If you want to bring true change to a society, print excessive amounts of money

In his "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", John Maynard Keynes writes the following: (Page 235)

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

In the latter stages of the war all the belligerent governments practised, from necessity or incompetence, what a Bolshevist might have done from design. Even now, when the war is over, most of them continue out of weakness the same malpractices. But further, the Governments of Europe, being many of them at this moment reckless in their methods as well as weak, seek to direct on to a class known as profiteers" the popular indignation against the more obvious consequences of their vicious methods. These "profiteers" are, broadly speaking, the entrepreneur class of capitalists, that is to say, the active and constructive element in the whole capitalist society, who in a period of rapidly rising prices cannot help but get rich quick whether they wish it or desire it or not. If prices are continually rising, even trader who has purchased for stock or owns property and plant inevitably makes profits. By directing hatred against this class, therefore, the European Governments are carrying a step further the fatal process which the subtle mind of Lenin had consciously conceived. The profiteers are a consequence and not a cause of rising prices. By combining a popular hatred of the class of entrepreneurs with the blow already given to social security by the violent and arbitrary disturbance of contract and of the established equilibrium of wealth which is the inevitable result of inflation, these Governments are fast rendering impossible a continuance of the social and economic order of the nineteenth century. But they have no plan for replacing it.

Wow. If that doesn't describe life under Obama, I don't know what does.(just change one or two words/phrases, such as "of the nineteenth century") Because a 'world reserve currency' was excessively printed, it's value has become disastrously unstable. There have been for quite some time now, food riots all over the globe. Just at the end of last month, it was reported that peanut butter prices were going up.

Now, Keynes attributes this to Lenin. But there seems to be no source for that, so for now it should go like this: John Maynard Keynes says(writes) that the best way to change society is to debauch the currency. And to anybody paying attention, they're doing exactly what Keynes told them to do. You'll get change alright, but it won't bring you much hope.

http://tinyurl.com/8ytc8y7

Happy Thanksgiving

On this Thanksgiving, I would like to give thanks to our Founding Fathers, and keep this posting short. But offer an inspirational message to all who would see my blog:

History is a map, not a bunch of trivia questions

What academics have done to damage the teaching of history is nearly a crime. There are so many reasons why our society is in trouble, and the teaching of history is certainly one of them. In his "Notes on the State of Virginia", Thomas Jefferson has the following to write:(Page 160)

But of all the views of this law, none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical. History, by apprising them of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times, and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume: and knowing it, to defeat its views. In every Government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate, and improve. Every Government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree. This, indeed, is not all that is necessary, though it be essentially necessary. An amendment of our Constitution must here come in aid of the public education. The influence over Government must be shared among all the people. If every individual which composes their mass participates of the ultimate authority, the Government will be safe; because the corrupting the whole mass will exceed any private resources of wealth: and public ones cannot be provided but by levies on the people.

Now, that's not to say that history can't be trivia. Why congress is referred to sometimes as an upper house and a lower house, is because when Philadelphia was the US Capitol, the Senate was on the second floor and the House of Reps was on the first floor of Congress Hall.

But your children, and all of us were only taught History as a form of trivia; "On what date did blank say blank?" "on what continent or in what city did blank happen?" - they never teach children the utter disdain that Woodrow Wilson and other progressives have for our constitution and our way of life. They don't teach the context of history, why it's useful and relevant. They don't prepare us to defend our liberties against what can only be called a movement to restore tyranny.

Mark Levin: The first Fabian Socialist US President was Woodrow Wilson

At 5:30 of Mark Levin's speech at the Defending the American Dream Conference(Full speech courtesy of Right Scoop, please click here and watch the whole thing), Mark Levin had some comments regarding Fabianism in the United States. Here is a short clip:

What he is referring to comes out of Woodrow Wilson's book "Constitutional Government In The United States". There are two things, actually. One of them is from page 16, which I made a posting about some time ago.

The other begins on page 4

The ideals of liberty cannot be fixed from generation to generation; only its conception can be, the large image of what it is. Liberty fixed in unalterable law would be no liberty at all. Government is a part of life, and, with life, it must change, alike in its objects and in its practices; only this principle must remain unaltered, — this principle of liberty, that there must be the freest right and opportunity of adjustment. Political liberty consists in the best practicable adjustment between the power of the government and the privilege of the individual; and the freedom to alter the adjustment is as important as the adjustment itself for the ease and progress of affairs and the contentment of the citizen.

There are many analogies by which it is possible to illustrate the idea, if it needs illustration. We say of a boat skimming the water with light foot, 'How free she runs,' when we mean, how perfectly she is adjusted to the force of the wind, how perfectly she obeys the great breath out of the heavens that fills her sails. Throw her head up into the wind and see how she will halt and stagger, how every sheet will shiver and her whole frame be shaken, how instantly she is "in irons," in the expressive phrase of the sea. She is free only when you have let her fall off again and get once more her nice adjustment to the forces she must obey and cannot defy. We speak of the 'free' movement of the piston-rod in the perfectly made engine, and know of course that its freedom is proportioned to its perfect adjustment. The least lack of adjustment will heat it with friction and hold it stiff and unmanageable. There is nothing free in the sense of being unrestrained in a world of innumerable forces, and each force moves at its best when best adjusted to the forces about it. Spiritual things are not wholly comparable with material things, and political liberty is a thing of the spirits of men; but we speak of friction in things that affect our spirits, and do not feel that it is altogether a figure of speech. It is not forcing analogies, therefore, to say that that is the freest government in which there is the least friction, — the least friction between the power of the government and the privilege of the individual. The adjustment may vary from generation to generation, but the principle never can. A constitutional government, being an instrumentality for the maintenance of liberty, is an instrumentality for the maintenance of a right adjustment, and must have a machinery of constant adaptation.

Wilson is wrong on all accounts. Levin's explanation of this is fabulous. Even the use of the word mastermind, is worth note. A progressive by the name of Edward House(who was Woodrow Wilson's favorite go-to guy) wrote the book "Philip Dru, Administrator". Mastermind is exactly the phrase used to describe Dru: (Page 148)

GENERAL DRU began at once the reorganization of his army. The Nation knew that the war was over, and it was in a quiver of excitement.

They recognized the fact that Dru dominated the situation and that a master mind had at last arisen in the Republic. He had a large and devoted army to do his bidding, and the future seemed to lie wholly in his hands.

This is not accidental. This is how central planners look at themselves. They're all masterminds.

Look out! Full revolution is on the table

At an Occupy Wall Street offshoot event, an Occupy Oakland protester had the following to say: (Headline: 1,000 at old Occupy Oakland camp to discuss future)

"If they (police) take over the camp, we're going to reoccupy," Ronald "Rasta" Jones, 31, an Oakland resident who had lived in the Occupy Oakland camp since its first day, Oct. 10, said before officers moved in around 5 a.m. to evict people. "Our objective is for them to keep spending money. ... We're not going to stop."

Jones has let the cat out of the bag. Occupy Oakland/Wall Street is the Cloward and Piven strategy, out on the streets. Overload and collapse the system. But what I underlined is also of note. For someone who seems to have such an important thing to say, note how the writers of the article are willing to launder Jones into 'just some protester'. Who is Ronald "Rasta" Jones? And how did they know Jones has been there since day one? Does it strike you odd that they would know that much about him, yet at the same time know absolutely nothing about him? In an article a few days earlier from the same news source, which even includes the same reporter, you will find the following: (Headline: Jean Quan asks Occupy Oakland to cooperate Page 2)

That struck Ronald "Rasta" Jones as a good idea.

Jones has been part of the encampment since the first day and was arrested when police swept the area Oct. 25.

"This is supposed to be a peace movement," said Jones, 31, who is part of the camp's security team and publicly criticizes the defacing and destruction of property. "If we could get City Hall to work with us, it would be a pleasure and an honor."

So the above article misleads all of it's readers into thinking that Jones is just some guy who just so happened to have been there since day one. Yeah, perhaps they could've just asked him, and it's as simple as that. But this second article really casts a huge shadow upon the first one. It's the same author.

But the problem we face is bigger than just the Cloward and Piven strategy being executed on the streets of some major cities. Anti-Capitalist Teach-In Leader: 'We Have People Organizing Inside of the Military'

"The other thing we stress is building a base in the military. If we’re talking about revolution, it means we have to win other some section of the military to be on our side and most of them are working class people just like the rest of us...We have people organizing inside the military...," Rod explained (around 1:50).

The military is, at this point the last bastion of machinery that the progressives have not totally corrupted. If you've ever asked yourself the question as to why it is that they hate the military so much, you're living the answer right now. Here it is. The military is a protection against the tyranny of a revolution. The average progressive can hem and haw all they want about this or that: Iran, Iraq, South America and other examples that are routinely used; when you get to the core leadership of the progressive movement(people you'd likely never run into), people who call the shots and are major players, this is what it's all about. This is why they hate the military.

If you know anybody in the military, you better reach out to them. Invite them over for thanksgiving, thank them for their service to our country, warn them that they're being intentionally targeted with the intent of being used as a tool to permanently end what is the American experiment. If these people are successful, and I cannot stress to you how close.... how so very close they are to achieving their goals. If these people are successful then depending on your age you'll never taste liberty again. Only your children or grand children will. Maybe even regardless of your age, and your children won't see liberty either. Liberty is not the natural state of man, and "once liberty is lost it's typically lost forever". - John Adams

Progressivism: No human being manages it's affairs as well as a plant

Well, that explains why we need the elites! We need those administrators to run our lives from Washington, because we are utterly incapable of running these affairs on our own. (this is me being sarcastic, I'm sure all will detect that) In his book "Public Opinion" (Page 27) Walter Lippman has the following to say:

Try to explain social life as the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. You will soon be saying that the hedonist begs the question, for even supposing that man does pursue these ends, the crucial problem of why he thinks one course rather than another likely to produce pleasure, is untouched. Does the guidance of man's conscience explain? How then does he happen to have the particular conscience which he has? The theory of economic self interest? But how do men come to conceive their interest in one way rather than another? The desire for security, or prestige, or domination, or what is vaguely called self-realization? How do men conceive their security, what do they consider prestige, how do they figure out the means of domination, or what is the notion of self which they wish to realize? Pleasure, pain, conscience, acquisition, protection, enhancement, mastery, are undoubtedly names for some of the ways people act. There may be instinctive dispositions which work toward such ends. But no statement of the end, or any description of the tendencies to seek it, can explain the behavior which results. The very fact that men theorize at all is proof that their pseudo-environments, their interior representations of the world, are a determining element in thought, feeling, and action. For if the connection between reality and human response were direct and immediate, rather than indirect and inferred, indecision and failure would be unknown, and (if each of us fitted as snugly into the world as the child in the womb), Mr. Bernard Shaw would not have been able to say that except for the first nine months of its existence no human being manages its affairs as well as a plant.

Not much doubt to me, that he is quoting Bernard Shaw approvingly here. But in my infinite curiosity, when I Googled the phrase as it is, no results came up. I do enjoy a challenge, and I did find what I sought. Now I can show others. What Bernard Shaw did actually write is virtually identical, in his "Maxims for Revolutionists", which is at the end of his book "Man and Superman". That is where you can find the following: (on Page 238)

Except during the nine months before he draws his first breath, no man manages his affairs as well as a tree does.

It's nice to know what informs people's opinions. In this case, Walter Lippmann's. Be it Communists, Fabians, Progressives or some other form of centralized planning, it's always the arrogance. It's the arrogance that I just cannot stand.

What happened to socialism?

One of the best ways to understand where you're going(or being pushed to) is to look back and see what has already occurred. John Rae wrote a book titled "Contemporary Socialism" in which he notes some things about how the old forms of communitarian socialism gave way and the only type of socialism left standing was revolutionary socialism. I find this type of commentary/study to be very instructive in understanding old progressivism from a century ago, contrasted with current revolutionary progressivism, which started in the 60's. The Cloward/Piven strategy(completely collapsing the system) came to life in the 60's wheras in previous generations the progressives followed a more Fabian model and subverted from the inside. Here's what Rae writes in the introduction:(page 2)

Now the present movement is, before all, political and revolutionary. The philanthropic and experimental forms of socialism, which played a conspicuous role before 1848, perished then in the wreck of the Revolution, and have never risen to. life again. The old schools have dispersed. Their doctrines, their works, their very hopes have gone. The theories of man's entire dependence on circumstances, of the rehabilitation of the flesh, of the passional attraction, once in everybody's mouth, have sunk into oblivion. The communities of Owenites, St. Simonians, Fourierists, Icarians, which multiplied for a time on both sides of the Atlantic, are extinct. The socialists of the present day have discarded all belief in the possibility of effecting any social regeneration except by means of political authority, and the first object of their endeavours is therefore the conquest of the powers of the State. There are some exceptions, but these are very unimportant. The communistic societies of the United States, for instance, are mostly organizations of eccentric religious sects which have no part or influence in the life of the century. The Colinsian Collectivists, followers of the Belgian socialist Colins, are a mere handful; and the Familistere of Guise in France—a remarkable institution, founded since 1848 by an old disciple of Fourier, though not on Fourier's plan—stands quite alone, and has no imitators. Non-political socialism may accordingly be said to have practically disappeared.

Not only so, but out of the several sorts and varieties of political socialism, only one has revived in any strength, and that is the extremest and most revolutionary. It is the democratic communism of the Young Hegelians, and it scouts the very suggestion of State-help, and will content itself 'with nothing short of State-transformation. Schemes such as -were popular and noisy thirty years ago—schemes, involving indeed organic changes, but organic changes of only a partial character—have gone to their rest.

So in their day, the socialists gave up on their little communities and turned to the state. In a way, this loosely mirrors what we see today. If you look at the USA as a community, Europe's nations as communities, they are all failing just like the small communities did back then. So what's their solution? Kick it higher. A century ago, they wanted to push it up to the nation, in today's world they want to build one single global governance body.(Search for Agenda 21, for starters) He continues:

This is the form in which socialism has reappeared, and it may be described in three words as Revolutionary Socialist Democracy. The movement is divided into two main branches —socialism proper, or collectivism, as it is sometimes called, and anarchism. There are anarchists who are not socialists, but hold strongly by an individualist constitution of property. They are very few, however, and the great mass of the party known by that name in our day, including the Russian Nihilists, are as ardent believers in the economic socialism of Karl Marx as the Social Democrats of Germany themselves. They diverge from the latter on a question of future government; but the differences between the two are only such as the same movement might be expected to exhibit in passing through different media, personal or national. Modern democrats have been long divided into Centralists and Federalists—the one party seeking to give to the democratic republic they contemplate a strongly centralized form of government, and the other preferring to leave the local communes comparatively independent and sovereign, and free, if they choose, to unite themselves in convenient federations. The federal republic has always been the favourite ideal of the Democrats of Spain and of the Communards of Paris, and there is generally a tendency among Federalists, in their impatience of all central authority, to drop the element of federation out of their ideal altogether, and to advocate the form of opinion known as "anarchy"— that is, the abolition of all superior government. It was very natural that this ancient feud among the democrats should appear in the ranks of socialist democracy, and it was equally natural that the Russian Radicals, hating the autocracy of their country and idealizing its rural communes, should become the chief adherents of the federalist and even the anarchic tradition.

This is the only point of principle that separates anarchism from socialism. In other respects anarchism may be said to be but an extremer phase of socialism.

This too sheds a lot of light on what we see today. Have you ever asked yourself why it is that the anarchists throw in with the socialists? May I suggest you read Rae's book for some of your answers? We see this today, Anarchist groups wearing the Guy Fawkes mask at Occupy Wall Street and other socialist-inspired protests. Read the STORM handbook, or listen to the audio book version of it that I'm currently recording, it's in there too. Various anarchist groups that the STORM marxists are working with, and STORM even had anarchists in it's ranks. There's one more thing in this book I'd like to highlight and see people openly discuss. We didn't learn about this in our public school history lessons:(Page 77)

The United States of America have done more for experimental socialism than any other country. Owenites, Fourierists, Icarians have all established communities there, but these communities have failed long ago, except one of the Icarian, and the only other socialist experiments now existing in America are seventy or eighty religious communities, Shakers and Eappists, whose success has been due to their religious discipline and their celibacy, and whose members amount to no more than 5,000 souls all told. There is indeed a Russian Commune in California, but it remains a solitary Russian Commune still, the "new formula of civilization," as Russian reformers used to call it, showing no sign of further adoption. Nor has the new or political socialism found any better success in the States.