It may not yet be fully understood just exactly what the meaning behind the current age is, but it is not a meager insight to conform to the notion that it is indeed a meaningful age. Not since the 1930s has the United States and the world seen such a cultural divide among the masses grow to the extent that it presently has, nor has the economy been so dysfunctional — so geographically massive. Everyday the lives of citizens, US citizens, are becoming increasingly damaged by stresses that have emerged from economic problems that were seemingly forbidden in America until recently — or since the ’30s.
Why this is comes down to the determinations of a great many people, leaving their observers to come under the impression that there is no one left to trust — merely biases to peddle to those seeking answers to the tense situation building among the varying classes and beliefs. A cultural war is developing, it appears, but just how drastically it will elevate is questionable.
The current age, so referred to here, has been assigned a position in history that is difficult to play, but, albeit, to announce an outcome to it before it has reached its conclusion is an act of fallacious commentary. The future has not yet been arrived at, and the present is, if the realities in it are to be understood, contingent upon an age with which to compare it to. The only phenomena, then, that can explain the present to the inhabitants living in the space of the present resides in times past.
The era of “past” that is sponsoring this attempt, the 1930’s, has already proclaimed its duty to the present here in former references, but just what is to be said about them? It is not as if this comparison between today’s recession and The Great Depression is anything new, but it is perhaps not always clear to a large share of the people actively forming the present political atmosphere that their knowledge is deficient in empirical understanding.
This observation having been rendered, what can be obtained by comparing the ’30 s and today? Well, the economic comparisons are obvious, and apart from great technological advances available in the current age there is most certainly not much difference in terms of there existing a swelling impoverishment among various classes of people. But where is it that this notion is most overt to the senses? Who is its most potent purveyor? The media and press — whether mainstream or new, of course, are those shills. But what of art? What of philosophy? The function of the humanities is, after all, crucial to any recorded age in history that wishes to keep its lights on, as it were.
George Orwell, whose artistic and polemical prose was to engage humanity very powerfully with Animal Farm and 1984, wrote, in 1940, a lengthy essay called “Inside the Whale.” The piece begins with a literary criticism of Henry Miller’s “Tropic of Cancer” in order to segue into a comparison between the political literature of the 1920s and 1930s, and how it was evident that the popular literature was inclined to make Marxist and leftist idealism a dogmatic fad, lest an author of the time matter. Miller Is ultimately a muse throughout, and for several reasons.
For example, Orwell held Miller to represent the common person’s passive attention to the political environment, and declared “Tropic of Cancer” to be the sine qua non for the apolitical outlook, in that Miller did not use his literary prowess to confront or challenge the politics of his time with his personal views — making him a political nihilist devoid of any sense of obligation or necessary participation.
The citizens of Italy during 1920s, for instance, did not vastly possess an obligation in understanding the issues taking place around them. Every system’s opposition is always made up of minority factions. Most of the population consisted of people too deeply involved in the perpetual intent to juke poverty to be resistant to any energetic, seemingly indomitable, zealot hell bent on obtaining power. The Italians were transformed culturally by the Fascist state of Mussolini (a man infused with fanatical passions, his influence over people was greatly due to a mass lack of knowledge concerning the polity of their nation.
The Biblical tale of Jonah and the Whale is also used by Orwell to suggest that people on the whole, once captive in any given environment, such as being forced to accept living inside a whale from which no escape seemed possible, will eventually, on the whole, become obediently submissive to their fated situations.
Influence is, ultimately, an effect that persuades one, when presided over by it, to form a certain opinion which will, also in effect, cause one to adopt a particular behavior and/or attitude regarding it.
But the different ways, whether positive, negative or disinterested, of which influence is prone to coerce are all, in practicality, influenced by the initial nature inherent of the capability to do so.
For example, in order to avoid the using the platitude formerly prescribed to my prose: “good, bad or indifferent”, I was influenced to present this common term in an uncommon manner, but without disturbing the nature behind its meaning.
My reactionary perversion of the phase shows that I was influenced by it, in that I purposely sought a way to say the same thing differently, so, while the meaning is the same, its conveyance is not.
The virtues of this comparison assert, then, that no matter how one reacts to a life, location or inanimate object’s nature, that person was in influenced to react no matter what and cannot escape the guidance of that which is determined to be clich’e.
In an article published by New Republic Magazine entitled “The Troubling Case of Chris Hedges” (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118114/chris-hedges-pulitzer-winner-lefty-hero-plagiarist), it is being alleged that popular author and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges of Truthdig.com has plagiarized material belonging to several different journalists and authors such as Canadian activist Naomi Klein and American novelist Ernest Hemingway.
The uncovering of the suspected plagiarized content was made by a fact-checker at Harper’s Magazine assigned to a manuscript by Hedges in which he encountered potentially plagiarized words in it after reading an article by Matt Katz of the Philadelphia Inquirer on poverty in Camden. Ultimately, Harper’s Magazine decided against publishing Hedges’s piece.
The discovery of this news leads me to confirm that I needn’t say very much in order to express my deep disappointment, but having said that, I can express more.
I am neither to the left nor the right, but it is unusual that I can stomach many of the liberal writers of today — most of them neo-liberal bloggers. But Chris Hedges is exception to this in the tradition that George Orwell is.
Liberal writers, I have noticed, are much of the time just Hunter S. Thompson wannabes, but the majority of them do not possess the talent that Thompson did, because they would refrain from trying to write like him if they had any, as talent is not inclined to feel satisfied in replicating preexisting achievements.
Most of the liberal and leftist writers of the age merely have agendas to promote, use hardly what is considered to be tactful polemics and often resort to a heavy usage of insults in order to advance their beliefs.
Many just post memes (something I am beginning to find insufferable), which demonstrates the agenda bias. “Fuck him and her and them and any republican or conservative belief or action” is usually the message their pieces convey.
But Hedges, like Thompson and Orwell were, is able to see the bigger picture, and all 3 writers have been just as critical about left-wing politics as they have right-wing — which is why I admire them.
But, and having myself been plagiarized, I find it dlifficult to respect Hedges any longer — if the charges are true, of course. The very notion that he is a plagiarist being true is itself very unfortunate, akin to the way Lance Armstrong fans felt, I imagine, and it is because he is prone to attack the right people: the corporate and Washington elite.
He takes them on, denounces their authority and displays a genuine disgust for these people. Being that he is a valuable intellectual and a crafty polemicist, he is effective in making serious points about the fascist activities on which the 2 elitist entities have jointly embarked. He has done much foreign correspondence, won many awards. He is respected, hence.
He is also not fooled by Obama, whereas many liberal writers are at present, although many of this kind oppose Hedges. But it is sufficient to determine that he draws readers from both sides, yet resonates most with Marxists and anarchists of varying extremes. Most importantly, and because of his achievements in journalism, he gives the oppressed masses a voice — because he is listened to.
Albeit, the accusations of Hedges being a plagiarist, if they are true — and I fear they may be, and this in spite of the fact that Christopher Ketcham — the author who wrote the long piece for the New Republic, a piece that both Salon and The American Prospect, and for reasons which are unclear, passed on — is married to another journalist, Petra Bartosiewicz, who was also apparently ripped off by Hedges.
But this doesn’t mean the charges are false, even if the corporate media is seeking to shut him up because he poses a valid threat to it. The proprietors of the media and press are plutocratic capitalists, after all, and will seize upon and exploit the plagiarism claim in order to make him do so — whether he is guilty or not.
The most significant and ironic point concerning this, though, is that if the assertions made against Hedges are indeed true, they have until this point been knowingly overlooked by his editors and publishers, which means he is getting away with something that other writers wouldn’t, just like a Wall Street CEO is never punished for committing the most terrible and unethical crimes. That is to say, he is an elitist in the world of journalism.
No single body or being should act as the sole harbinger of worldly destinations, as the notion of such entities is superficial to the nature of the self. Human consciousness is a constituent element of the universal consciousness, and the pretentious pursuits of an indoctrinated will are obligated to, and will manifest in, the posture of obedience if it is rendered fearful.
Fear, of course, is a reaction to confrontations between the self and perilous conditions — but it is a distraction to one’s consciousness when this instinct is, with purpose, over-exploited.
To wit: threats perceived are threats obeyed, and this due to the one’s internal fear of committing his or her consciousness to the nonsensical, unacceptable wonders of the self, and in lieu of this becoming kowtow to the idea Orwell ominously observed, in that serfdom somehow shares the same nature as freedom.
But, it can be arguably maintained, there is a synergistic quality to their relationship. Chaos and Order, for example, were counterbalanced foes whose effects were ultimately beneficial to the Egyptian landscape, because the chaotic flooding of the Nile restored the order of potency to soils in which many crops took root, sustaining the lives the ancient Egyptian people for thousands of years.
America’s fashion of materialistic freedom has flooded the landscape and spawned the rotten crop of serfdom — a negative counterbalance, because the soils were nourished with impure waters. The idea of freedom is relative to the system that deems it to be free. And where there is mass consumption encouraged, serfdom is surely to exist — as to consume requires the means to do so, and the fulfillment of this requirement is to desire the promise of freedom.
Yet, as per the precession of circumstances, the less jobs exist, the less people can afford to consume — and prices of commodities and services will rise due to a lack of profits. The promise, thus, will be broken. It is upon this realization that it becomes apparent that freedom is consumption.
All humanity, on some level, though it is very much a subconsciously recorded rendition, can distinguish the presence of pervasive harmonious vibes — a balanced motif of its transcendental purpose. But it is not heard correctly because of all the external exhibitions of riotous noise that distort it — and the self, in effect, resorts to seeking the advice of the robotic wisdom of rationales programmed with the bland contentions of traditional identities.
Freedom, it can be determined, the idea of it — and based on the merits of it being an idea — is a belief. It is not a given for the concept of freedom to be understood by any people who are not themselves palpably accustomed to knowing what it isn’t.
Those who do understand it (insofar, at least) contain this understanding for reasons particular to themselves — that which appeals to their distaste as a result of individual circumstances. Thus, the individual hates what seems threatening to his or her personal freedom, which the threatened will ultimately defend if the imposing threat appears dangerous and immediate.
But not all have grown to truly understand what it is that has kept the United States free (or freer) till this point, and not all know that it is becoming dangerously less free. To most people in America freedom is taken to be something natural. People do not realize that without a potent mixture of imperialism, idealism and corporatism, there is no freedom — or what is perceived to be freedom.
Whatever was intended by this country’s founders is no longer valuable to a people who have forgotten what their or the Constitution’s overall message is — and who outwardly regard history as being that of “useless information.” It is fair, therefore, to say — as Friedrich Nietzsche said of God in the Parable of the Madman — that freedom is dead, and it remains dead because we do not believe in it.
A belief requires thought and the discipline to exercise it — which most are not pragmatic enough to observe as being essential. People, en masse, do not recognize the historical reenactment we are ourselves conditioning presently — the “eternal recurrence” of the slaughtering of our convictions in order to beget the livelihood of despotic security.
Europe, as Nietzsche proclaimed through the figure of the Madman, was on the verge of housing a chaotic age to fill the void of God — which proved to be true in the early 20th century. The reason for this was that people, on a large scale, had no understanding that their once devout piety and belief in God was actually the moral design of their own European culture — and that its undoing would be theirs as well.
And for all of this, then, it can be said in summation: “‘How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe the blood off us?'” -Friedrich Nietzsche.
If one of cordial virtues were to one night find a raccoon rummaging around in his or her garbage, in retaliation, to “save” the animal from hunger and the front lawn from savage messiness, not by hurting the animal, but by feeding the animal will surely, if it again returns to the region, eat the food left, kindly, out for it.
But if another wild nocturnal should come to know the advertised scent, the animal, say a skunk, will — if it’s hungry enough, likely seek to benefit from the doorstep bearing the offerings, though not intended for the particulars of its taste.
It just appears strange to me that even when we don’t know the pain personally, we somehow think we know how best to heal it — but sympathy cannot deal a better hand than empathy. And as far as I know, no conglomerated benefactor is ever hungry enough to eat from the receptacle of another.
Q: How do we effectively enforce the moralities of societal preference?
A: We make them into laws that are, if violated, punishable by the institutions vested with the power to govern them.
Q: How do we enforce societal preference to uphold the moralities that are begotten by religious doctrine?
A: By enabling the decree that any soul be, if inclined to unbelief, damned and banished to hell by a perceived entity whose moral intentions are deliberated and governed by People (to wit: municipal clergymen).
Q: How does a system said to endorse morality enslave free will?
A: By having its governors of morality punish those of whom wish to act and operate under the guidence provided by their own esoteric sects of thought, instead of choking on the moral phlegm of dogmatic laws.
Therefore laws of morality are nothing of the kind. They are really denominations of control wearing guises comprised of moral fashions but, in actuality, care little for the style. The truth is that religions like Christianity are, as Christopher Hitchens commonly pointed out, immoral — owing to the fact that they are totalitarian. Church and State are nowhere near separate, and by remaining willfully prohibited by morality implies that human progress is what’s truly damned.
Say 2 friends go to a party together, but only one of the two does up some coke that each of them was offered by a fellow party member.
Now, after a few minutes, the friend that did the line traditions of manner begin to deform. The other friend, the sober friend, is aware that his friend, now speaking super fast and loquaciously, is not wearing his usual character, and he knows why his friend is acting differently because he witnessed him sniff the line.
But even with all this knowledge, the fact that he himself never did cocaine, that night or ever, will produce nothing in terms of understanding, but will merely furrow the brow of his bafflement, but, although his friend is being annoying because of the corruption of his nature, he’s also aware that he has no ability to snap his friend out of it, as he contains no knowledge of how to.
The same goes for history, because study of it from an outside perspective can only recognize to a certain degree, for no matter how much one might personally know about history … no matter how many historians discern parallels between past and present … no matter how distinctly generic is the understanding that history repeats itself, we have not yet ourselves experienced the falls of any empire, even though it is clearly understood that America is acting apart from its “usual” character.
If one is to think about it, the idea that America is a democracy is really a euphemism. Why this is so is because the system of crony capitalism, or cronyism, is really no different than corporatism — the fascist economic system of choice.
Without wealthy business cronies to engage with, the government would not be able to rule its citizens, yet it does just that, showing that both systems are, in fact, the same, in that their governments are chummy with the very profitable financial interests of business.
The only difference is that the political end of the fascist system declares its absolute authority over its people from the beginning, whereas the democratic political system is supposed to be under the control of its people.
Fascist peoples throughout its history are traditionally second to the State. But in the United States, a supposed democratic republic, the State is never to exceed the peoples’ will.
But the shape of America’s economy shows that this is merely a said reality, as the ebb and flow of a monetary system obviously controls everything — and government is no less under its control than anything or anyone else. So if business and government are cronies, then where does that leave everyone else?
The stability of any society relies on the inebriation of its structural dimensions with the use of economic substances. But the spatial dimensions of different economies vary in terms of roomy accommodations. The nuclear flares of the “stars” that develop as a due within these financial nebulae can only radiate for so long and grow so big before they ultimately explode — destroying the particular compasses of all those who rely on their power. The only tradition of any governing bodies throughout history has been to obtain power over its subjects…its citizens…its comrades…its people. To control them with religion…with politics…with fallacious promotions of fear. No system is, or ever was, fair or equal. There are planets like Earth and planets like Venus. Some places allow for the existence of life, others do not. But in the end, all are doomed by their star’s inherent inability to shine forever.
It is rather noticeable that the government is inept in fixing anything, so I store no faith in its affairs. I give no party the nod of my approval and simply do not really believe anything the government does is for the benefit of the people.
The 2 major parties that make up the US government are the republicans and the democrats. One party, the republican party, is as aggressive as a mean-spirited miser stuck in his ways. The democrats are generally seen as being the nice guys that are looking to shelter the people from the bullies that make up the GOP.
But party membership is really just a tactical measure that politicians practice, like one commonly used by law enforcement interrogators: Good Cop…Bad Cop.
The common people, symbolically, are the perpetrators, and for copious reasons.
The bad cop, when quizzing a perp, is the republican: loud, visibly angry, mean and makes no attempt to hide the fact that he has neither sympathy nor compassion of any kind for anybody. He makes it clear that he deems said perp responsible for the issue at hand.
After enduring the abuse of the bad cop for some span of time, a newer and friendly voice elects itself to speak. It is the voice of the good cop, chiming in just as the perp has been backed into a corner by the bad cop. Once in control of the interrogation, the good cop, like a liberal, offers the perp something to drink, perhaps a cigarette, a snack, etc…
Then he turns off the bright, oppressive light and speaks calmly and humanely to the detainee, who is rattled enough to agree to the coercion of the good cop after being manipulated by him for some time and confesses — guilty or not. The good cop serves the same institution (the judicial system) that the bad cop does. Both parties wanted the same thing from the perp in the end, their methods of getting it are all that differ.
There is little to discover in the confines of certainty, this is really the only thing someone can be certain of, in that the limits one sets for his- or herself are set for fear of stumbling into circumstances containing any kind of uncertainty.
It is not of odd nature to beseech clarity, as it only makes sense. It would be ridiculous, for example, for one to give an invited party the wrong address. Preciseness is a necessary thing to have, but, in some ways, it is an enemy to the conscious state.
For instance, religion provides someone with an everlasting cop out, because religious people are certain about what they think is true, so are atheists — and thus, these people permit grand limitations of self to be implemented in order to force out complicated questions, as people are fearful of what kind of difficult specter may haunt the essence of the answers to
But the nature of a question is to ask, and a ponder that seeks relevance will be asked by someone eventually. Avoiding attempts to resolve questions of uncertainty only makes it unnecessarily more arduous to get on with things.
In this present age, due to the vast amount of tangibly available information, sizable clarifications are being made and cultivated from the depths, unearthing buried evidence that spitefully destroy what is said to be true or false, so many people are up in arms about many issues, and we now must face consequential uncertainties wading in the wake of retorting repercussions.
It has been unanimously acknowledged that history is the pictorial window into the past, and thus it is what frames our future, because history has one main purpose: to serve as a reminder to us all – calling upon yesterday to answer for today’s post-modern appearance.
But in order to not fall victim to the supercilious esteem of presumptuous guidelines, never forgetting that any context that elaborates a historical truism can in Fact be deceptive is key, as the reflective words spawned to depict it are not always inclined to be reliably accurate.
It should be understood that many times the pen that etched the “truth” of any given history into coherence was under the control of a bias hand, and that valid history is really a mesh of varying conclusive, agenda-oriented accounts of it. To cite an observation by George Orwell from his 1943 essay Looking Back on the Spanish War “…some kind of history will be written…. So for all practical purposes the lie will have become truth.”
The past is not always as clear as it is widely proclaimed and accepted, because the panes stored in the sashes that allow one to gaze at it may be cracked, partially fogged up windows that furbish merely finite actualities. The curvature of the earth distorts the actual immensity of an ocean’s body – and more can be discovered beyond where it seems to collide with the limits of the sky.
Of all the queries conditioned to be vexed over in this world, nothing should be more kowtow to importance than that of the thematic subject to be observed in the following: Freedom. What is Freedom? Is it a gift? A brand? A bargain?
In many places around the world the answer to all of these questions is yes, but it is also usually something out of stock in most of the places it is sought for. The greater question, though, is whether or not the word Freedom should even exist, because it really shouldn’t in actuality, as the question begs that one ponder something that isn’t difficult to answer, and this is because Freedom is not synonymous with slavery.
Rather, it is an instinct forging survival. Freedom will always vote in favor of itself–it knows exactly what it wants. But 2 features of thought known as reason and conscience are constantly holding it up, filibustering its decisions and distorting an understanding of its incumbency — thus, its decisions are compromised and made based on what seems right or acceptable.
Freedom is a concept that only reveals its protest in conscious states when it feels threatened. When one is in such a state, instinct beckons to thought and urges it to question whether or not what presents the threat seems fair to allow within one’s own realm of politics. Freedom is primordially aware in the depths of every nature, so why should there be any need to analyze Freedom to the extent that it requires a word to describe it?
The reason that Freedom is a ponder of relevance is that everyone wants to be fluent in its vernacular, but simultaneously, they refrain from using the content its vocabulary’s diction is capable of speaking, not realizing that silence is censorship. The pressures of society and consequence are what calls on reason and conscience to weigh in on something, and they dictate a profound rule over one’s ability to cope within a system that is forced to recognize a Freedom coined by silent mint.
What is a system? A system is a set of constituent elements that perform different individual functions and are positioned in areas relative to the proper, healthy functioning of a larger organism, like a corporation — or a venture of capitalism — which are themselves systems.
What should be noted candidly here is that a system is made up of multiple organs, all of which perform different functions, and all of which are needed to construct the entirety of a single human being.
It should be plainly noticed, though, that a system is the already the proprietor of a natural immune system, and thus, it regulates itself. It needs only to be regulated with stronger medicine in times of dire emergency.
A depressed person, for instance, of whom is boasting the contemplation of suicide, is when one should consider the implementation of medicine foreign to his or her own genetic makeup.
So there should be info made available that explains to consumers what adverse side-effects might occur from the medicine, as a system will become unsettled, and might even reject, the synthetic properties unleashed to regulate.
The result of the effects underlie a breeding dysfunction instead of treating it — as the medicine itself seems to the system a renegade introduced to peddle unwanted, intrusive functions, or side-effects. And side-effects can, absolutely, control the sufferers under its influence.
As real as we treat it, “time” is not that. The notion of “time” is simply a notion — an idea. It is merely conceptual, time, nothing more.
It is just another example of human need for control and order and practical understanding, forged, here, by the terms of a generic agreement on the concept of “time.” Or perhaps it exemplifies the human need to be controlled.
Either way,”time” is merely configurations determined to fit inside the calculated conditions of spatial dimensions for which it has room to exist within. The fact that we can arrange “time” in any way, shape or form we wish to: seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, etc., shows clearly that “time” is absolutely conceptual.
In order to modify something real, it, being that it is material matter, must be physically treated to do so, in some way or other — but “time” need only be recognized as something we agree upon.
The only physical action in keeping time is changing the positioned numeration rendered on the screen or face, depending. During the French Revolution, for instance, a calendar that did not comply with the Christian calender was developed due to the French Republic having completely dismissed the faith.
Without keeping track of “time,” the present remains persistent, yet again, though, the “present” is itself an idea that is configured to represent a portion of the overall “time.” The fact of the deal is that the concept of “time” is a relative determination conjured to measure the boundaries of the imagination.
Who are we wholly when talented in speaking our own individual languages? And whose words can verify what’s said in the testimonials vouched for?
These questions seem to always seep into the pragmatism of my consciousness in a sudden aphoristic condition that my habits of rendition cannot ignore. But the answer to the above posed questions is in accordance with era — and the ancient metaphysical dogmatics again and again reveal themselves in chaotic expressions.
As Nietzsche said: “Critical tension: extremes make their appearance and become dominant.” I find it reasonable to submit that both Nazi fascism and Stalinist communism are among the shining examples that validate Nietzsche’s terse assertion.
During the French Revolution, to craft an instance, the focus of Europe, and thus the world, was on France. But there is no quality to endorse the notion that France is today at the epicenter of the world’s attention, because one would feel it to be unreasonable to plunder the commode of a depleted bounty.
The power at stake is what drives the ambition of rebelion, and so the language will always be explained by the verbiage of its actions and by those of whom are conversely debating it. But it remains necessary to note that it is invariable that any given vaunting voice will at some point fuck up and spew a slur, turning the components of a finely constructed sentence into a tongue twister.
To be controversial is to challenge the truth as it has sustained itself from a certain point in history on, as it has been repeatedly promoted to be the truth — and most will let it rest at that. Asking what are perceived to be different, unusual or unsettling questions about certain topics is bound to find a fate that portrays the notion that Socratic dialogue, as it were, is wrong, unpatriotic and cynical.
But I feel that different does not equate wrong…opinions do not present betrayal…anger at something does not imply hatred of it — well it shouldn’t. If someone upsets and angers his or her parents, for example, it is very unlikely that the parents will hate their child for it.
So it brings me no malcontent to be controversial, because asking questions is crucial to understanding the truth. I mean, if I am to be stricken with malaise, I would enjoy knowing the side-effects of the remedy for it that I am to endure.
Why should it be that I can’t know?
Why is it unnecessary to ask about the rarer side-effects?
Why is it wrong that I know about something that affects my life?
Should it be illegal for a practitioner of medicine to withhold from me knowledge concerning my health in order to buy time in figuring out what to do about it? And by that rationale, does the doctor’s wish to heal my ailment entitle him to hide it from me on the premise that it was for my own good?
If such a practice did exist, and a real health concern is present, is it morally, by humans standards, wrong for a nurse with knowledge about it to disobey doctor/patient confidentiality protocol and let me know about what the doctor is keeping from me?
Based on these merits, being controversial is merely asking reasonable questions to quiz whether or not — after having it answered in many different ways — the official answer supplied is enough to fill the demands of alarmed ponders deposited in the banks of mindful storage. Satisfaction wades in that of lies, it seems, as discovering the truth is, though crucial, not something satisfactory.
It is not costly to wager that we are not alone is this universe, a universe the size of which no human mind can truly fathom. Humanity can be understood only in human terms, all of which are terms that vary immensely.
Science is making great leaps that bring humanity closer to understanding the universal structure during current times. Of course religion is a tremendous liability to scientific theory, and thus, a liability to progress — even though every religious pretext throughout human history has been driven by the will of humans’ lust for power.
Galileo Galilei, the first astronomer in told history to point a telescope at the sky, was put under a sentence of permanent house arrest because he endangered the integrity of religious piety and the dogmatic superstitions of his day, meaning he was a liable to let unknown, factual discoveries pervade the theology that aloud those in charge of it to have massive political power — an absolute power.
The truth disrupts the lie, which subsequently disrupts its overall control — or it at least allows for arguments of challenging context.
The notion that everything happens for a reason is a common intuition promoted in the vernacular of prominent adage. But is it really necessary to suggest that this is a given?
In my own perception I am inclined to determine that the effect of a cause is synonymous with the outcome of a reason. And it isn’t because of what develops, as a due, down the line, in the more sharply developed image shown in hindsight, that makes me feel this way.
But it is from this image that one will base a discernment established in the shadows of his or her current surroundings. For reasons both good and bad, there must reside an explainable, metaphysical identity that can portray itself as satisfactory to the psyche and urge one to utter the remedial phrase: “everything happens for a reason,” and all of its unconfirmed platitudes in order to “correctly” cite the reason that prompted the effect itself.
In the romantic sense, the outcome of a situation often levitates its cause to some divine, karmic rank, turning down the realism echoing voluminousness of the deal. In my own observations, both of others and of myself, I find that the 4 most crucial ingredients that supply the will with the incentive to feed its wants and its needs are pride, jealousy, love and pain — and each emotional condition corresponds with the others and reacts in accordance to a scrambled deliberation of thought.
If one were to lose, for instance, the possible commodity of love to another suitor, the animalistic instinct is to react, without regard to reason, and in a way that would make all parties involved unhappy and disgusted with each other in turn.
This is the damage that’s engaged by imperialism. The reason people cannot resist effect is caused by the fact that from instinct the only retort is reactionary, and the outcome is conformed to take on the resemblance of a reason after the fact. It is merely visceral in human nature to want to control everything — including what it cannot.
The sole criterion, I’m inclined to surmise, for Freedom to truly exist, is the allowance to seek it. This criterion itself shows the automatic nature of humans to seek the guiding hand of an invisible servant. “Who’s in charge around here?” seems to always be the most frontal response to anything conceptually enormous — yet I am astonished at the notion that Freedom needs a catalyst — that the continuation of herded grazing is opted for even when gates are open. With this understanding, it can be rightfully assumed that the age of the common is (as I do speculate) leading a path to where the eventual retardation of functional Freedom is systematically an inevitable due.
What exactly is the United States government? What are its functions? What are its convictions? What purpose in modern times is that of this empirical governing body?
It seems rather usual to appoint validity to the idea that the average person running for any given office is almost completely stuffed with nonsense, as a job application requires that one’s best qualities are to be acknowledged, and that discrepancies that challenge this fronted image be omitted from the scrutiny of public perception.
If one were to tell, for example, a perspective employer that he or she has a penchant for slacking off and is inclined to frequent truancy, it wouldn’t be likely to help the applicant’s situation. So people running for various public offices are more often to tell lies and disguise their fibs in the euphemisms of omission and spin.
To wit: politicians are actors, and Washington DC is the mega gig. But as anyone involved in the making of films would explain: the show must be produced…financed, so the actors can play their casted roles, exposed as edited renditions of it peddled by the media and revised in the ink stains of the press . The most important question, though, is who exactly are the producers of the show, and on what street do they reside?
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 not through knowledge ascertained by visible perception.
So it is fair to discern, if verifiable, that perhaps what is seen via the filmy glow of corrupted feeding reels, no matter how often, can be a view subject to scrutiny — especially when all of which consists of the nominal is a standpoint coated in non-representational understandings of which overwhelm the senses of the guts. If so, is it that what is seen should be the accountable source for what belief tends to report?
Down a road that seldom holds a passenger’s route, a man in a beat up truck drives in silence, being for the lack of radio waves washing up on the shores of the dry desert landscape he is traveling through.
He took a wrong turn some ways back and has veered off in a desperately hopeless direction — as these thirsty hills are telling of doom. He is low on gas because he decided against filling up before he set out due to its high price.
He also has a slow leak in his front driver’s side tire and knows about it. He’s been filling it up with a compression tank in which he reserves air for weeks — and every time he inflates the tire it requires more air.
The reason for his frugal behavior is that he wanted to ease his expenditures and get as much use out of it as possible. And the consequences of his neglect to take risk seriously are rendering clarity in his perception presently, as he drives down the outskirts framing nowhere, the tire is beginning to lose air — but his compressor is in his garage.
He knows it is vital to get out of the desert and find a gas station, but he doesn’t have knowledge of this area and how to exit it. But he knows that failure to do so will cost him a lot more if he has to call for a tow — assuming his phone can get a signal.
There is an Aesop Fable where the North Wind and the Sun quarrel over who is stronger. The moral contends that use of persuasion is superior to that of force, and the value of this claim is worth examining.
There is no esteemed promise in the use of force — and the result will inevitably be roused in the proclamations of a pervasively generic discontent by those being forced to obey anything of which seems unjust to demand of them.
None are here to serve a single common goal enlightened by a General Will. And there is no spirit that the people of the world are trying to reach, incrementally, through history. The idea of the Geist that Hegel supported in his dialectic philosophy is a fallacy of Rousseauian proportions, and any arguments that boast its favor are inclined to surface in times of economic and political distress.
When fascism seems certain to prevail, the communists (or any extreme type of socialist) of the world react, just the way — as Hayek maintained in the Road to Serfdom — capitalism reacts to socialism. By fostering socialism in a capitalistic society, the 2 begin to merge, and when the state and business conflate they form a corporate state — fascism.
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 having already reached its highest level. In fact, the player is likely to do the opposite, because the will is obliged desire continuing the game, so phase of a pause is reset, and the signal suggests that it is time to start over, and to continue proceeding.
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 help. So would it be, by these virtues, fair to assume that certainty is something that can be counted on? Or can it only be speculated on? Is it true the fallibility of certainty is the maker of all errors humankind has made?
People are not too inclined to think about anything they do not expect to happen, and are often unprepared to handle unexpected circumstances when they arise. But at any time, the lights may not come on, and it is difficult navigate in the dark — the specter of death, the only absolute certainty the life has to offer, weighing heavily on the back of consciousness.
It is fair to assume that only a portion of any gimmick’s vows are there to be wholly attended to. It is a truth that most people on average do not ponder the context of an even exchange.
To wit — it is unlikely that people who often eat at restaurants are not inclined to give much thought concerning the sojourn of any given plate they have delivered to them.
Many times, most often during a high volume rush, an essential component of an entree will slip from the grip of its handler and land on the floor, but the person who is serving the table with the party who is waiting for the now tainted, corrupted food has been incessantly and aggressively questioning the cooks about the whereabouts of the meal for 20 minutes.
Such instances cause a bad relationship to develop between the server and the served, as quick and pleasant service are what will most help to ensure that a greater tip will be left.
The diner is likely to feel that the waiting time was too long and leave a grouchy sum on the table in retort to having been made to do so. But due to the high-pressured circumstances, the food is sometimes picked up and mounted onto the plate.
Then, the very person who was made to wait a long period of time for the meal’s arrival, and who is also paying for it, is to be insidiously fed much of what nobody would consciously prefer to consume.
The promises branded by a restaurant are expected by those who dine at it, yet the corporate managers would always rather put profit above anything else, and urge employees to keep the customers’ interest at hand, no matter what it takes to make it appear the gimmick has boasted the truth.
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 Acton’s infamous conclusion is correct here — absolutely.
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 as Augustus was.
Perhaps the least informed, or most misguided, people in the United States are those who consider the mainstream media and conventional press to be a reasonable source of information.
People, it can be assured, who invest their reliance in the word of both the press and the media are receiving no return on their investments, as the news is a ruse.
No matter how true a topic that the news covers may be, the way it is delivered is with sensationalism, fictional hype and seeming urgency. Part of the reason behind employing these tactics is no doubt to lure viewers and boost ratings.
Yet there is also another reason, though it may be unintended in certain cases, that people are taken in and buy what the news is selling.
A 1:00pm, a commercial will tell its viewers that an exotic pear could be disastrous to one’s health if eaten, but that danger is omitted until the airing of the evening news program.
But why is this pressing news concealed from those watching, some of whom may have eaten this pear? The commercial boasts the notion that it already knows of danger this exotic fruit contains, but feels no need to make the danger publicly known right then.
Albeit, the danger is filed under classified until the evening edition. When viewers tune in, the news is kept until the end of the program, 1) to keep people engaged so to up the ratings, and, 2) to make the audience fearful.
But when the pear news is finally aired, those watching are informed that the pear has a dense pit, and that the people who may eat them should be careful when biting into one. The news, then, is merely diseased information — a rotten pear.
What is success? And what is the barometer for measuring a case that has resulted in the fulfillment of it? Most people would conclude that the achievement of a goal — a worthy goal (a goal inclined to goodness) — is met in order to etch out the mark of success.
But can it be said of success that the meeting of goals is not what determine success alone? To wit: is there not a societal standard that decides which goals are and are not in their achievement successful?
Surely it cannot be that someone who aspires to mass murder and reaches that aspiration would be viewed in the eyes of society as anything other than decidedly unsuccessful. But individual success is not under the influence altruistic convictions.
That which is palpable to desire is what those who achieve desire determine to abide. The conceptual “good” vs. “evil” do not themselves compel one who is driven to succeed, because the successful do not value their desires based on another’s evaluation of them.
Who are the wise? And to the wise should humanity relinquish its voice? If so, how does one determine who is or is not wise?
Elected politicians, for the most part, cannot truly depict such a persona, being that most of them craft their public images to abide a societal status quo. They are commissioned to orchestrate democratically and compose the motif of genuine Americanism.
At least the notes are arranged to sound this way. But any of whom pay heed to the flaws of the tune know that something is way off key — that the sheet music might as well be on fire. They know that the band is comprised of bad and mediocre players.
It would certainly be of no positive use to employ the services of the musically disinclined to portray the esteem of a symphony. So why allow unwise politicians to make decisions that are requisite of wisdom?
Despite the morality behind the intentions of Platonic assertions, it has shown historically to be a most perilous move to put one person or body in positions that carry the designation of possessing infinite wisdom — especially when the fanbase is tone-deaf.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.