason to indict any person accused with having committed a crime (innocent until proven guilty), but military personnel are subject, during periods of war (active service) to laws set by the military entities (i.e. US Navy) with whom they associate; nor can someone be tried for the same crime twice if he or she has once been found not guilty of it (double jeopardy); nor is permissible to in any way coerce a person to incriminate his- or herself, and one can plead the 5th in order to circumvent doing so; nor can private property change ownership unless purchased at a fair and agreed upon price first.)

BILL of RIGHTS, Amendment VI: Additional Rights of the Accused (1791)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

(In criminal trials of any gender, those who have been formally charged with a crime have a right to bring and contest the accusations of both the state and local authorities before an unbiased jury, and the accused are to be tried in the district and, thus, state in which said crime is to have taken place, as per law; and to explain just what the charges are against, and why they are being brought up on, any of the accused; and to allow the accused to have a chance to question any witnesses making assertions that name him or her as being guilty; and to be able to question any person with whom may contain evidence that may vouch for the innocence of the accused; and to the the right of the providence of legal assistance.)

BILL of RIGHTS, Amendment VII: Civil Suits (1791)

In suits at common law, where the value of the controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.

(The laws upholding the status quo for civil suits are to be recognized by the legal system when the dispute is a sum of 20 dollars or greater; and the right to bring the the case before a jury is to remain applicable to those who seek the use of it; and no attempts to alter a case that a jury has determined can be made by any court in the United States unless the law set by the precedents of the status quo permits it so.)

BILL of RIGHTS, Amendment VIII: Bails, Fines, and Punishments (1791)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fine imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

(It is not a requirement that an inflated bail be set in most cases of criminal kind, nor will any fines exceed what the law has prescribed, nor can one be sentenced to inhumane punishments.)

BILL of RIGHTS, Amendment IX: Rights Not Listed (1791)

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others pertained by the people.

(The listed rights displayed in the Constitution cannot be made to hinder other rights held by the people that are not listed.)

BILL of RIGHTS, Amendment X: Powers Reserved to the States and People (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or the people.

(The Constitution cannot hand out or prohibit laws it has not founded, and it cannot discourage the states and people from decisions they reserve the right to either make or not make.)

Reasonable Speculation

The example I am to use here is tied to the theme of the subject matter — that being the question “what happened on 9/11?” Well, as I have concluded in cases prior to this, I deliberately do not speculate beyond reason and cannot configure the sum total of such a complex question.

Those who do go beyond pointing out the sketchy circumstances, and who often use the very same fear tactics as the mainstream media to accomplish alerting the public to act (usually based on bias political agendas) in ways that bolster fear and concern in a persuadable public. This practice produces more addled than quality results, because it only provides people with an ideological perspective.

Though I feel inclined to make it clear that, yes, people should be afraid — but not because of terrorism. People need to be wary about the country America is becoming by virtue of its government’s quest to financially conquer the planet, and their forcing people to a live under the guidance of a false reality will relegate them to live their lives like that of an obedient employee under the control of a corporate surveillance state.

None of the above mentioned is untrue, as Sir. Edward has demonstrated, and it does raise reasonable questions that have either gone unanswered or were given to assert validity in something that is in truth devoid of that very virtue. It is due to these discrepancies that I am inclined to the hold the opinion that there are 2 different species of speculation: pure and reasonable. The issue with reasonable speculation is that very often pure speculation is derived out of it, and it is precisely here that a wake separates the tide.

A huge sector of the debaters on the official story’s side disavow the notion, merely because those dubbed “truthers” lack tangible evidence that one would require in order to prosecute the crime in a US court of law, that no story other than the official version can be true. Yet in principle, if a detective has a golden hunch about the identity of a killer who has left behind no solid evidence, it doesn’t mean that all other possible motives that point at the suspected killer mean nothing and shouldn’t deter one from pondering, as being found not guilty does not portend innocence.

The argument over 9/11 will likely never abridge a coherent view, so getting too deep into pure speculation is a faulty concept. Reasonable speculation is resulted by the persuasion of disbelief or scepticism in something. Pure speculation, in contravention, comes from a devout belief in something which cannot be verified. In reality, those with extreme views on either side of the debate hold beliefs that cannot render evidence to convey a satisfactory answer.

But as Oscar Wilde once put it: “The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.” So to suppose the that truth is impure and complicated is not something obscure in its reason. The truth matters to people, so they don’t care to spy on a grotesque truth that horrifies their collective vision. It cannot be that everything happens for a reason, but that a reason is sought in everything that happens. On this merit, a closer look is too seductive to turn away from.

For instance, if somebody were to tell me the sky is green when I am aware that it is not the case, I’m inclined to surmise that there is jest in the assertion and would, if the subject were further pushed, need to attain some proof of the claim by looking outside to see for myself. My knowledge has never known the sky to be the color green, and it is a perceptual consensus that the sky is blue. So it would be reasonable for me to hold doubts concerning what I am being told unless it can be proved.

The only outcome that I can arrive at by simply seeing a green sky is that it isn’t normal, to arrive at any farther destination would be going too far. But my wonders could be concluded by making a phone call or 2, but to immediately suppose something sinister based merely on the sky’s color would be considered pure speculation, and it answers nothing.

But no matter the side of the debate one is on, there are other ways of looking at it. When the first plane hit the North Tower, because such instances are rare, the possibility that the crash was accidental is more to the tune of what most people were noting to be the case at first, along with astonishment.

But when another plane crashed into the South Tower 18 minutes later, it was immediately apparent that the first crash was not an accident. People did not know why these things were taking place or who was behind them, they just knew that, because it is not something that happens regularly in the first place, 2 planes crashing into the towers that made up the WTC on the same day cannot not be coincidental.

To wit: no commentary would be necessary in order to know that what took place was intentional. So without getting into the semantics bolstered by the studies and findings concerning the presence of military-grade thermite — a compound made from aluminum powder, sulfur, iron oxide and barium, and used by demolition experts — in the ashes of the 3 separate buildings that are said to have collapsed from inward bowing of steel beams due to extreme heat caused, curiously enough, by low oxygen fires.

No buildings, aside from the Twin Towers and Building 7, have ever collapsed due to fire — no matter what the causes or how hot the fires were — just as no planes ever crashed into the same structures on the same day before. The only building structures to fall the way those 3 did are ones that were imploded by demolition teams.

So the fact all the buildings fell in a way that doesn’t make much sense is really begging one to speculate, and in this case I feel obliged to think that something is very amiss. No theory can solve this debate, and I don’t pretend to know what happened. I do feel, though, that a story lacking sense is usually a lie, and recent times will show that the government is prone to lying to its people when it is beneficial to.


After working for 9 hours, while driving home, I ran into traffic. Being that I take this same route home every night, which is in the 10:30pm realm, I know the that a traffic jam was not due to congestion, as there are not enough cars on the road at that time of night.

So if not caused by an accident, road hazard or construction, the most likely cause for the traffic, at least to me, is that it was caused by cops conducting a DWI check point — which it was.

I, first of all, completely disagree with the idea of checkpoints — as they are a total waste of taxpayers’ money. The fact is that the only way to stop drunk driving is to outlaw driving — not alcohol.

It is not a secret that crime worsened as a direct result of prohibition, because by forcing a public that in large part wanted to consume alcohol to not do so made it so that, merely based on the merits of its illegal status, only criminals could sell, manufacture and distribute it.

Those criminals were people like Chicago mob boss Al Capone, who was obviously a touch inclined to permit murders and massacres as ways to protect his interests.

Regardless, my guts were telling me it was a checkpoint, and after some movement forward, I was able to see police and a sign indicating that it was indeed a checkpoint.

The next feeling to render itself in me was that they were going to stop me, and I again proved to be correct. Yet the issue with this is the fact that I was made to pull over to the side of the road based solely on the criterion that I was the 5th car in the procession since the last car pulled over, according to them — which holds in its possession no Constitutional sense.

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution decrees that any rights not listed in Constitution are to be reserved by the State and its citizens. So being that State and municipal governments make the laws not listed, they will be more use this amendment.

But the 9th Amendment stipulates that any rights not listed in the Constitution “shall not be construed to deny or disparage” my pursuits as a “Free” American citizen — whether listed or not listed.

My right to breathe air is a right not listed, for example, but due to its necessity, it doesn’t need to be Constitutionally stipulated, and no court of Law would allow the prohibition of breathing air. So why should it be OK to construe the disparaging denial of my 4th Amendment rights?

Probable cause of criminal activity must be apparent in some style, thus, if it there are no grounds for reasonable suspicion, I should not be made to pull over and face more scrutiny based only on the position that I happen to be driving the 5th car, as that is not grounds for suspicion.

When I assumed that it was a checkpoint and that the I would be pulled to the side, I was not wrong — but I could have been. It was all based on the possibilities of gut guesses, and the cops pulling me to the side is no different in principle. There is only a possibility that I’ve done something criminal, yet nothing to suggest it at all.

If these are grounds for suspicion, than the world is traveling over a turnpike, and it won’t be long till “Stop and Frisk” becomes a common toll to pay. I know this is not, nor will it ever be again, the nation has time and again sustained a restive image. Foreign policy, on either side of the aisle, has only been dramatically increased since Obama took office and allows for the advancement of invasive government oversight of its own citizens.

Imagine: a Constitutional lawyer, like the president, who denounced the Patriot Act when he was a senator, upholding a document that holds policies not very different than those policies Stalin used to enslave his own people in the Gulag system he set up, where an estimated 8 million people perished by way of starvation and execution. On this merit, it appears to me that a person familiar with the Constitution, insofar as Obama is, would qualify as a wealthy asset to any of whom are seeking its depletion.

How is it that this happens? How is it the once important role the President of the United States played out on multiple stages of the world now wears shoes that cannot reach the stage, constantly being pulled by the strings of special interests who are interested only in war and imperialism in order to extend of their power’s reach? How is this America anymore?

I am doubtful that the empirical persona America has adopted is anything less than Octavian, and that there will be heirs to the thrown that fall, in terms of character, greatly short of anything that resembles the qualities of the character that once embodied the American Dream. We are now the bystanders to the greatest theft in history — the theft of our sovereignty — and only the guilty are free. To me, there can be no greater irony than this.

The Principles of Activism

Many problems exist in this world, and vary in kind, so extinguishing them all would be impossible. The subject of which I am, here, to criticize is not done with acerbic ambitions, but more so to establish a principle that I feel stands in the way of any justification that determines to stray away from it.  Also,1 issue can spawn other issues to develop in the process.

This can be seen in trade, as many feel it should be regulated in order to defy any unethical practices for which corporations are known to exploit. The government can step in and put regulations into effect that attempt to disallow any inhumane practices, but it won’t.

A mistake people make is to dub these problematic externalities as being caused by the free market and its manipulated fluctuations, but the actual causes are the restrictions placed on the market by government — like tariffs on imports and exports, among other taxes and manufacturing fees.

A corporation’s only goal is to make large profits, and so cheap labor is sought. But if the market was not so hindered by government involvement and did not enforce costs on trade in the first place, the current deplorable sectors of cheap labor would likely be less sought after — or workers might earn higher wages, but all that would depend on the character of an individual corporation and what government allows it to get away with — which is a lot as long as the government gets its share.

Based on principle, such activity is really little different than consumers seeking cheaper prices for domestic goods and services, such as household items. And if it were occur that the price of an item in a store that’s nearby is just a bit more expensive than the same item is at a store miles away, the extra cost offered by the closer store will not, generally speaking, matter that much because it is less hassle to get there.

So many who are unsatisfied with the outcomes capitalism do not espouse the fact that greed is the actual culprit — but greed is not a symptom of capitalism. Greed is prone to stain the appetites of all species, and it is a major trait in humans and exists, in consequence, as a crucial part of economical and political systems run by human beings.

But the point here is that out of 1 issue there arrives another, as regulating trade means that further regulations will be made to keep corporations from participating in unethical practices that trading regulations have provoked them to practice in the first place.

But the topic at hand has yet been broached, because I wanted to first point out why certain areas are overlooked. In this example, it is because the truth about the free markets would dismay a cause that’s set in opposition to them. It is not to offend anyone, but put it into perspective, what urges many unpopular outcomes to arise — activism.

I make this accusation firmly, as what is an activist group? It is a group of individuals fighting for a cause deemed good — but for who is it good? Political parties are made up of individuals who boast about intentions that they deem as being good causes, but every political party has its adversaries.

Corporations are also groups made up on individuals with a common goal — which, as I have established, is to make a profit, but many unsavory meals are fed to the people they exploit.

Activists play the same game as these other bodies, yet somehow feel as though when they claim to be defending those who can’t defend themselves, they are saying something different than what elitist say about society, or what the government claims when it invades third world countries.

Further hypocrisy is apparent when protesters gather. For instance, I read an article not long ago about activists causing a highway to shut down as they stood in the middle of the it — causing a massive traffic jam. This would cause one to think about how many individuals were stopped from getting where they needed to be, like at their jobs, because a group of activists decided that it was the right thing to do.

Activists are prone to using force and coercion to get their way or message across, despite what others might feel about the cause, which seems rather bias and selfish and rhetorical. Like government and corporations, there are many instances in which activism has provided aid to help redress many problems — and no revolution or strike or reformation could have taken place without them, but activists, generally speaking, are in many ways fanatical and no different than any other system comprised of bullies and benefactors.

Capitalism Doesn’t Hurt People, Corporations Misusing It Hurts People

There are plenty of political and economical theories that exist is this world — none of which are completely infallible. And it is always roomy enough to debate these issues, in fact, inviting rational debate is a necessity to the standard of free thinking.

No theory can exist without the cooperation of a proposal that stands in negation to it. Thriving in this topic, for example, is an idea that conveys formidable aid to anyone arguing in favor of capitalism, but what is there to argue if no one offers a counter to this argument?

It seems advisable to remark that dismissal of an opinion requires that the person dismissing it have an adversarial opinion with which to negate the former’s conclusion on any given matter.

The way in which to view anybody who has constructed a strong and admired, thus, controversial, point of view is with a respectful approach — not with petulant reproach. What’s being argued is more pertinent to a debate than to what those who are engaged in arguing it are.

Of course one is always going to favor the mechanics of certain kinds of thinking over others, but to not listen to an opponent’s side is wholeheartedly irrational. Synergistic endorsement on every side is crucially essential to all causes and effects.

One, for instance, might agree with Noam Chomsky’s valuations concerning the immoral externalities of corporations — like that of Monsanto and Dow — and their degrading exploitation of foreign and domestic workers and societies, because they are no doubt true. What many would argue, though, as Milton Friedman did, is that the market itself is not to blame for troubling outcomes.

The government not combating the actions undertaken by corporations in order to save on expenses does inflict consequences that Chomsky, of course, clearly points out. There is no denying that Monsanto was at fault for the resulting health effects that derived out of Agent Orange.

The issue with the result was that the Vietnamese affected were left alone to deal with the brutal chemical’s legacy, only American sufferers were able to settle suits with Monsanto.

But Friedman, who was for free market enterprise and privatizing business, was steadfast in his economic convictions. The logic, Friedman would argue, is always rooted in the underlying principle on any given matter. And what can be discerned in this matter is that, ultimately, externalities are the principle issue here.

The nature of the market is not contrived to enable the character traits of a major corporation. Monsanto’s disposition finds nothing wrong with poisoning the milk supply by injecting cows with rBST. This procedure is practiced so that more milk can be produced from each cow, and simply because demand for milk is lower than the supply of milk — which is why it is so expensive.

This price fixing scheme, at first, appears to be influenced by the market, as making a profit is all that matters to corporations, but the decision to operate in a disreputable way was not a decision made by the market — it was made by Monsanto.

Government’s failure to defuse situations like the Exxon Valdez oil spill from recurring is what allows corporations to manipulate and grossly misuse the advantageous free market. Yet — despite any proof that is illuminated to dispute the idea that the market is responsible — the blame is placed on capitalism.

Truthfully, capitalism does not operate in a way that is really much different than that of an interstate highway route. To wit: the interstate highway system has lanes, signs, directions, inlets and outlets and other various guidelines enforced by both the local and State governments through which it passes.

Like the market, the highway has a flow, and fluctuations in the speed limits set the tone for drivers participating in the flow. Without being heavily regulated by police, most individuals will honor, give or take, the visible signs mandating the speed. This is a minor regulation that is not at all invasive and can arguably display that deregulation is, too, not the cause of corporate decorum.

Amendment XIV allows for corporations to count as people. As individual people, most will seek insurance to protect themselves and their property from liability in case of any unforeseen accidents that might occur down the road, or they with buy AAA policies in order to avoid having to pay the hefty cost of a tow.

Purchasing insurance policies are measures people take — and would take even if it were optional to — in order to protect their interests. People buy insurance for their smart phones even though it isn’t a law to do so. The reason why they buy insurance is in order to externalize their costs to the insurance company if something goes wrong.

People protecting their investments is as ordinary as daylight. Seeking protection is neither selfish nor greedy, and it is perfectly understandable and necessary in terms of common logic to do so. When someone is caught breaking the rules of the road, then the law will perform its role in penalizing the offender.

Likewise, being that corporations technically count as people, then they should be held accountable by governmental laws for any inhumane or unethical practices that they opt to risk using, enforcing an ultimatum strategy that asserts failure of compliance as being tantamount to jumping off a cliff without a parachute.

Make the penalty firm, plain and mandatory: play by the rules or fail, just like any other individual.  It would take minor policing of them if those were the terms.  But, like drivers, some are going to engage in traffic infractions regardless of what the law demands.

There are of course going to be times when a rule-breaker, say a drunk driver, will cause a crash that will bring inconvenience to many others also using highway, especially those involved in the crash itself. But a traffic jam might go on for miles, depending on the magnitude of the crash.  This makes it so others will have to suffer for 1 person’s mistake, yes, but things will start moving again once the aftermath of the crash is moved out of the way, so it is no use to freak out over traffic, it willl only make this, a bad experience, worse.

The only difference is that the intoxicated driver will be confronted with real consequences, including guilt, whereas corporations will not. The government, being that it has has been bought off by corporations, will do nothing to punish the unlawful actions of big business, and so the market is used as a scapegoat, when it is really just a highway on which to speedily make money. The market is there to be used, but it is susceptible to being misused all the same.

Bet the Debt

Say one were to borrow $1,000 from a friend based only on the promise that one (the borrower) pay the amount lent out by the friend back in full, on a specific date. The need to ask for more in return on top of the loan would not usually be demanded by a friend issuing funds to a friend, because, as in this case, the 2 are close friends and have no intention of making money off each other. This is not to say, though, that the borrower is not intending to use the money loaned for profitable reasons, and verification of the borrower’s intentions can be reasonably speculated on when a car of questionable worth is cheaply attained in the borrower’s name for $1,000. After a few minor alterations in the details to the vehicle’s cosmetics, the borrower then turns around and puts it up for sale for $3,000 — 3 times the value for which it was purchased, and based, instead, on what the car is worth in terms of market value — not actual value.

Regardless, the plan works, and the car is sold a couple of days later to someone who will in no distant span of time discover the problematic truth when confronting the fact that the car’s a lemon, but enough time passes before this occurs so that the seller/borrower cannot be squeezed by the purchaser for having knowledge about the beater’s qualities prior to its sale — whether or not supposed or accused by the buyer.

In the mean time the borrower, having made the money back before reaching the agreed deadline, the borrower, instead of returning the money, embarks on another venture — Atlantic City. Here, the borrower separates the profits from the sale and the original grand. $1,000 is reserved in an account that can’t be accessed by the borrower due to deliberately leaving the ATM card for it behind, the other $2,000 is used to gamble, and it so happens that luck is with the borrower on this venture, winning $2,000 on top of the initial $2,000 by engaging in tweaking the mechanics of various vices at the casinos (going up and down and up again), and in summation $4,000 was profited from the original $1,000 lent out.

After arriving home from AC, the borrower stops at the bank and deposits $3,000 into the account holding the derivative grand that was loaned before returning the money owed back to the friend. The friend felt at ease when the funds were restored on time and without trouble, so no brow was heightened concerning risk being involved with the borrower.

Not much different is the process in which US fiat currency is created by banks gambling against assets purchased by the supplier (the Fed). It, then, becomes clear as to why, no matter what the market asserts, the money supply is shrinking due to its not creating any money. It is easy to see how banks become so powerful, because they borrow and return to the Fed money at face value, while the profits made on interest are invested by the bank in many different games — winning often enough, but none can ever stay up forever, and the crash can be devastating if the signs, like chips vanishing from the blackjack table, are not taken seriously.

As Fictional as Reality

Ironically enough, it was on September 11, 2008 that the Wall Street titan, Lehman Brothers, an investment bank whose salad days date back to late 19th century, began to bleed out millions of dollars per minute. Only 2 days later, this massive bank, who had navigated its way through the Great Depression, declared bankruptcy, and thousands of employees of the firm lost their jobs, not to mention the societal instability due to the debasement of the economy and the investors who lost their money .

In order to replicate a generic image that holds stock in and is representative of (symbolically), the value of many realities, is contained in that of a man who goes by the name of Clive Rivers, whose tale is fabricated to play out the way it has for many others in America today.

Clive’s troubles derived from shares in stocks he had purchased that were comprised of toxic assets due, almost inevitably, to fail — namely, bundled up mortgages that were likely to be defaulted on. Clive was not aware, but would soon understand, that what he was speculating on was ultimately precarious from the start.

Clive had moved to New York From North Jersey In 2003 to prove to himself and to his family that he could take care of himself. After a few weeks, he located a job serving tables at a four star restaurant in lower Manhattan and chatted with many a wealthy patron for whom he did fetching.

After a year or so, he became friends with a few of the lunchtime regulars that worked on Wall Street, not far from the restaurant. They gave him casual but lucrative advise on how buying into the housing market was an expeditious method of making fast and portly amounts of money. So he began to invest small sums of money in this booming market and started to make money from doing so — a good deal of money. So, after a few months, he quit serving the rich, opting instead to try and become 1 of them — though it was not to be.

Clive did very well as an investor for a while, impressing both his family and himself, in fact — but by September, 2008, all of that changed — as he had done a considerable amount of business with Lehman Brothers. A few weeks post the collapse of the firm, Clive found himself both broke and in debt to various lawyers and creditors. He had no choice but to abandon his independence and move back home with his parents.

His parents, under certain conditions, were welcoming of his return, and Clive felt that maybe some time away from the city and the ultra-liberal people with whom he had become acquainted — and screwed over by — would allow him to eat and live without worry. Being that he was in no position to pay rent, he would have to do most of the household chores for nothing but his parents’ commissary afforded him.

Clive’s parents were both Ukrainians of stern character, and would not allow their only son to become a sloth. Their rules, too, though he had forgotten about them, had not changed and he soon felt more oppressed with provided for food, room and board than when living in debt on his own — and making decisions for himself based on what he felt were in his best interests.

At least he had the freedom to leave and return, from anywhere and at any time he wished when living on his own. His parents would lock the doors at 11pm, so Clive rarely went out. The austerity of his parents’ home was something that he was not used to…could not get comfortable living under. It was time for a change and a return to the liberties of his own life, this much was absolutely clear to him — but returning completely to his old life would be both frivolous and unrealistic. So the fundamental next step: how to proceed.

Turning Down the Volume: The Threat Posed by China’s Failing Housing Market

The near future, when measured with scrutiny, in many ways is just as uncertain as the distant future. Still, like a raved-about storm broadcast over the Internet, every news channel and radio station, the storm is universally declared imminent, and so leads great masses of people to panic and raid the supermarkets.

Then, at just about the predicted time, the onset of the storm happens. So an issue that is brought up at a steadily increasing rate in the press and via various forms of media is explaining a truth due to reveal itself.

China is showing up in the news a lot lately, but not because of the massive growth of its exporting economy — as was for so long viably the case — but because of signs distinguishing a slower rate in recent growth.

The housing market is about to fold in China, as the Chinese economic system has used leverage to wager its stakes in the market, merchandising debt, coupled with the unruly over-lending (over-creating) of money that does not exist with the signature of a promise.

The idea that a bank loan resembles anything like a person taking money from his or her pocket or purse and lending it to a friend is an idea that needs to be thought out better.

A bank lends merely credit and profits from the interest attached to that credit, in principle. But doing this repeatedly can add up to sums that are unfathomable, and continuously growing news concerning China’s questionable financial balance sheets is finding its way around. This could suggest, then, the real possibility that a bust is likely to occur in the near future.

There is no doubt that the consequences will be severe to the global economy — especially because America and other major economies are still embroiled in the tribulations of a pervasive recession, which will become more widely felt if China’s housing market fails.

But what is to become of the world in both the near and distant future is uncertain in the way a bank loan to people that cannot afford to pay back a short term loan that’s to be met in the long term cannot, and is, as well, subject to interest rates that will change over time. The future, regardless, is still unknown.

It is fair to assume, though, that the reasoning of a China gone insolvent might be to look to America to pay back what is owed. It is also fair to speculate that such a request will generate various problems.

Resorting to Marxism: A Mistake

It strains the reflexes of concentration to levy one account in recallable history that has spawned individual benefits by resorting to socialism as a remedial solution to economic dysfunction, and China is no exception. It would be baffling to the credulity of rashional instinct to submit to the notion that socialistic behavior derives from any primitive ambition other than one finding safety in a number that shields, like scabrous flesh over a wound, personal vulnerability from danger. A single being would not fare well in a bout with a militia, for instance, but military ventures are confined to capturing what its central unit of command wishes it procure. The reason for doing so is not of any interest to the individual soldier that’s on a mission for his or her country. The soldier is there to enforce a cause in a group effort, not to ponder the motives behind it or establish an alternative one.

Comparably, not many people in the Soviet Union in the early 20th Century were compelled to care about Joseph Stalin’s industrial vision but that their country benefit from them fighting for its cause — which was, of course, Stalin’s own personal power. Personal aspirations are not social but individual, and it is vouching for a truism to assert that 1 person or 1% does not create a whole. But the fact the 20 million of Stalin’s own people owe their deaths to him validates the position that communism is an ultimately precarious way to forge a solution that would dismantle the greedy domination of the fat backs on Wall Street today — no matter how busy or dangerous that street happens to be.

This is because socialism is a 100% controlled system. How do the working men of all countries unite when they are at the mercy of a centralized government that employs them? Realistically, in metaphorical format, a member of a socialist party, living in a socialist country, is merely working for a massive store owned and run by the government. This means the rules are never for the workers to decide. It is a form of rule that is, from the beginning, aloof of its sponsors: the workers — of whom most know little concerning the actual reasons behind the policies that are set. And just like any other workplace, the employees are servants to the large demands of the ownership, unless workers can discover equanimity in being without their rations of income.

Leaving a steady job, in other words, is neither an economically feasible nor a wise choice for most people to make. In consequence, being that the workers must obey how the store is run, the social conditions deign that individualism bow to exploitative rules, and the individual worker is condemned to uphold a portion of the quota increasing the store’s prosperity — but not his or her own. Marx’s vision was that all workers should be equally exploited. When has it ever been in the interest of any to focus on non-personal aspirations?

But this same parable can manipulated to convey the design of government-infected capitalism, and the current times are telling of this truth. Capitalism under regulatory hindrance, yes, offers many routes that can veer off into despotism. Even Milton Friedman noted that capitalism isn’t sufficient, but he did say that it is necessary.  What really needs to be regulated, ultimately and obviously  is banking activity, but this cannot happen without leverage, which is the tool most by banks to loan money it simply does not possess.

What banks do is nothing more than literally create money — because banks certainly don’t loan out their own wealth.  What they lend out is credit with interest attached to it; that interest is new money, whether or not the loan is paid back makes no difference, as the accumulated debt is used to buy up securities which allows them to procure funds from the Fed and invest in questionable assets profited from accumulated interest.

Should it be compulsory, then, for banks to distribute their profits with the American citizenry?  No.  But, to be fair, no citizens should, in theory, should be made to pick up a financial business when it fails fails either.  But there is little choice in that regard presently.   Because the governmental financial institutions let Lehman Brothers fail, they made it nearly impossible for citizens to afford the type of leverage needed to stop Wall Street from engaging in economically hazardous activities.

Every bank knows that money, or the belief in the existence of it, is the only only type of earner that leverage can be, and it is only from a bank that one can obtain money in the first place.  Banks use capitalism as a tool, so capitalism is not the issue, but, rather, perversions of its nature that make its functioning problematic — the capitalists, in short, like President Hoover said, are the people that prevert it.  But communism is the cop out of bias activists of whom are just as obstinate about their party and its rules, regulations and beliefs as republican and democrats are.  Fighting irrational antics with irrational retorts enables only irrational outcomes.

Chinanomics: The Sub-Prime Germ

When the features of various economic structures are acutely examined, what renders itself as identifiable is the observation that these systems are at heart, conceptually similar — especially in terms of global interconnectedness. The current recessions taking place around the world serve as reminders of what can occur when financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase both create and control the majority of the money supply, they also control, for the most part, everything else.

In September of 2008, Lehman Brothers — a longstanding Wall Street firm that had won its bouts with the Great Depression during the 1930s and transcended many economic eras post it — began to hemorrhage money in massive numbers, and all the telltale characteristics of financial dysfunction were candid. But perhaps the immense magnitude Lehman’s bankruptcy would eventually levy from the masses was recognized by very few from the onset.

Hindsight, of course, requires no glasses, at least when the effects are visible to all those affected. But the time is not for which to be focusing on merely the resulting recession, but also figuring out a way to prepare for another disaster. It is important to do so, as the Chinese central bank (the People’s Bank of China) is pulling a Hank Paulson on Dick Fuld by refusing to bail out its banks in order to punish speculators, because the global economy will inherit a fortune of problems if it doesn’t. (UPDATE: the central bank stepped in.)  Scares are all that have taken place in China thus far, but if its modern-day practices of expanding risk continue to inflate, the result will be a bust that is greatly capable of causing the debasement of the international economic system.

If the economic flow in China disturbs the currents and raises the tide of the rest of the world, just as the demise of Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers eventually reached Iceland, Dubai, Ireland, etc. and helped deepen the recession in practice, a bust in the Chinese sub-prime housing market with lend out serious worldwide consequences, and allowing failure of their banks is a bad check to cash, so the grand hope is that it is never written.

The United System

I tend to foster the opinion that socialistic movements are inclined to generate many errors. Most germinate in soils not deeply rooted, as they are made on reactionary premises — and when these movements are victorious in their collective goal, the collectives then turn to a person or group of people of whom are usually orators with hurricane-winded breaths and committee members who made up the callow centrality that organized the rebelliousness of the cause early in. To wit: the same people that get the masses to participate in the cause end up leading the cause as well.

But the resulting factor is invariably to lead their followers astray, because, once established and functional, the context of the movements change. The efforts become corrupted due to power lust and cupidity. Thus, a new effort is forged, and the collectives sit in positions, although perhaps different in terms of circumstances, that are really not superior to the seating they had under their previous forms of leadership. The only significant change to come out of these sociological trials is merely that of a change in who the powerful elite are, those who are privileged to indulge — so a class system is spawned once again. Sadly, the idea that equality is fallacious and something unattainable becomes painfully candid and ironic to the collections of followers when it is too late — when they find themselves tending to communal animal farms or starving to death in slave labor camps — not that I’m theorizing this scenario will occur.

They feel cheated — so, in reaction to the betrayal, new movements rise up and challenge the corrupt system that replaced the miserly corrupt and oppressive system that proceeded it. Sometimes their uprisings surf into perpetual low tides, and sometimes they prevail, like during the French Revolution, and decapitate their new, but no less inhumane, chairman — as would be the case for Maximilien Robespierre and the other “heads” of his Jacobin party, which was a party driven by the pretext advocated for in the Social Contract, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (a treatise I feel is an early model of the Communist Manifesto, just lacking in the ingredient of hegemonic gist), is because he [Robespierre] was enlightened by a blind vision, and eventually, lest he retain his vision, Rousseau’s vision, he shaded the tint of his glasses in order to see no harm in having tens of thousands of French lives severed by the blade of the guillotine. And all of this horror at the hands of a man once opposed to the death penalty.

The Russian Revolution is the first time Marxist communism itself would escape the pages on which its embryonic theory lay. But Joseph Stalin, the man who turned the Soviet Union into a super industrial and nuclear power, didn’t even take part in the storming of the Winter Palace in Petrograd, Russia in October,1917. Yet he was slick politician being that his background was that of a straight up criminal con, and the only reason he detested the czar family, the Romanovs, is because they banished him on several occasions for committing criminal acts like robbery — a crime that any judicial system would incarcerate a person for. Stalin was a cowardly sore loser as a person, with an insatiable lust for ultimate power and eventually came into it. But Stalin, like Robespierre, became frightened that his power was under constant threat. As a result of his paranoia, he would end up being responsible for killing — in various ways, like his purges — 20 million people in under 30 years.

Installing communism is not something that Americans want — they want democracy. It would never work here. But because the commercial digital money produced by banks is what the vast majority of the economy consists of, democracy is just no longer possible. Just the way the publishing industry is becoming increasingly digital. Eventually, down the line, paper will lose its necessity to e-books…to digital currency, the same way relinquishing the gold standard gave way to the paper US dollar. The difference is given to derivatives nowadays, and the Treasury is left hard up for its cut in profits because little in terms of production costs apply to its services. The country can survive with banks, though an authoritative situation is only the inevitable effect of their cause. Still communism is simply romantic dogma, and in practice has never once worked out well for the masses.

In Debt to Economy

The correlation between economic wealth being edifying to the allowance of a free society is perfectly clear, and it requires very little scrutiny to verify the notion. But an understanding of what produces the wealth is often underpaid.

Money actually comes from nothing — as money is merely a conceptual idea and can wear various guises, making itself, thus, something pretentious. The liability of every dollar issued creates interest due to the credit attached to it.

When the Federal Reserve issues currency in terms of printed paper and minted coinage, the difference between the interest made on securities and the production costs is profit that is taken in by the Treasury — the manufacturer. This process is known as seigniorage, which raises billions of dollars yearly in order to help manage how much in taxes citizens are responsible for.

But the money accounts for very little of the money that’s in circulation — as most of it is digital. The rest of the other trillions of dollars in circulation is commercial money that banks create from nothing, as major banks have accounts with the Fed, and so direct access to it. The Fed merely buys up government debt and deposits it into these commerical bank accounts at face value, whereupon it becomes legal tender of which 90% of the deposited money is again and again lent out at interest.

The difference with this dominating lending process is that the Treasury is inconsequential to it and produces far less than the trillions produced by the banks ever year because of it. This merely perpetuates massive debt and systematically expanding inflation.

Because commercial money is digital, the Fed need simply post a number boasting a certain status in any given account it deals with, much the same way one posts a status on Facebook. The status, in other words, exists only because it was posted, and it iterates what the one who posted wishes it to.

So money is more conceptual than it has ever been before, and banks, who control the bulk of the economy, do with the money what they see fit to, such as speculating on derivatives. Banks do not have an incentive to invest in anything practical like small business, education or the relinquishing of some of it to society.

But the system is too complicated and powerful to risk losing its investments in today’s society, as to take out the banks would mean take away the credit-based commercial money and would take out the entire economy, creating chaos amongst the masses, not order, and it is unlikely that any would arise out of the ashes, as there is no penalty besides failure that would disturb banks’ comfort, but no policy in place to allow it.

In order to establish a system that allows for competition and economic triumph of any kind, an act akin to Glass-Steagall would be necessary to implement a law that would disallow the banks from becoming gambling monopolies.  Too big to fail is not a capitalistic trait, after all — and no venture should be immune to failure.


Committed Destruction

On February 15, 2013, the sky above the Russian city of Chelyabinsk lit up like a special effect, an effect ominous to the eye when commandeering the orbital space around the iris. It was a meteor, ablaze in white light, and charging at the earth’s surface at between 30-40,000 mph. Then, before what was left of the rock cannon crashed into a nearby lake, leaving behind a giant hole in the ice, the meteor exploded in the atmosphere. The sonic boom it produced was small-scale massive: It dimmed then lighted the sky, set off car alarms, shattered windows, collapsed the center of a building’s structure and injured over a 1,000 people. All of this was produced by a single sonic boom from a small meteor.

Well, small in terms of danger, as it was no Shoemaker-Levy 9 — a comet that became trapped in the obit of Jupiter in 1994 and, breaking apart into a so-called string of pearls, crashed again and again into the massive planet.  Black marks that the comet left on the surface of Jupiter were larger than the entire mass of Earth. The images of the impacts developed by the Hubble Telescope were the first of their kind to be witnessed by human eyes. Seeing the damage caused is enough to make one shudder, as there have been many times in Earth’s history where a comet slammed into it. And if a small meteor, like the on that flew in over Russia, can cause they amount of destruction it did, just imagine the carnage a comet would expound upon its arrival.

As said, comets have slammed into the earth on multiple occasions before, and it is a guarantee that another will strike the planet again. When this will happen will be answered many millions of years from now — unless some rouge star rocket comes out of nowhere and brings a swift and violent end to most of the life here. But in 10 million or so years the comments wading in the what’s called the Oort cloud in the outer solar system, which is literally an enormous cloud of comets, something is bound to disturb the cloud.  It is the sun that keeps these comets in check, but something has been discovered in recent years, and that is that there seems to be mass extinctions every 26 million years, and the Oort cloud is thought to play a role in the design of this pattern.

The undeniable pattern of mass extinctions, such as with the dinosaurs, on Earth to ponder this discovery made by paleontologists. What would enable routine events of total oblivion to occur on the planet every 26 million years? Comets, proposes the theory, break loose from the Oort cloud every 26 million years due to a the possibility of there being a red or brown dwarf star that rounds the sun in a wide elliptical orbit. When the small, dim star, marching its cycle and heeding to nothing in its path, comes across and disturbs the behavior of the Oort cloud, sending comets flying all over the place — many of which enter the inner solar system and bash and bruise the planets and moons stored within it — including Earth.

The idea that the sun may have a sibling is indeed an intriguing theory, and now, as the proposal of the hypothesis gains acceptance in the astronomical world, a craft called WISE (Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer) has been launched into space. It uses infrared light in order to detect heat in contrast to its seemingly similar surroundings. With thorough search, this currently hypothetical star should be located if it exists. The reason it has not been discovered is merely because there was never any known reason to look for it. From afar, all the matter in outer solar system appears generally the same, but — with good reason, like a pattern of mass extinctions every 26 million — a closer examination could reveal something crucial concerning the life on this planet and the solar system.

Prescribing Hell

On the morning of February 2, 2006, I awoke to a frantic vision — in that it was blurry. Not blurry in the sense that I could rinse it away with water or clear it up with with a few days of drops and antibiotics — medicines a doctor would prescribe for eye ailments like conjunctivitis — but blurry like nothing that I, or anyone else, as I would find, could explain. It was a feeling too strange to welcome, and even the biggest junkie would find reason to condemn its qualities as being that of greatly unsatisfactory. Too strange, indeed — an anti-high — a demented malaise — a wrong turn into a dark forested labyrinth that led to deeper labyrinths…confusing labyrinths…deeper, harsher layers of hell — and I, the pilgrim, ventured down them. Yet as I made my descent, I encountered no doctor that was a fit bard to seek advice from.

Due to the excessive amount of oddness I was enraptured with, I, after a few hours, started to panic. My level of malignant fright was inconsolable at this point, insofar as it developed into what was to be my first (not last) panic attack, which consisted of my muscles stiffening, my heart racing and pounding and my wits shattering into fragmented snaps that revealed only broken glimpses of the world human beings are designed to witness. It was as though I alone, the somber pilgrim, was drilling down into these depths of esoteric sake — journeying all the way to the nexus of hell — as though straight through and to the heart of the Kantian prohibition. I was embedded in some nominal world, seeing the perceptual said realities in a way that was conceptually unrealistic.

At this, I was taken to the emergency room of a local hospital. Being in the hospital is, of course, not something I consider to be a good time, but I felt — amid my conscious fear — a bit better that I would soon see a doctor. “Surely the doctor has come across this situation in the past and will instruct me on what to do,” I suspected — yet my hopeful suspicions were disappointed. The doctor (a smug fucker) was no help at all and incorrectly recognized my symptoms to resemble that of a sinus infection. Right from the start I felt unsure about what this doctor had concluded, but I hoped he was right. After all, albeit doubted in my guts, I’d never had a sinus infection before then. But when I took the antibiotics that he’d prescribed to me, I descended quickly down into an even deeper level of this hell, where I felt worse than ever before. Due to the effects I experienced on the antibiotics, I began to realize that the doctor’s diagnosis was invalid. This is when I first understood that fears in my guts were true — that what I was experiencing was no sinus infection. The reality was that my psychiatric medications had turned on me.

I ended up on these psych-drugs when I was 17 years old, 6 years prior to my entering the lobby grounds of the hellish dark forest that I described above — as I had struggled with enormous bouts of ongoing depression and mood alterations during that period. But never once during all those years did doctors mention to me what may result down the line because of the meds they were prescribing to me. In fact, most of them told me what doctors are instructed by drug representatives to tell patients: that they were both safe and not at all addictive. These boasts, though, are wholly untrue. I do not say this to dissuade anyone from taking these drugs, as another’s choice is not mine to make, but to simply render a counter to the claim that psychiatric medications are devoid of addictive qualities. These drugs are very addictive: SSRIs, SNRIs, neuroleptic medications, Lithium, etc., though it is conceded to by pharmaceutical companies that benzodiazepines like Xanax are addictive, the case is not so with these other medications.

The fact that one experiences a physical withdrawal after discontinuing the drugs, though, provides in it enough evident factors to allow room to surmise that they are addictive. I myself, the pilgrim, ventured the down the more disturbing landscapes of this hell –a hell that seemed to get worse by the mile. The withdrawal carried within it such torment that no end to its pernicious histrionics seemed possible after a while — as withdrawal symptoms plagued me for literally over a year and a half. And throughout all that time I made various attempts to find aid, but it was buried in no layer of the soils I turned my hand to till. A neurologist; a cardiologist; shrinks; hospitals; medical physicians in private practice — all of whom I visited, all of whom were broke as far as answers go, and I was making out about as well as a panhandler working a homeless shelter.

After months and months of poring over literature concerning these medications and learning nearly everything about them, I decided that the only way to quell these withdrawals was to get back on meds — so it was that I bargained with Satin, getting back on meds as long as it was a regimen that I concocted. This was made to be so, and I, feeling better presently — being that my addiction to psych-meds has been reestablished — still continue on my pilgrimage — every once in a while waking up with brain zaps (one of the many withdrawal symptoms in which the electronic firings of neurotransmitters can be felt running throughout the head and body), and although they diminish quickly and are with me hardly, it is this periodic residual anguish, if nothing else, that reminds me that I remain in Purgatory.

Harold Midfella and the Liberty Muggers

It was a quiet night in North New Jersey, according to Harold Midfella. They were late hours, past twilight, when the roads in the rurally suburban lake town are clear. Silence and placidity roamed the air like a failed zephyr, and the occasional passerby, driving this or that to here or there, and he or she who is driving is not too concerned with what might be happening in some vague, running car in a parking lot set relatively far back at a Residential motel. It is where Harold lives. No. Most people are (aside from the fragmented glances at whatever) paying attention to the road being ridden, and half-consciously respective of any possible turnpike that may sprout up through the asphalt paving his or her own travels.

“Then,” asserted Harold, “out of nowhere a large long parade of various red and blue strobe-lit vehicles went rushing up the, until then, desolate road: ambulances, cop cars, fire trucks — all that shit.

Minutes later, the parade began returning a little bit at time, each vehicle no longer flashing its emergency beacons. Harold, by his own account claimed that by this time, after he’d finished smoking weed that no one else in the world knew he was smoking, lit a cigarette and was getting set to start back inside, when one of the cops from the parade was returning from what was later unfurled to have been a meager brush fire next to a store up the road, when he pulled a sudden left into the liquor store parking lot neighboring the lot Harold was in.

Harold, though aware he was on private property, did not romanticize with the misnomer that the cop wasn’t checking him out — circling around the lot under the visible pretense that he was scoping out some mysterious car parked there.

“The cop,” said Harold, “stopped at the end of the lot and turned and faced my direction, which was about 130-150 feet away, and I knew he was running the plates of my, well, my friend’s, car. So I got out of the car and started casually toward the building to go inside. But in my nervousness, I didn’t realize that I’d dropped my pipe when I got out of the car. Then, as I started walking, I heard the cop tear off. I glanced to the left and saw he was gone, and as my sight shifted to the right, I saw that his and two other cop cars were pulling into my lot. It was at this point I knew that I was in some shit.”

Midfella, after his arrest, was, from what he explained, angry about the cops ambushing him on the private grounds of his home and feels his 4th Amendment rights were violated. But he remained quiet, passive and cooperative, listening carefully the cops.

The cop told me that all of this could disappear if I gave someone up, but I said nothing,” Harold said. “I wasn’t about to make someone else be the janitor of my own mess — that’s what a lawyer’s for.”

Midfella also claims that, though he was bluntly queried about who he acquired his marijuana from, was never told what his rights were prior to the sly quiz the cop tried to get Harold to fail, later stating: “I find that what the cops did to me and do to others to be fucked up. My ultimate beef is with the system and the cops profound tendency for audaciousness. I’m sorry, but this was an invasion of my privacy. In fact, the next night my friend was waiting for me outside my residence. Less than a minute I after got in the car, one of the cops from the arrest pulled up behind us and tapped on my window, asking me to roll it down — and we weren’t doing anything. I mean, that’s harassment, and it proves that an assumption is a flimsy pretext to base probable cause on. It’s more of a crap-shoot. I’m no Tea Party advocate, but what the fuck’s happening in this country when the 4th can be so easily tampered with? I have to fight this…See it out. Even though I’m well aware that I more than likely will lose.”

When asked if he would take a plea agreement, Harold said: “If, hypothetically speaking, it does come to that, it better be a really good deal. If not, it’s all or nothing.

Cross’s Cobain

It has now been 19 years since Kurt Cobain’s suicide in April, 1994, and I have recently, and coincidentally, finished reading former Seattle rag (the Rocket) journalist Charles R. Cross’s biography on Cobain. In Heavier Than Heaven (2001), the title of the book, Cross takes the reader closer to Kurt than anyone else has been able to. His approach is not neo-journalistic, yet his technique is none the less more journalistic than that of the typical biography. He weaves together a well put together, linear and matter-of-fact chronology. The story Cross tells is obviously an achievement of Orwellian infiltration into Kurt’s life, yet he does so in a non-participatory way, like Truman Capote. The narration is more George Orwell’s Wigan Pier (the first part) than Capote’s In Cold Blood, in the sense of reportage, but it is more Capote in terms of objective narration, voice, tone and perspective.

Cross provides an interesting insight into who Kurt Cobain was and what his overall state of being throughout the course of his entire life was; what his relationship with his wife Courtney Love was like — with his band mates, his friends, his family, his daughter; what the meanings behind a good deal of the messages crocheted into his song lyrics meant ; as well as unveiling untold catastrophes involving his addiction to heroin — the Something in the Way.

Nirvana was the leader of a revolution, and what can be obtained from it is an understanding of how revolutions eventually, once powerful and established, crumble if their head have nodding captains pertaining to the helm.

Kurt was forever changed by his parents “legendary divorce,” though he unfortunately was a junkie before he regained, rediscovered and expanded things like his family, his fame — his what were seemingly redemptive acquisitions that conditioned his mentality. But his addiction had already taken the role of care tender, so his medicine became an enemy to the particulars, like his love for his daughter Frances Bean, that would have meant — did mean — more to him than anything else — and it seems as though he felt that it was far too late for him to turn back — thus, he contained the notion that he could not provide the life for her he wanted to.

This understanding was just another sense of failure for Kurt, and his stillborn inner child forever made him incapable of accepting the terms of adulthood. He was, leading up to the time of his death, a morbidly obese man traveling at high altitudes in a hot air balloon with low fuel for keeping the flame lit. The anti-climatic irony vividly sensed in Heavier Than Heaven, is that Kurt got everything he wanted after he was no longer in any condition to appreciate what he wanted.  Like the “heads” of the French Revolution, he was a victim of his own enlightenment.

American Frostbite

It is mentioned more than it is practiced that we, as American citizens, are to employ the systems enabling the democratic procedures that guarantee our rights to safety and prosperity. But the enforcement of that guarantee is contingent upon the imagination, as it is in no way what is enforced. Rather, the reverse is the actuality. It is we who are employed by the systems that we have allowed to exist but have, without our permission, formed into entities that we are unfortunately, not to mention paradoxically, dependent on due to coercive heaven-and-hell tactics. But any ultimatum posed by lawmakers offers the choosers a pick between a hellish hell and a mediocre heaven.

Wall Street magnates, CEO chairman and other top-level cats of big banks and mega corporations have become the central holding tanks of America’s economic air supply — its capital. It would be a truism to assert that the government doesn’t contain greater power than the people with the money to pay its operators, so it, along with the media and the press, protect the interests of corporations — as these protective bodies have been purchased by them. So, as a due, our economic system is developing into corporatism in lieu of capitalism. This creates the “need” for more bureaucracy, more policies and more regulations — which, when accumulated over time, leads to a totalitarian method of governance.

The reason this is so is because in order for bigger systems, such as the financial institutions above mentioned, to protect their interests, they need lobby to the government to conceive of ways in which it can protect them in ways the media and the press can’t. So, to achieve the protection heavily lobbied for, the government puts together agencies, like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to further protect their boss’ interests. Other agencies, like the FBI and police units across the country, protect and enforce the laws of the judicial system, a system that, in many cases, enforces legislative laws that are created to serve and protect the economic, governmental and municipal infrastructures, not citizens. If a civil liberty we have happens to conflict with a major corporate interest in some hazardous way, then laws are manifested on the premise of over-hyped pretence. There has to be an explainable reason for the implementation of laws, however lacking in logic they are, to defend the “necessities” of them and the sacrifices that must be made in order to ensure that nothing prohibits their triumph over civility.

It seems counterproductive to criminalize the commonwealth, yet, as history tells the present, it is always the masses that are gathered to suffer. In this country today, as always, one is only as good as his or her bank account allows. It’s not the character of a person, in other words, that makes that person significant, but what one has in terms of wealth, as one must have assets in order to be widely considered an asset. But the chances of getting ahead are becoming grimly austere to say the least. The seemingly perpetual angst can be palpably discerned by anyone working today — or by anyone not working, or by the many of those nearing the need to opt to foreclose on their homes to evade complete financial derailment from occurring.

Octavian, indeed, this government has become — because a dynastic State resides inside it. Another place that one may feel anxiety about venturing is out on the road in a motor vehicle, because law enforcement agencies consistently express on them the most visibly determinative examples that drop a dime on the notion that laws are no longer made to protect the citizen. Rather, laws today are made to control the citizen. Excessive force is a common brutal tool used by law enforcement, and increasingly so. No single person with gun can stand up to many people with superior guns, so why are many armed officers required to subdue that single person? Even in a hostage situation redundant arms seem unnecessary, because their presence brings a tense sensuality to an already chaotic atmosphere, thus, the perpetrator(s) is/are more impulsive and unpredictable as desperation mounts.

But another, and perhaps the most usual, overreach of law enforcement is constitutional rights infringement, namely regarding the provisions cited under Amendment IV. Why this is so: people are woefully unaware of their rights. And in many cases even people that know their rights, due to the amicably disinclined police and their reputations as manipulative authority junkies, are too scared to assert them when under the pressure of the police and their contemptible attitudes, as it is no fallacy that it is rather difficult to think when one is enraptured by anxious tension. In certain cases people who do exclaim their rights are silenced without reason — and very often violently so. Police thrive on fear, and purposely project hypothetical scenarios to provoke it in people — most of whom are considered to be living within the law.

Checkpoints are, too, a total violation of civil liberties — especially since the main tool used by police conducting checkpoints is to cultivate probable cause, using profiling to decide who and who not to deter from further travel. Every so many cars, regardless of whether the driver of the vehicle seems, in this case, drunk or under the influence of some other intoxicant, and with enormous disregard to the fact that the 4th still counts — checkpoint or not — people are pulled over for no reason and searched. If there are no signs or scents that contain evidence of illegal activity, it is unconstitutional for police to detain anyone — not without a reasonable cause for doing so. One is under no obligation, under any circumstances, to consent to search.

In summation, what is being testified here is that we are slipping into an incrementally advancing corporate State — which, and history will vouch for this, invariably enables, out of “necessity,” cruel, tyrannical and authoritative government to render itself supreme. Above all else, our rights are what make us free to decide for ourselves, and not using them is tantamount to not having them.

The Minimalist

“All you have to do is write one true sentence.”
This quote belongs to Ernest Hemingway from his memoir: A Movable Feast. This is true, as one must begin where one understands and can never exit through the entrance, carrying weightier knowledge out the back. Hemingway certainly has had his share of critics, both when he was alive and posthumously, and much of the criticism is arguably fair and up to T.S. Eliot’s standards. Most of Hemingway’s most potent work is comprised of his short stories. Yet what must be kept in mind is that of the 4 novels for which he is revered (The Sun Also Rises; A Farewell to Arms; For Whom the Bell Tolls; and The Old Man and the Sea), are not merely his best novels, but some of the greatest works to be considered in English-language literature — especially American, of course.

Hemingway’s style is simple, or at least it appears to be — but any thoroughly invested reader will gradually, as his prose dialogues progress, such as the one crafted in For Whom the Bell Tolls, notice that there is a terrific amount of cryptic messages contained the conversations. His characters don’t develop from accents colloquially arranged, but, instead, explain what they represent through their actions and through what they say, not so much how they say it — in all their contextual mannerisms — which further manifest into compressed allusive metaphors.

The reason Hemingway’s prose appears simple is due to the fact that his sentences are short, plainly spoken and down-to-the-tax understandable, but it is not only that his characters are symbolic of something through what they predicate, but, too, through their human traits, because of what the reader has already discovered about any given player, like Robert Jordan, For Whom the Bell Tolls’ protagonist and American-Soviet aid to motherland Spain (Pilar) in fighting against the prevailing of Franco’s fascism during the Spanish Civil War, as Pablo, the leader, has become too drunk on his own lust for power to be trusted with the reins of communism.

As the story advances, and without him stressing the conversational accents beyond mildly and cleverly here and there, the people and their individual personas take shape via the imagination. He wrote this way because he knew that by constructing tales in this manner, he could keep a reader, like someone standing inches away while viewing a Rothko painting, hooked on the omitted feeling residing under the eighth of the iceberg. By not distracting the reader with redundant details, as his rival William Faulkner’s writing tends to do (and not without his own cagey intentions), he keeps the reader focused on the messages coherent in the undertones, and if only under nominal circumstances.

This style that Hemingway basically pioneered is called minimalism, and many, whether directly or indirectly, have been influenced by it since he first vaunted its prominence in the 1920s. Authors like Raymond Carver (A Small, Good Thing) and Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club) are clearly heirs to this style — of course it is a matter of opinion as to whether minimalist writers post Ernest Hemingway more aptly perfected the form. Regardless of whether or not they have, or are said to have, they wouldn’t have the form to perfect without him. No matter the critic, Hemingway, like Christopher Hitchens wrote of George Orwell, definitely matters.

Missing Orwell

George Orwell once quoted: “All Art Is Propaganda,” which, as is true of other things he wrote, relays the notion that Orwell’s writing style was inherently indicative of polemical intentions which he understood could be divulged through the font of his artistic medium. And by challenging political defects with artistically crafted words, doting on the idea that there was a way to counter a corrupt system by both showing (in his fiction) and telling (in his nonfiction) his readers about the bitter truths that other writers of the era were less espoused to argue against with such intentional obviousness. This is likely, in many cases, due to fear of their works not being published, so it was safer to write in a method that required further interpretation than Orwellian literature, who made no poor use of a strong metaphor in which to inlay a strong message with clarity.

George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair), although he was brought up in upper-middle-class family, had sympathy for the working class — and from his participatory quests in the slums he depicted in books like Down and Out on the Streets of London and Paris and The Road to Wigan Pier, it seems as though his main goal was, like achieving salvation via the Catholic Church’s rituals, cultivating genuine empathy by willingly taking part in lifestyles of which are not desirable to most, like a priest’s, though it is likely that he didn’t feel as though he’d ever found it. This truth is exposed by the fact that he always seemed to be looking for it, even in 1984, which was last and most renowned of his works  to be published before he died of Tuberculosis in 1950.

Though it can be asserted, arguably, that in writing ’84, he finally found authentic empathy. The torture scenes in room 101 that he describes are so vividly expressed that it appears as though he encountered this type of treatment himself, like the boarding school paddle-beatings he received and of which he detailed in his posthumously published essay Such, Such Were the Joys, and in Homage to Catalonia, a book concerning his participation in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s on the side of the communists that were battling against the fascists, eventually taking a bullet in the throat.

Orwell always tended to side with the working class, but he clearly understood the troubling possibilities that misused socialism could provide — and this was mainly due to the murderous reign of Stalin. What Orwell never, for himself, witnessed is that totalitarianism has inevitably developed in every case where the implementation of communism has been founded post Stalin, of whom, aside from Lenin the Bolshevik, is the only communist dictator he was ever able to witness. Stalin’s death in 1953 came after Orwell had already died, and people like Cambodia’s vicious dictator Pol Pot, who killed millions of his peasant class in just a few years, and who is but 1 among other tyrants that were to come, never met the sharp critique of his pen. His goal, as much as discovering human empathy, was to ward off the spreading of fascism into England, his country, by fighting it in other counties that had become infected with it.

Probably the reason Orwell involved himself in the struggle as profoundly as he did was because it was no secret that Orwell despised totalitarianism — which employed methods that were, at the time, only standard features of fascism. George Orwell is a model that society should not lose the ability to describe due the emotionless virtues of Newspeak. No. He should be spoken of — and most especially in the present times.

The 16 Years Theory: The Murders of Tupac and Biggie Still Remain Unsolved

On the night of December 8, 1980, a man with a gun approached another man on a quiet street outside the Dakota building in the Upper West side of Manhattan. Moments later, 5 gunshots rang out, and 4 of them found their way into the back of the victim of whom the shooter, Mark David Chapman, had for so long been obsessed with killing. This man, who would soon validate Chapman’s horrific ambition, was, of course, John Lennon. The upshot motive behind why Chapman shot Lennon doesn’t provide a reasonable controversy as to why he did it, because he told people why: God willed him to.

Chapman was and is a mentally ill person, and at the time he committed Lennon’s murder, he was heavily laden with the complex delusional notion that he, because of his devout religious piety, was supposed to kill the former Beatle based strongly (not wholly) on the comment he [Lennon] had made in 1966, when he was still with the Beatles, about them being “more popular than Jesus Christ.” Chapman, though extremely fond of Lennon’s band, could not place Jesus as a second to any. And there is no doubt that the maniacally inflamed and infamous retort of fans to this same comment, which involved the mass destruction of records and collectibles, like those of the godly gems destroyed during the Reformation, affected him profoundly. The Beatles’ fans, like the disenchanted Catholic followers dissuaded by Martin Luther, were suddenly dismissing their devotions to them because they were, like the Church, seemingly putting themselves over the divine spirit of God due to their vast and influential notoriety amongst the masses.

Chapman ultimately plead guilty and was sentenced to 20 to life in prison. The point here is that the killer of a man with whom the public was well acquainted, like John Lennon, and who never made a secret of his personified egalitarianism — which could have made him a public threat (the government thought so), was found, charged and convicted. Not that Chapman — who, after the he abruptly pulled Lennon off the merry-go-round that he had just again mounted after years of watching the wheels roll, read the Catcher in the Rye as he waited for police — made his capture very difficult. Even with this said, some claim there was government involvement in Lennon’s death. No terms of finality (in this case the capture and conviction of Chapman) escapes victoriously without first being theoretically scrutinized. Regarding this reality, though, a transitional question does emerge en route the return through the retroactive thoroughfares that peer back on Lennon and his everlasting message that aimed simply to engage peace and social change. Both of the figures involved in this question were, like Lennon was, shot and murdered, and they were both major figures of the times of which they were reflecting through their music. The figures being alluded to here are that of Tupac Shakur (06/16/ 1971 – 09/13/1996) and the Notorious B.I.G. [Christopher Wallace] (05/21/1972 – 03/9/1997). The thematic question concerning the rappers is why, unlike Lennon’s, were their cases never solved? It seems that at some point during the last 16 years some kind of progress in at least 1 of the cases should have come forth to bare witness, yet this has not occurred — why? Anyone involved in the killings of Tupac and Biggie remain at large, and it appears as though neither the LAPD nor the FBI seem too interested in dedicating to the cases any kind of real attention.

One might feel that the shadowy decorums of the investigations disclose naught save inconclusive possibilities — which they do, but at the same time, reasonable speculation is warranted to foster an attitude that feels as though perhaps the agencies know more than they claim to. So the question, again, is why? Why have investigators working on both murders made such little progress? Whoever has the best motive is generally guilty of the crime. So who had it? After posing this initial question, what manifests is the coherence to grasp that the question is conceived to segue into a series of considerations on many different theories — none of which can be proved. These cases are not Agatha Christie’s, and there is unfortunately no Hercule Poirot working on them. So conclusive answers are not possible. It seems, though, that the 3 most industrious motives found in the plot lines of these mysteries are that of vengeance; jealousy; and, of course, money.

In 1992, Tupac shot 2 off duty police officers in Atlanta, Georgia (both of whom survived), but the charges were later dismissed. As Tupac once iterated, cops pretty much are gangs, which means they stick together, and the knowledge that any mutual feelings between law enforcement and Shakur were thoroughly sullied was not secretive. The fact that he got off was something that very likely angered many of the cops around the country of whom were aware of the incident. So law enforcement in Las Vegas … or from Los Angeles; Atlanta; New York, one can surmise — but only insofar as to understand that this guess will merely allow only other wild guesses to develop — might have preformed a role in the carrying out of his murder. But if the vengeance depicted in this scenario is the case, then one can almost be assured that no acclaim of who was behind Tupac’s murder will ever be voiced without some giant reason endorsing the confession. Cops, as mentioned, stick together, and the possibility of police involvement will again be confronted in the latter.

On November 30, 1994, Tupac was himself shot in New York at Quad Recording Studios. The assailants were reportedly dressed in Army getup, yet till this day they have not been identified. Much of this pertains to the fact Tupac would later discover an alleged reasoning that pointed to who he claimed was behind his shooting in the song “Who Shot Ya?” by Bad Boy Records’ headliner, the incomparable Notorious B.I.G.. In Biggie Tupac found a goat to slaughter, but much of it was hyper propaganda devised by Death Row Records, who were tooling around with an effort to methodize a rise in the market of record sales. (It is also thought that the East vs.West, Mark Antony vs. Caesar Augustus, battle was a promoted beef between Virgilian mouthpieces Sean “Puffy” Combs of Bad Boy records and Suge Knight of Death Row records.) But what the public saw was the sale’s pitch; they saw the soap-operatic gangster version being portrayed in the press and on MTV — and many believed that a stout portion of what was being rumored was possibly true, though Biggie (who was present at the studio that night) denied his involvement in the shooting all along. Tupac and Biggie, in truth, were using a thug image to enrich a greater social conscious about life shaped in the ghetto — and none better to personify the hard life that’s bred on the streets than a hard person, like a gangster (though neither rapper was a gangster in the slightest in reality). Because of Tupac’s attack on Biggie, though (prominently due to the video of Tupac’s “Hit ‘Em Up,” a vicious dis-song clearly aimed at Biggie and Bad Boy Records, that was released in June of 1996), it was conveyed that he felt that Biggie had taken part in the plot to shoot him, but this accusation drew attention away from the actual offenders being looked at. Did this lack of attention on them leave room open for these same men to finish the job on September 7, 1996 in Las Vegas — the job that they had failed to finish in Nov., ’94 in New York?

Another theory that seems to be widely believed by many is that Tupac is still alive. Yet there is at least 1 gruesome autopsy photograph that has found its way into the public domain of the internet which candidly shows that he is dead. But regardless what one may speculate about the image’s authenticity, the notion that Tupac would relinquish the spotlight for16 minutes — let alone16 years — is outlandish and unrealistic. But many claim, as many claim that Elvis is still alive, or that Courtney Love shot and killed Kurt Cobain, that he is still alive.

But the last possibility to be illuminated here is not the one associated the Illuminati, as it is an absolute absurdity, but with Death Row Records and its owner Suge Knight. Having survived the 5 bullets he taken in ’94, Tupac rolled himself in a wheelchair out of the hospital and into a courtroom only days after being shot and going under surgery. He was sentenced to possibly over 4 years in prison for an alleged rape charge that he strongly denied was true. But growing notoriety of his music and film roles, getting shot and doing time made his next record, “Me Against the World,” which was released while he was incarcerated in Clinton Correctional Facility in Upstate New York, made him the most important rapper alive, because the album had gone platinum 2 times and reached number 1 on the Billboard Top 200 even though he was imprisoned, and, therefore, he was intangible to a large public that was overtly fiercely dedicated to him. When Suge Knight bailed Tupac, whose case was on appeal, out, this notion concerning Tupac’s fame and marketability was well understood.

Now out on bail, Tupac debuted his first of 2 releases for Death Row, which was a double record called “All Eyez On Me.” The album was hugely successful, going 9 times platinum. And his second release for Death Row, “The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory,” marketed under the pseudonym “Makiveli” (after Machiavelli, author of the highly influential political treatise “The Prince”), was also massive, selling 4 million copies. But the key element here is the fact that the first release was a double record. The agreement between Death Row and Tupac upon bailing him out was that he make 3 records for them. He made those albums in seemingly record time, yet his master verses remained locked in the studio decks. On top of this, rumors abound that Suge Knight, who was then the CEO of Death Row Records, owed Tupac many millions of dollars in royalties. There are those of whom will attest this to be the case, that there were heated arguments concerning this subject between Knight and Shakur, and that because of it Tupac was gearing up to form his own label. Yet in order to achieve this he would have to get his hands on the master tapes — which he couldn’t do easily. His label, at least at first, would basically have to be an imprint of Death Row: “Makiveli Records.” This indicates that Tupac was not to leave Death Row and Suge Knight completely — not at that time, anyway. But did Knight, as many have surmised he did, have something to do with it? Again, as is the case with all the aforementioned scenarios, a hypothetical theory is solely what one can come up with here. The motive, though, would be money in this example, and it is not a camouflaged fact that money is usually the best motivator in almost any instance given to commit murder. Yet if it was Knight — if the casino incident at the MGM Grand after the Tyson fight, in which Tupac, Knight and others engaged in a jumping of a member of the Crips named Orlando Anderson in the lobby, and all the moments leading up to the shooting were an elaborate fix — how did he pull it off? And if so, was Biggie’s murder some 6 months later on March 9, 1997 connected to Tupac’s? Was Biggie a just a pasty?

Well, if no answer is sought, then none will be found. One thing to note about Knight is that he had LAPD officers working for him during the time of each murder — many of whom were subsequently convicted of other felonies cultivated in the Rampart investigations. Cops and their gang-like mentalities can, if willing to, both pull the trigger and cover it up the way the CIA has the ability to cover up JFK’s assassination, and the officers with said possible involvement are either now in jail or dead. The ending results define no new conditions, though. As earlier asserted, only more questions derive from those first posed. The loss of both Tupac and Biggie is a tragic actuality, but a reality none the less. Just whether or not their killer(s) will ever be brought up on charges is unfortunately as likely as any theory that offers more than nothing — as the truth is not believable when it dresses up as a fantasy, but, simultaneously, it is, too, a suitor that love just isn’t tailored to accommodate, it seems. It really comes down to what Tupac himself once said: “Some things will never change.”

The Well Bathers

In what capacity can we as humans beings contend with the self-righteous renditions of our individual concerns? Are these concerns self-righteous in the first place? Or are they simply the visceral reflexes extolling the willingness in keeping up the pace in chasing content? We can say what we always have before. We can do what we’ve always done in the past. We can stay the same, and we more than likely will — as there is no acknowledged consensus among the many … no farcical will of society will materialize a state of grand togetherness. The dreams of Lennon, then, are relegated to the mind…the imagination. The concerns of any are to oneself more righteous than his or her neighbor’s, in that one doesn’t care, generally speaking, what resides in the mailbox of the person next door.

At least it is no concern of mine. And I am inclined to assume that my judgement on the ruling stands as an unconscious human agreement — not as a something conscious and directed by a societal will, though the federal government does enforce a law that prohibits the unauthorized opening of someone else’s mailbox. It is a law that is in due consequence beneficial to us, yes, but only if this generic unconscious agreement did not exist prior to its implementation. It is not an issue that would dress up in a relevant appearance unless there was some mass mail stealing epidemic going on. So the law is really an unnecessary one, then, because we aren’t in dire need of its protection. We do not beg for it, so our “collective individualism” on the matter, though it is a term oddly phrased, is not inclined to worry about it. To coin the upshot here, mail is a federal business, and its law is set up to protect its own interests. Which just goes to show that the government is an individual amid the citizenry — not a part of it, so it is like that of a weed growing in, and misshaping the beauty of, a botanical garden.

Individual cares are cared about; concerns are thought about; worries are felt in the vats of loneliness. It is the natural way of all living beings, obviously, to survive life — so, though many things may seem unjust, and perhaps are on the immediate surface of any given matter indeed that, the core of the guts is where the shit is churned. So it seems wise to question, in my estimation, not the effect’s affect on us, but, rather, what is making its specialties visible.

Perhaps another clear way to arrange this trusim would be to say that unions cause the pursuit of individual corporate interests to become neglectful of the people that feed what it is churning. My place of occupation, for instance, is a corporation coalitional with unions of various trade, but it is not a place of business that cares for its employees, but only for what the the representative unions allow in terms of its using employees in the most exploitative ways. Profits, as a due, are never hindered by the people making them. And though we the employees ensure the success of both the unions and the corporation, neither sees it a duty to care for the aspirations of individual employees nor for the employees as an individual unit, and since we are paid to care about the corporation’s intentions, they will contend, though it is cruel in nature (nature is cruel), that the wages compensated, however meager, are lawfully justifiable.

The nature of any individual pursuit is to protect it from being destroyed by anything, such as paying more than what it technically owes, which I do agree with — because one should not be forced to do anything that will keep him or her from getting ahead. But because the union does owe us, the notions instilled by the corporation are that much more heartless and overly strict — and I can only see it as being hypocritical to think that the employees should be forced, in turn, to recognize its interests with greater regard than it has for us. Unfairness lies only in the fact that unions are sated to tend to the wishes of corporations and not to the wishes of whom they are contrived to represent. In the end, though, what is fair is what we allow to be called that, leaving all wishes lost in the depths of the well.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers