Ibinius
18-04-2007, 17:38
[I read the article, and thought it was interesting, read it for yourself.]
To anyone with a penchant for history, it is obvious that
our once-great nation is dying--and the end will not be peaceful.
The United States, like an aging star, must first collapse, and
then explode, in a final burst of energy that will be awesome to
behold.
Alternatively, to pursue our astronomical metaphor for one
more sentence, the United States might by that dreadful time have
become so massive from the dead weight of political corruption
that it will end as a black hole, from which nothing can escape.
This grim prophetic view of our destiny will, of course, be
laughed off by those who habitually refuse to see the truth even
when it walks up and spits in their faces--but happily, I do not
expect to live long enough to see the end, which is inevitable.
The signs of our bleak future are to be seen everywhere, and
it is our national tragedy that neither our alleged leaders nor
the majority of the people are intelligent enough to recognize
them. For what it is worth, this article will point out the
facts, if only for the benefit of future generations who must
pick up the pieces of rubble and try to decide what to do with
our junk. It is my hope--albeit a forlorn one--that my articles
may survive long enough to serve as documentary evidence of
exactly who and what were to blame.
THE ROOT CAUSES
Let's begin with Malthus (1766-1834)--the Catholic Church
disapproves of Malthus, which is reason enough to hold him in
high esteem. And by way of introduction, let's recall for a
moment the innumerable times you've heard some older person
reminisce about "the good old days"--before you were born.
Well, the good old days were pretty rotten in some ways, but
on balance they were very good, indeed--for one reason.
There weren't so damn many people overcrowding this planet!
Malthus wrote in his classic economic work, AN ESSAY ON THE
PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION, that population increases much faster
than the resources necessary to support them--so that as popula-
tion goes up, the quality of life goes down. Let me give you a
specific illustration from my own life span.
I grew up in a little town in Massachusetts at a time when
the country's population stood, fairly constant, at around 120
million people (the latest figure available estimates our numbers
now at some 266 million). My home town numbered about three
thousand, and there were a number of farms quite close to the
center--which was marked by the Unitarian Church and a row of
about a dozen small stores.
Less than two blocks from our home on the main street stood
a 60 acre dairy farm where we could buy raw milk. A mile further
down the main street, a shallow river trickled through what we
called a swamp, but would nowadays be termed a wetland (it sounds
better). We could catch fish there in the summer, and skate on
its ice in the winter. During summer vacations, school buses
took us to Red Cross swimming lessons in Walden Pond--where
Thoreau's cabin site was still marked--or we could drive to
Revere Beach to swim in Boston Harbor. For a day of fun, there
were steamships from Boston to Nantasket Beach for swimming or
amusement rides.
There were only 120 million people in the entire country
then.
Well, the old town has changed. The dairy farm was sold to
make room for a large shopping mall. The wetlands were drained,
and the river reduced to an underground pipeline, to make room
for a second mall. Walden Pond has long been so polluted with
human sewage that it is closed to swimming--the same is true of
Boston Harbor beaches.
The town's population is at least 15,000 nowadays, or about
five times what it was in "the good old days". The point is that
the land area remains the same size, but five times as many
people try to live in the space we knew and loved as youngsters.
And now here's an example of what Malthus was talking about, in a
simple everyday example.
Suppose you're having a family dinner and you've baked a pie
for dessert. If there are six in the family, everybody gets a
good slice. If a seventh person shows up unexpectedly, it's
possible to do some tricky cutting and offer each diner a seventh
instead of a sixth--a little skimpy, but still adequate.
But suppose there are two extra people. In that case Mom
says she isn't hungry or is on a diet or some such alibi, and
cuts seven slices, going without dessert herself. We all had
Moms who made such small sacrifices.
Okay, now suppose you have thirty people for dinner--five
times as many as you have food for. Figure it out for yourself.
POPULATION PROBLEMS IN A NUTSHELL
There are one billion people too many on this planet.
The best figures available tend to show that two billion is
the maximum number the Earth can sustain if the quality of life
is to be acceptable. Yet in South America (Latins are predomi-
nately Catholic and therefore opposed to birth control, abortion,
or common sense like Malthus' observations) the population grows
so rapidly that the vast tropical rain forest is being cut down
at an alarming rate. Loss of the Amazon rain forest will alter
the whole world's climate and ecosystems in a way that cannot be
projected, much less prevented. The changes will be catastrophic
--but try telling that to people who have too many children to
feed and house, and are stupid enough to argue that "nobody needs
a jungle".
In brief, the human race is fornicating itself into extinc-
tion, and nothing can possibly improve significantly until one
person out of every three now alive dies without being replaced
at the world food table. But just try telling that to the Pope.
WHAT ELSE COULD BE WRONG?
Very simple. It is an absolute and unquestionable fact that
fully one half of the world's population is below average in
intelligence. The figure is the same for each and every country,
without exception.
Okay, so I'll prove it--and here's the proof. What is the
definition of the word "average"?
It's a mathematical or statistical concept which determines
the midpoint in any population--and if you calculate a midpoint,
one half must fall above and one half below the average--obvious.
Okay, what does that mean in the world of politics?
It means that elections are decided by the stupid.
It means that laws are made and enforced by and for the
stupid.
It means that intelligence counts for nothing, because the
majority of those voting don't understand what the intelligent
are talking about. And by intelligent, I mean those smart enough
for college work--with IQs of 120 or higher.
Let me give you an example. In the first three articles in
this series, I proved that Social Security (and therefore that
virtually every major government program) is blatantly unconsti-
tutional--that our Federal Courts are so corrupted by party
politics that Judges refuse to address that question--and, worst
of all, that we have had no valid Constitution for at least 150
years.
Suppose you want me to prove it here and now, in a half-
dozen well-chosen sentences of less than ten words each. I can't
--simply because it took about 30 pages, single spaced, to prove
it there, and stupid people don't want to read 30 pages of
anything except sex novels. They want the news in headlines with
the important events summarized in 10-second sound bites, so as
to have lots of time for the latest scores and sports action.
Why? Because they're stupid.
Who caters to the stupid?
Well, our politicians--the mass media--the academic airheads
who dictated the Conventional Unwisdom that is leading our
country to economic collapse--and our government-controlled
schools--to start the list.
In any rational society, laws would be made exclusively by
the wise, leaders would be only the wisest men and women in the
nation, there would be a mere handful of laws, based upon
universal principles easy for all to understand, applied by
Judges who are both wise and unprejudiced--and only those with
IQs of at least 110 would have the right to vote.
If these standards be reasonable, by which one of them does
ours qualify as a rational society?
FALLACIES OF THE STUPID
The list is virtually endless, but let's look at just a few
of the most important ones, because they impinge on our lives in
the most nefarious ways each and every day.
It should be common knowledge that most Americans (or other
people worldwide) will choose a pleasant lie over an unpleasant
truth. By making that choice, they believe they have done the
right thing, and they don't want any intelligent person to point
out their mistakes.
They won't trouble their brains to read this article, but
I'll point out some of them, anyway. I list them in no particu-
lar order of importance--I believe they're all valid observa-
tions.
NOBODY WANTS EQUALITY
We were all taught to respect the idea that we are all
equal, at least under law. But nobody would be satisfied with
that idea, even if it were true.
Why?
Because equality means you're exactly the same as your worst
enemy. He has exactly the same rights you have, and you have no
more political power than he does.
Nobody wants to be equal to his worst enemy. And so Bible-
belt fanatics persist in trying to shove Christianity into public
schools by hook or by crook--heterosexual fanatics persist in
passing laws to punish homosexuals--gun control fanatics persist
in destroying the priceless right of the Second Amendment--
ignoramuses who view "drugs" as evil persist in passing more and
more stupid laws to prevent even moderate use of substances which
clearly have great medicinal value--and so on.
Fanatics want to be "more equal" than the people they hate,
for one reason or another. But a Libertarian (of which I am
proud to be one) believes that government must adopt the princi-
ple of laissez faire--letting people DO WHAT THEY WANT, as long
as they do no injury to OTHERS (what injury they might do to
themselves is their own fault, and society is NOT to blame!).
Bad habits might be deplored, but to outlaw them is to put
Mrs. Grundy in the driver's seat, where she is absolutely out of
place. Mrs. Grundy wants to PROHIBIT things which many people
like, simply because she feels superior for not liking the same
things. She is stupid, and a bigot to boot.
NOBODY IS SATISFIED, EVER
I hold it to be self-evident that nobody is happy with what
he already has (except for those rare individuals who have seen
the fallacy in pursuing what erroneously passes for wealth).
All too often a person says that if he could only make so
much money he'd be satisfied. He goes on strike and gets the
money he demanded. And then it's not enough. He strikes again
to get more.
Or a young man says that if he could get a new Ford he'd be
happy. He gets a new Ford. And then he wants a Mercury instead.
Or a newlywed couple say they'll be happy in a nice apartment.
But don't worry--in a year they'll want a house. Perhaps because
all their friends have houses, and they have to keep up with
them.
The love of money might not be the root of all evil, but
it's at least the seed. The greed shown by many Americans
indulging themselves in conspicuous overconsumption has unfortu-
nately caused the peoples of underdeveloped nations to want the
same things--increasing demand for more and more consumer goods
at prices which are excessive to begin with, and are inflated
even more by the increased demand.
In "the good old days", a loaf of bread cost about ten cents
if a supermarket brand, or fifteen cents if a "name" brand. Now
a loaf of bread costs more than a dollar at a bakery thrift shop.
Twenty cents used to buy a quart of milk, or a can of soup, or a
gallon of gas. A new family car, of sturdy steel and easy to fix
oneself, used to cost well under a thousand dollars.
In what way are today's prices an indication of improvement
in our economic well-being, according to the Conventional
Mistakes of our lunatic economists? Only that people have more
dollars to spend. But the dollar is worth less, so nobody bene-
fits, except those who live on over-extended credit--of which our
government is the prime example. And the more world population
increases, the worse everything gets.
Malthus understated his case.
THE FALLACIES OF ECONOMICS
Most Americans appear to be suckers for anyone with a degree
in anything. A prime example of this is their gullibility for
anything labeled "economic" in any terminology. The government
issues monthly fiction called things like "cost of living index"
or "consumer price index", etc., but they all boil down to hot
air and wishful thinking. I submit as fact, which few will
accept, that the so-called science of economics is 90% garbage
which should be tossed in the garbage can. Here's why.
There are basically two types of science: descriptive and
experimental. Some sciences are both. A botanist like Luther
Burbank, for example, first learns to classify and identify
plants (descriptive), and then learns by experiment to develop
new and/or improved varieties by selective reproduction
techniques.
But some sciences do not lend themselves to experimentation.
Geology is one. A geologist describes earthquakes but does not
try to control or cause one--he's lucky to be able to predict
aftershocks from a major tremor. Similarly, a meteorologist
describes hurricanes and tornadoes but cannot control them--
prediction is the best he can hope for.
Economics is also a descriptive science--which applies
useful terms to human behavior in acts of getting and spending
money--and may lead to meaningful predictions. But it is of
value only if it is studied in a context of conservative common
sense (which is not common), or a practical application like
business administration.
Unfortunately for all of us, economists for more than 60
years have fooled Americans into believing that theirs is an
experimental science, and that the economy can be controlled.
That delusion has been so deeply ingrained in Americans' mind-set
for 60 years that eradicating the error is a virtually impossible
task. Nevertheless I'll give it a try.
THE ECONOMY CANNOT BE CONTROLLED
What is "the economy"? It's the sum total of each and every
consensual contract between each and every person, in the course
of doing business of any kind--from buying a hamburger at
McDonald's to selling a thousand shares of blue chip stocks on
Wall Street. There are literally millions of such transactions
each and every day, and it is absolutely impossible to even list
them, much less make decisions about their effect on other
transactions. The fact is that the staggering number of economic
transactions in a single day would surpass the capacity of the
largest computer to extract and manipulate data.
So economists do what they think is almost as good. They
use statistics and propaganda.
We used to joke that there are three grades of lies: little
white lies, big black lies, and statistics--the joke being that
statistics can be used to prove anything the statistician wants
to prove. He simply "adjusts" his "data" and sets up the numbers
to give him his desired results.
Does this sound familiar? The government issues some
damfool economic summary, predicting that next quarter will be
much better or worse than this one. The prediction turns out to
be wrong. So the government "revises" its index to "reflect"
more "accurately". And millions of Americans (the stupid ones)
smile in satisfaction at the wisdom of our leaders.
There would be another problem if economics were a truly
experimental science: the only way one could control the economy
would be to regulate EVERYTHING (and don't think they're not
trying it already)! That would mean tinkering in everybody's
business, laying down thousands of laws and rules governing how
one runs his company--and punishing people who either don't know
all the rules, or have the attitude that our stinking, lousy,
meddling government should get the hell off our backs and LEAVE
US ALONE!
Economists are the greatest (worst) meddlers in the world,
and the tragedy is they meddle in order to "prove" a theory that
by the rules of logic cannot be proved. Economists appear to
believe that a free market is not to be trusted. Libertarians
hold that ONLY a free market is to be trusted--not self-serving,
empire-building bureaucrats on a power trip. Laissez faire
again.
WHAT ECONOMISTS NEVER TELL YOU
Every true science has laws which can be demonstrated time
and again by students anywhere at any time. For example, in
physics a student performs simple experiments (in the beginning)
to prove the laws of magnetism or gravity. Economics has no
"hands on" test for anything it preaches, but presumes its laws
to be carved in stone by the finger of God. And many courses in
economics omit facts which should be common knowledge to anyone
interested in his personal economic security. Here's one such
example.
Let's assume you had a million dollars to spend last year,
so you invested it in an original Picasso oil. Art experts
appraised the work as worth more than two million--but you got a
bargain.
Your original Picasso is hanging on your dining-room wall so
you can admire it, and you are so happy with it you aren't at all
interested in selling it. It's given you a million dollars'
worth of pleasure so far, perhaps.
Question: how much is your Picasso worth now?
Answer: not a dime.
Why? Because you don't want to sell it.
The value of anything is determined only when it is traded,
and its value is exactly what the seller will take and the buyer
will pay. As a matter of fact, art values are totally fictitious
--because collectors are notorious for putting an art work such
as a Picasso on the auction block every few years, bidding the
price up above others at the sale, and buying it back. There's a
commission on the sale price, but that's all it costs them. In
return, it is now a matter of record that the painting increased
in value by so many thousands of dollars between auctions. That
proves it's a good investment, right?
Well, is it? Here's a well-known anecdote reputed to be a
true-life story. After the Communist revolution in Russia, many
of the old wealthy families (who could not leave the Soviet Union
and take their wealth with them) were down on their uppers, and
in a bad way for basic things like food.
So one day a man of prior wealth decided to sacrifice part
of it, by bartering his beautiful Faberge egg--an artifact for
which the Age of the Tsars was noted. It was hand-painted,
decorated with precious gems, and had cost a fortune in the old
days. The man covered his priceless egg in a protective cloth
and carefully took it by horse and buggy to a farm on the
outskirts of Moscow where he hoped to exchange it for food.
When he told the farmer what he wanted and what he offered,
the farmer sneered and offered a sack of potatoes. The former
nobleman was shocked at the offer--until the farmer beckoned his
customer to the door of an adjoining room.
The table, the shelves, and the floor of the next room were
littered with a vast collection of Faberge china--all beautiful,
and all useless to the farmer, who could not sell them any more
than the nobleman could. The nobleman took the sack of potatoes.
And you think you have security because you've invested in
comic books--having paid, perhaps, a hundred dollars for a copy
of the first Batman story in "new" condition? Well, the person
who paid ten cents for it, and kept it carefully for future
collectors, made a killing on his investment--but as a general
rule most art collectors are loaded with expensive, yet worth-
less, items they can never recoup their investment on.
One man I met has a collection of miniature elephants in
many sizes, materials, and poses. He honestly believes them to
be worth what he paid for them, plus a profit. But if a Faberge
egg could be worth a sack of potatoes, how much could an elephant
statue demand? Think about it.
There is an excellent paperback book called "Economics in
One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, a journalist like myself, whose
style and illustrative examples are a pleasure to read. I will
not steal his thunder, but I should like to give him credit for
two points which I must re-argue in my own discussion.
To paraphrase Hazlitt, economists are prone to "prove" their
theories by showing you only one side of a two-faced coin--the
side favorable to their theory, and the only one they want you to
think about. In that way they are like magicians who show the
audience an impressive box of sturdy construction, which they
open to show full of money--but fail to show that the box has no
bottom, and the money is on a spring inside a special table the
box is set upon.
In arguments over various hare-brained proposals, economists
like to show you the "heads" of a coin--namely, WHO GETS WHAT--
and argue, using every propaganda trick in the book, to show how
"good" their proposal is. But they never show you the "tails"
side, which is WHO LOSES.
The true science of mathematics is based upon the law that
you cannot get something for nothing--but the pseudo-science
economics pretends you can. During the hard times of the 1930's,
truth-telling mathematics offered only unpleasant reality, but
New Deal economics promised pie in the sky--something for
nothing--a pleasant lie. So stupid people chose the pleasant
lie, and voted for Franklin Delano Rooselvelt four times. And
here we are now, seeing what was on the other side of the New
Deal coin.
Economists occasionally "prove" their wisdom by the propa-
ganda fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (meaning "after that,
therefore because of that"). For example, say that three months
ago the "Fed" lowered interest rates, and the economy improved.
"Hooray!" they say, "lowering the interest rates caused the
improvement".
First, and in passing, let's stop to think if we really give
a damn about the Fed's raising or lowering of the interest rate.
What the hell has it ever meant to you? Only what you heard
somebody say on the news, I'll bet. When the news tells you
everything is great, do you really believe it? If so, what's
your IQ?
But let's get back to the fallacy of "after that, therefore
because of that". The fallacy is to leave out all other events
and facts that might indicate the true cause. An example more
easily seen as a fallacy is that of a superstitious farmer who
plants corn after the new moon and before the full moon. If he
gets a good crop, he says it's because he planted his seed after
the new moon and before the full moon (ignoring weather, fertili-
zing, etc.).
The economic fallacy of concern to us is the failure of our
government to admit the obvious fact that if something is "free"
to some people, it's being paid for by others. Or, as a simple
variation, it will be paid for in the future by the next genera-
tions. Social Security, as shown in the first article in this
series, was "sold" by Franklin Delano Roosevelt by golden rheto-
ric dwelling on its short-term "benefits". Roosevelt himself
ignored the real (long run) cost of those "benefits", and the
final price will be the total economic collapse of the United
States in a few decades or less.
OTHER OMISSIONS IN ECONOMICS
Economics mentions barter more or less in passing, and
quickly dismisses it as irrelevant--a mere holdover from primi-
tive times in economic history. The fact is that barter is still
the basis for every transaction, but most people don't bother to
perform the rituals of asking price, offered price, and negotia-
tion--in fact, they've never tried "dickering" over the price, or
think it's not dignified. Barter demands aggressiveness which we
regard as antisocial, but is absolutely necessary if and when
money is worthless.
When is that? Well, in Australia today there are some
tribes in the Outback who still don't use money. They exchange
goods or services for goods or services, by mutual agreement.
People from "civilization" who go into the Outback and may need
to obtain food while there are well advised to have trading
goods, like the Dutch who bought Manhattan Island for 24 dollars'
worth of jewelry.
BUTTER AND GUNS
One of the classic illustrations used in economics is the
real (practical) problem of striking a bargain between parties in
a barter system--the usual example being that of exchanging
butter for guns. In a barter economy, a gunsmith who needs
butter for his kitchen, and a dairy farmer who needs a shotgun to
shoot crows, must somehow meet face to face to agree on how much
butter is a fair trade for one gun. Obviously, if a gunsmith
doesn't need butter or a farmer doesn't need a gun, they can't do
business.
In the dim past, when communities were isolated and trading
was done by traveling merchants, the problems of doing business
were greatly eased by the mercantile invention of money. It was
the merchant, acting as a go-between, who offered the gunsmith or
the farmer so much symbolic paper or coinage for each man's
goods, and sold each customer what he needed in a monetary
exchange. The barter was limited to how much money was agreeable
in each separate transaction, not how many pounds of butter for a
gun.
Money is truly one of the great human inventions, but it was
not the work of a political bureaucracy! It was only later that
politicians saw the enormous potential in controlling the money
used, and governmental control of money has been universal ever
since.
That control is the power, and the weakness, of economics--
for if a government collapses, the money in circulation becomes
trash. It happened in the South after the Civil War, with the
demise of the Confederacy and therefore Confederate money. It
happened in Germany after World War I, when a wheelbarrow-full of
paper money might be needed for a loaf of bread.
As part of economists' meddling in matters they do not
understand--like the Sorcerer's Apprentice who conjured a broom
to carry water--they seek to control both the supply of money and
the value of money. Basically, they want inflation. Inflation
is good for debtors (which is most of the people), and bad for
creditors (who are held to deserve a little loss, by the morality
of Robin Hood). Deflation, which nobody really wants to see,
would be a bonanza for creditors and the final straw for debtors
--they would have to pay back more real value than what they
borrowed, rather than less.
In any rational society, money would be absolutely rock hard
and absolutely beyond the power of any political scheme to change
it a hair. If one were to borrow ten dollars now, he would have
to pay back the full value of ten dollars, plus agreed interest
for the time borrowed. If you think that's unfair because you
borrow money, how would you feel if you were the lender?
There is one, and only one, way I can see that could create
such a rock-hard, non-manipulable monetary system--and it has
been suggested by a number of theoreticians with common sense,
who were therefore called crackpots. That is, to establish a
money system in which the minimum unit of coinage (one cent, for
example) would be deemed equal to exactly one minute of time
spent at minimal labor.
Obviously, there can never be one second more or one second
less than sixty minutes in an hour. Therefore in this system,
the minimum wage would be sixty cents per hour, and all higher
units of money and all contracts would be negotiated in terms of
money at that rate of exchange. All market prices would be nego-
tiated using this system of hard money as its basis, so that a
person earning the minimum wage could afford a modest lifestyle
(my first job paid me fifteen cents an hour).
Of course, some people would want to borrow an hour's worth
of work time, and pay it back with fifteen minutes--that's
inflation. But the short answer to all demands of that nature
must be NO.
WALL STREET
Stock markets are the biggest gambling casinos in the world.
That's not their public-relations image, but it's the truth.
Wall Streeters like to pretend they're doing a profound and
patriotic service in helping little Americans buy a piece of the
nation in stocks and bonds. I submit that such claims are an
earthenware container of organic fertilizer.
Wall Street is a complex mechanism for manipulating wealth--
in the form of symbolic paper--and its attraction for high
financiers is the lure of a quick killing by buying low and
selling high. If financiers guess wrong they may jump out
windows--or take a flight out of jurisdiction with embezzled
funds to evade criminal prosecution. The little Americans who
lose their shirts when the market crashes never know what hit
them. It happened in 1929, and is due to happen again--despite
the best efforts of economic "experts" to keep it from happening
by more and more controls.
The fact is that Wall Street is a bubble perilously close to
bursting. Our economists can't control Wall Street, so how the
hell can they pretend to control anything else? I'll tell you
how--by bluff and bluster.
We all know that Social Security will be bankrupt in about
thirty years, and Medicare in about ten, and that our economists
created the mess by meddling in the free market system instead of
letting banking and insurance institutions offer retirement
pensions by consensual contracts. Now our "experts" admit that
Social Security is in trouble, and their God-given superiority
has advised them exactly how to prop it up.
Invest in Wall Street--the world's biggest gambling casino!
And stupid Americans continue to trust them! How long can
their brains hibernate before they wake up and smell the coffee?
SUMMARIZING FOR THIS TIME
The Medicare Program will go bankrupt in perhaps ten years,
and Social Security will go down the tubes perhaps twenty years
later--if we're lucky. These blatant swindles are the legacy of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and for proof of this statement please
read my previous articles in this series.
The collapse of our country will be the result of numerous
interlocking factors, which I have here tried to separate for
individual consideration by thoughtful readers. The factors are:
1) The overpopulation of the planet, by about 50% of what it
should be.
2) The domination of politics by a two-thirds majority of
people below IQ 120, who are the least qualified to make
intelligent political decisions.
3) The facts (few) and fallacies (many) in the so-called
science of economics which have contributed to, and continue
to maintain a moribund national economy which gets worse as
time passes.
4) A bit about the psychology of the American people, and
the propaganda tricks which are used to deceive them.
HOW AMERICA WILL COLLAPSE
There are two options--neither one desirable--but I cannot
say with certainty which will prevail because I broke my crystal
ball last week, and my Tarot cards are out for repair.
One possibility is that political revolution will come
first, if apathetic Americans can be galvanized to take decisive
action to force reconstruction of our corrupt bureaucracy at all
levels. A proposal for the first step is a Constitutional
amendment to bring the American people back into the political
process in a meaningful way. See THE TIME BOMB IN OUR CONSTITU-
TION for details on our plan to restore freedom and civil rights
in a country which is shown to be a de facto police state, though
not recognized by the mentally retarded majority.
The second possibility is more likely, in my opinion--
namely, that Americans are too cowardly to take action until
economic collapse becomes a reality. That collapse will come
with the end of Social Security and the sudden termination of all
welfare programs which bleed all Americans to support the present
corrupt regime.
With the collapse of government programs and, therefore, the
entire government, the so-called "Domino Effect" will cause a
remorseless chain reaction worldwide. First, American money will
instantly become as worthless as Faberge eggs, and Wall Street
must crash almost immediately. With the collapse of Wall Street,
all foreign exchanges must follow as the panic spreads, and our
so-called leaders--a pack of congenital idiots--look, for the
first time, for lifeboats on the S.S. Titanic. There aren't any,
because the Titanic is unsinkable, right?
So, must we all sing hymns as the ragtime band plays
"Nearer, My God, to Thee"?
BUT WAIT! IS THAT A SHIP ON THE HORIZON?! CAN WE BE SAVED?!
Maybe.
It's the U.S. Congress, and if the crew is intelligent
enough to see what needs to be done--and has the courage and
integrity to do it--they might yet be able to keep us afloat and
tow us to shore safely.
The problem is that the crew of the U.S. Congress has been
on a binge for sixty years, getting drunk with power--that's
always been our problem. Will there be any heroes on board the
Congress who'll sober up in a hurry and do what has to be done?
I'll have the script for our eleventh-hour rescue in my next
article.
But will anybody in Washington read it?
To anyone with a penchant for history, it is obvious that
our once-great nation is dying--and the end will not be peaceful.
The United States, like an aging star, must first collapse, and
then explode, in a final burst of energy that will be awesome to
behold.
Alternatively, to pursue our astronomical metaphor for one
more sentence, the United States might by that dreadful time have
become so massive from the dead weight of political corruption
that it will end as a black hole, from which nothing can escape.
This grim prophetic view of our destiny will, of course, be
laughed off by those who habitually refuse to see the truth even
when it walks up and spits in their faces--but happily, I do not
expect to live long enough to see the end, which is inevitable.
The signs of our bleak future are to be seen everywhere, and
it is our national tragedy that neither our alleged leaders nor
the majority of the people are intelligent enough to recognize
them. For what it is worth, this article will point out the
facts, if only for the benefit of future generations who must
pick up the pieces of rubble and try to decide what to do with
our junk. It is my hope--albeit a forlorn one--that my articles
may survive long enough to serve as documentary evidence of
exactly who and what were to blame.
THE ROOT CAUSES
Let's begin with Malthus (1766-1834)--the Catholic Church
disapproves of Malthus, which is reason enough to hold him in
high esteem. And by way of introduction, let's recall for a
moment the innumerable times you've heard some older person
reminisce about "the good old days"--before you were born.
Well, the good old days were pretty rotten in some ways, but
on balance they were very good, indeed--for one reason.
There weren't so damn many people overcrowding this planet!
Malthus wrote in his classic economic work, AN ESSAY ON THE
PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION, that population increases much faster
than the resources necessary to support them--so that as popula-
tion goes up, the quality of life goes down. Let me give you a
specific illustration from my own life span.
I grew up in a little town in Massachusetts at a time when
the country's population stood, fairly constant, at around 120
million people (the latest figure available estimates our numbers
now at some 266 million). My home town numbered about three
thousand, and there were a number of farms quite close to the
center--which was marked by the Unitarian Church and a row of
about a dozen small stores.
Less than two blocks from our home on the main street stood
a 60 acre dairy farm where we could buy raw milk. A mile further
down the main street, a shallow river trickled through what we
called a swamp, but would nowadays be termed a wetland (it sounds
better). We could catch fish there in the summer, and skate on
its ice in the winter. During summer vacations, school buses
took us to Red Cross swimming lessons in Walden Pond--where
Thoreau's cabin site was still marked--or we could drive to
Revere Beach to swim in Boston Harbor. For a day of fun, there
were steamships from Boston to Nantasket Beach for swimming or
amusement rides.
There were only 120 million people in the entire country
then.
Well, the old town has changed. The dairy farm was sold to
make room for a large shopping mall. The wetlands were drained,
and the river reduced to an underground pipeline, to make room
for a second mall. Walden Pond has long been so polluted with
human sewage that it is closed to swimming--the same is true of
Boston Harbor beaches.
The town's population is at least 15,000 nowadays, or about
five times what it was in "the good old days". The point is that
the land area remains the same size, but five times as many
people try to live in the space we knew and loved as youngsters.
And now here's an example of what Malthus was talking about, in a
simple everyday example.
Suppose you're having a family dinner and you've baked a pie
for dessert. If there are six in the family, everybody gets a
good slice. If a seventh person shows up unexpectedly, it's
possible to do some tricky cutting and offer each diner a seventh
instead of a sixth--a little skimpy, but still adequate.
But suppose there are two extra people. In that case Mom
says she isn't hungry or is on a diet or some such alibi, and
cuts seven slices, going without dessert herself. We all had
Moms who made such small sacrifices.
Okay, now suppose you have thirty people for dinner--five
times as many as you have food for. Figure it out for yourself.
POPULATION PROBLEMS IN A NUTSHELL
There are one billion people too many on this planet.
The best figures available tend to show that two billion is
the maximum number the Earth can sustain if the quality of life
is to be acceptable. Yet in South America (Latins are predomi-
nately Catholic and therefore opposed to birth control, abortion,
or common sense like Malthus' observations) the population grows
so rapidly that the vast tropical rain forest is being cut down
at an alarming rate. Loss of the Amazon rain forest will alter
the whole world's climate and ecosystems in a way that cannot be
projected, much less prevented. The changes will be catastrophic
--but try telling that to people who have too many children to
feed and house, and are stupid enough to argue that "nobody needs
a jungle".
In brief, the human race is fornicating itself into extinc-
tion, and nothing can possibly improve significantly until one
person out of every three now alive dies without being replaced
at the world food table. But just try telling that to the Pope.
WHAT ELSE COULD BE WRONG?
Very simple. It is an absolute and unquestionable fact that
fully one half of the world's population is below average in
intelligence. The figure is the same for each and every country,
without exception.
Okay, so I'll prove it--and here's the proof. What is the
definition of the word "average"?
It's a mathematical or statistical concept which determines
the midpoint in any population--and if you calculate a midpoint,
one half must fall above and one half below the average--obvious.
Okay, what does that mean in the world of politics?
It means that elections are decided by the stupid.
It means that laws are made and enforced by and for the
stupid.
It means that intelligence counts for nothing, because the
majority of those voting don't understand what the intelligent
are talking about. And by intelligent, I mean those smart enough
for college work--with IQs of 120 or higher.
Let me give you an example. In the first three articles in
this series, I proved that Social Security (and therefore that
virtually every major government program) is blatantly unconsti-
tutional--that our Federal Courts are so corrupted by party
politics that Judges refuse to address that question--and, worst
of all, that we have had no valid Constitution for at least 150
years.
Suppose you want me to prove it here and now, in a half-
dozen well-chosen sentences of less than ten words each. I can't
--simply because it took about 30 pages, single spaced, to prove
it there, and stupid people don't want to read 30 pages of
anything except sex novels. They want the news in headlines with
the important events summarized in 10-second sound bites, so as
to have lots of time for the latest scores and sports action.
Why? Because they're stupid.
Who caters to the stupid?
Well, our politicians--the mass media--the academic airheads
who dictated the Conventional Unwisdom that is leading our
country to economic collapse--and our government-controlled
schools--to start the list.
In any rational society, laws would be made exclusively by
the wise, leaders would be only the wisest men and women in the
nation, there would be a mere handful of laws, based upon
universal principles easy for all to understand, applied by
Judges who are both wise and unprejudiced--and only those with
IQs of at least 110 would have the right to vote.
If these standards be reasonable, by which one of them does
ours qualify as a rational society?
FALLACIES OF THE STUPID
The list is virtually endless, but let's look at just a few
of the most important ones, because they impinge on our lives in
the most nefarious ways each and every day.
It should be common knowledge that most Americans (or other
people worldwide) will choose a pleasant lie over an unpleasant
truth. By making that choice, they believe they have done the
right thing, and they don't want any intelligent person to point
out their mistakes.
They won't trouble their brains to read this article, but
I'll point out some of them, anyway. I list them in no particu-
lar order of importance--I believe they're all valid observa-
tions.
NOBODY WANTS EQUALITY
We were all taught to respect the idea that we are all
equal, at least under law. But nobody would be satisfied with
that idea, even if it were true.
Why?
Because equality means you're exactly the same as your worst
enemy. He has exactly the same rights you have, and you have no
more political power than he does.
Nobody wants to be equal to his worst enemy. And so Bible-
belt fanatics persist in trying to shove Christianity into public
schools by hook or by crook--heterosexual fanatics persist in
passing laws to punish homosexuals--gun control fanatics persist
in destroying the priceless right of the Second Amendment--
ignoramuses who view "drugs" as evil persist in passing more and
more stupid laws to prevent even moderate use of substances which
clearly have great medicinal value--and so on.
Fanatics want to be "more equal" than the people they hate,
for one reason or another. But a Libertarian (of which I am
proud to be one) believes that government must adopt the princi-
ple of laissez faire--letting people DO WHAT THEY WANT, as long
as they do no injury to OTHERS (what injury they might do to
themselves is their own fault, and society is NOT to blame!).
Bad habits might be deplored, but to outlaw them is to put
Mrs. Grundy in the driver's seat, where she is absolutely out of
place. Mrs. Grundy wants to PROHIBIT things which many people
like, simply because she feels superior for not liking the same
things. She is stupid, and a bigot to boot.
NOBODY IS SATISFIED, EVER
I hold it to be self-evident that nobody is happy with what
he already has (except for those rare individuals who have seen
the fallacy in pursuing what erroneously passes for wealth).
All too often a person says that if he could only make so
much money he'd be satisfied. He goes on strike and gets the
money he demanded. And then it's not enough. He strikes again
to get more.
Or a young man says that if he could get a new Ford he'd be
happy. He gets a new Ford. And then he wants a Mercury instead.
Or a newlywed couple say they'll be happy in a nice apartment.
But don't worry--in a year they'll want a house. Perhaps because
all their friends have houses, and they have to keep up with
them.
The love of money might not be the root of all evil, but
it's at least the seed. The greed shown by many Americans
indulging themselves in conspicuous overconsumption has unfortu-
nately caused the peoples of underdeveloped nations to want the
same things--increasing demand for more and more consumer goods
at prices which are excessive to begin with, and are inflated
even more by the increased demand.
In "the good old days", a loaf of bread cost about ten cents
if a supermarket brand, or fifteen cents if a "name" brand. Now
a loaf of bread costs more than a dollar at a bakery thrift shop.
Twenty cents used to buy a quart of milk, or a can of soup, or a
gallon of gas. A new family car, of sturdy steel and easy to fix
oneself, used to cost well under a thousand dollars.
In what way are today's prices an indication of improvement
in our economic well-being, according to the Conventional
Mistakes of our lunatic economists? Only that people have more
dollars to spend. But the dollar is worth less, so nobody bene-
fits, except those who live on over-extended credit--of which our
government is the prime example. And the more world population
increases, the worse everything gets.
Malthus understated his case.
THE FALLACIES OF ECONOMICS
Most Americans appear to be suckers for anyone with a degree
in anything. A prime example of this is their gullibility for
anything labeled "economic" in any terminology. The government
issues monthly fiction called things like "cost of living index"
or "consumer price index", etc., but they all boil down to hot
air and wishful thinking. I submit as fact, which few will
accept, that the so-called science of economics is 90% garbage
which should be tossed in the garbage can. Here's why.
There are basically two types of science: descriptive and
experimental. Some sciences are both. A botanist like Luther
Burbank, for example, first learns to classify and identify
plants (descriptive), and then learns by experiment to develop
new and/or improved varieties by selective reproduction
techniques.
But some sciences do not lend themselves to experimentation.
Geology is one. A geologist describes earthquakes but does not
try to control or cause one--he's lucky to be able to predict
aftershocks from a major tremor. Similarly, a meteorologist
describes hurricanes and tornadoes but cannot control them--
prediction is the best he can hope for.
Economics is also a descriptive science--which applies
useful terms to human behavior in acts of getting and spending
money--and may lead to meaningful predictions. But it is of
value only if it is studied in a context of conservative common
sense (which is not common), or a practical application like
business administration.
Unfortunately for all of us, economists for more than 60
years have fooled Americans into believing that theirs is an
experimental science, and that the economy can be controlled.
That delusion has been so deeply ingrained in Americans' mind-set
for 60 years that eradicating the error is a virtually impossible
task. Nevertheless I'll give it a try.
THE ECONOMY CANNOT BE CONTROLLED
What is "the economy"? It's the sum total of each and every
consensual contract between each and every person, in the course
of doing business of any kind--from buying a hamburger at
McDonald's to selling a thousand shares of blue chip stocks on
Wall Street. There are literally millions of such transactions
each and every day, and it is absolutely impossible to even list
them, much less make decisions about their effect on other
transactions. The fact is that the staggering number of economic
transactions in a single day would surpass the capacity of the
largest computer to extract and manipulate data.
So economists do what they think is almost as good. They
use statistics and propaganda.
We used to joke that there are three grades of lies: little
white lies, big black lies, and statistics--the joke being that
statistics can be used to prove anything the statistician wants
to prove. He simply "adjusts" his "data" and sets up the numbers
to give him his desired results.
Does this sound familiar? The government issues some
damfool economic summary, predicting that next quarter will be
much better or worse than this one. The prediction turns out to
be wrong. So the government "revises" its index to "reflect"
more "accurately". And millions of Americans (the stupid ones)
smile in satisfaction at the wisdom of our leaders.
There would be another problem if economics were a truly
experimental science: the only way one could control the economy
would be to regulate EVERYTHING (and don't think they're not
trying it already)! That would mean tinkering in everybody's
business, laying down thousands of laws and rules governing how
one runs his company--and punishing people who either don't know
all the rules, or have the attitude that our stinking, lousy,
meddling government should get the hell off our backs and LEAVE
US ALONE!
Economists are the greatest (worst) meddlers in the world,
and the tragedy is they meddle in order to "prove" a theory that
by the rules of logic cannot be proved. Economists appear to
believe that a free market is not to be trusted. Libertarians
hold that ONLY a free market is to be trusted--not self-serving,
empire-building bureaucrats on a power trip. Laissez faire
again.
WHAT ECONOMISTS NEVER TELL YOU
Every true science has laws which can be demonstrated time
and again by students anywhere at any time. For example, in
physics a student performs simple experiments (in the beginning)
to prove the laws of magnetism or gravity. Economics has no
"hands on" test for anything it preaches, but presumes its laws
to be carved in stone by the finger of God. And many courses in
economics omit facts which should be common knowledge to anyone
interested in his personal economic security. Here's one such
example.
Let's assume you had a million dollars to spend last year,
so you invested it in an original Picasso oil. Art experts
appraised the work as worth more than two million--but you got a
bargain.
Your original Picasso is hanging on your dining-room wall so
you can admire it, and you are so happy with it you aren't at all
interested in selling it. It's given you a million dollars'
worth of pleasure so far, perhaps.
Question: how much is your Picasso worth now?
Answer: not a dime.
Why? Because you don't want to sell it.
The value of anything is determined only when it is traded,
and its value is exactly what the seller will take and the buyer
will pay. As a matter of fact, art values are totally fictitious
--because collectors are notorious for putting an art work such
as a Picasso on the auction block every few years, bidding the
price up above others at the sale, and buying it back. There's a
commission on the sale price, but that's all it costs them. In
return, it is now a matter of record that the painting increased
in value by so many thousands of dollars between auctions. That
proves it's a good investment, right?
Well, is it? Here's a well-known anecdote reputed to be a
true-life story. After the Communist revolution in Russia, many
of the old wealthy families (who could not leave the Soviet Union
and take their wealth with them) were down on their uppers, and
in a bad way for basic things like food.
So one day a man of prior wealth decided to sacrifice part
of it, by bartering his beautiful Faberge egg--an artifact for
which the Age of the Tsars was noted. It was hand-painted,
decorated with precious gems, and had cost a fortune in the old
days. The man covered his priceless egg in a protective cloth
and carefully took it by horse and buggy to a farm on the
outskirts of Moscow where he hoped to exchange it for food.
When he told the farmer what he wanted and what he offered,
the farmer sneered and offered a sack of potatoes. The former
nobleman was shocked at the offer--until the farmer beckoned his
customer to the door of an adjoining room.
The table, the shelves, and the floor of the next room were
littered with a vast collection of Faberge china--all beautiful,
and all useless to the farmer, who could not sell them any more
than the nobleman could. The nobleman took the sack of potatoes.
And you think you have security because you've invested in
comic books--having paid, perhaps, a hundred dollars for a copy
of the first Batman story in "new" condition? Well, the person
who paid ten cents for it, and kept it carefully for future
collectors, made a killing on his investment--but as a general
rule most art collectors are loaded with expensive, yet worth-
less, items they can never recoup their investment on.
One man I met has a collection of miniature elephants in
many sizes, materials, and poses. He honestly believes them to
be worth what he paid for them, plus a profit. But if a Faberge
egg could be worth a sack of potatoes, how much could an elephant
statue demand? Think about it.
There is an excellent paperback book called "Economics in
One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, a journalist like myself, whose
style and illustrative examples are a pleasure to read. I will
not steal his thunder, but I should like to give him credit for
two points which I must re-argue in my own discussion.
To paraphrase Hazlitt, economists are prone to "prove" their
theories by showing you only one side of a two-faced coin--the
side favorable to their theory, and the only one they want you to
think about. In that way they are like magicians who show the
audience an impressive box of sturdy construction, which they
open to show full of money--but fail to show that the box has no
bottom, and the money is on a spring inside a special table the
box is set upon.
In arguments over various hare-brained proposals, economists
like to show you the "heads" of a coin--namely, WHO GETS WHAT--
and argue, using every propaganda trick in the book, to show how
"good" their proposal is. But they never show you the "tails"
side, which is WHO LOSES.
The true science of mathematics is based upon the law that
you cannot get something for nothing--but the pseudo-science
economics pretends you can. During the hard times of the 1930's,
truth-telling mathematics offered only unpleasant reality, but
New Deal economics promised pie in the sky--something for
nothing--a pleasant lie. So stupid people chose the pleasant
lie, and voted for Franklin Delano Rooselvelt four times. And
here we are now, seeing what was on the other side of the New
Deal coin.
Economists occasionally "prove" their wisdom by the propa-
ganda fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (meaning "after that,
therefore because of that"). For example, say that three months
ago the "Fed" lowered interest rates, and the economy improved.
"Hooray!" they say, "lowering the interest rates caused the
improvement".
First, and in passing, let's stop to think if we really give
a damn about the Fed's raising or lowering of the interest rate.
What the hell has it ever meant to you? Only what you heard
somebody say on the news, I'll bet. When the news tells you
everything is great, do you really believe it? If so, what's
your IQ?
But let's get back to the fallacy of "after that, therefore
because of that". The fallacy is to leave out all other events
and facts that might indicate the true cause. An example more
easily seen as a fallacy is that of a superstitious farmer who
plants corn after the new moon and before the full moon. If he
gets a good crop, he says it's because he planted his seed after
the new moon and before the full moon (ignoring weather, fertili-
zing, etc.).
The economic fallacy of concern to us is the failure of our
government to admit the obvious fact that if something is "free"
to some people, it's being paid for by others. Or, as a simple
variation, it will be paid for in the future by the next genera-
tions. Social Security, as shown in the first article in this
series, was "sold" by Franklin Delano Roosevelt by golden rheto-
ric dwelling on its short-term "benefits". Roosevelt himself
ignored the real (long run) cost of those "benefits", and the
final price will be the total economic collapse of the United
States in a few decades or less.
OTHER OMISSIONS IN ECONOMICS
Economics mentions barter more or less in passing, and
quickly dismisses it as irrelevant--a mere holdover from primi-
tive times in economic history. The fact is that barter is still
the basis for every transaction, but most people don't bother to
perform the rituals of asking price, offered price, and negotia-
tion--in fact, they've never tried "dickering" over the price, or
think it's not dignified. Barter demands aggressiveness which we
regard as antisocial, but is absolutely necessary if and when
money is worthless.
When is that? Well, in Australia today there are some
tribes in the Outback who still don't use money. They exchange
goods or services for goods or services, by mutual agreement.
People from "civilization" who go into the Outback and may need
to obtain food while there are well advised to have trading
goods, like the Dutch who bought Manhattan Island for 24 dollars'
worth of jewelry.
BUTTER AND GUNS
One of the classic illustrations used in economics is the
real (practical) problem of striking a bargain between parties in
a barter system--the usual example being that of exchanging
butter for guns. In a barter economy, a gunsmith who needs
butter for his kitchen, and a dairy farmer who needs a shotgun to
shoot crows, must somehow meet face to face to agree on how much
butter is a fair trade for one gun. Obviously, if a gunsmith
doesn't need butter or a farmer doesn't need a gun, they can't do
business.
In the dim past, when communities were isolated and trading
was done by traveling merchants, the problems of doing business
were greatly eased by the mercantile invention of money. It was
the merchant, acting as a go-between, who offered the gunsmith or
the farmer so much symbolic paper or coinage for each man's
goods, and sold each customer what he needed in a monetary
exchange. The barter was limited to how much money was agreeable
in each separate transaction, not how many pounds of butter for a
gun.
Money is truly one of the great human inventions, but it was
not the work of a political bureaucracy! It was only later that
politicians saw the enormous potential in controlling the money
used, and governmental control of money has been universal ever
since.
That control is the power, and the weakness, of economics--
for if a government collapses, the money in circulation becomes
trash. It happened in the South after the Civil War, with the
demise of the Confederacy and therefore Confederate money. It
happened in Germany after World War I, when a wheelbarrow-full of
paper money might be needed for a loaf of bread.
As part of economists' meddling in matters they do not
understand--like the Sorcerer's Apprentice who conjured a broom
to carry water--they seek to control both the supply of money and
the value of money. Basically, they want inflation. Inflation
is good for debtors (which is most of the people), and bad for
creditors (who are held to deserve a little loss, by the morality
of Robin Hood). Deflation, which nobody really wants to see,
would be a bonanza for creditors and the final straw for debtors
--they would have to pay back more real value than what they
borrowed, rather than less.
In any rational society, money would be absolutely rock hard
and absolutely beyond the power of any political scheme to change
it a hair. If one were to borrow ten dollars now, he would have
to pay back the full value of ten dollars, plus agreed interest
for the time borrowed. If you think that's unfair because you
borrow money, how would you feel if you were the lender?
There is one, and only one, way I can see that could create
such a rock-hard, non-manipulable monetary system--and it has
been suggested by a number of theoreticians with common sense,
who were therefore called crackpots. That is, to establish a
money system in which the minimum unit of coinage (one cent, for
example) would be deemed equal to exactly one minute of time
spent at minimal labor.
Obviously, there can never be one second more or one second
less than sixty minutes in an hour. Therefore in this system,
the minimum wage would be sixty cents per hour, and all higher
units of money and all contracts would be negotiated in terms of
money at that rate of exchange. All market prices would be nego-
tiated using this system of hard money as its basis, so that a
person earning the minimum wage could afford a modest lifestyle
(my first job paid me fifteen cents an hour).
Of course, some people would want to borrow an hour's worth
of work time, and pay it back with fifteen minutes--that's
inflation. But the short answer to all demands of that nature
must be NO.
WALL STREET
Stock markets are the biggest gambling casinos in the world.
That's not their public-relations image, but it's the truth.
Wall Streeters like to pretend they're doing a profound and
patriotic service in helping little Americans buy a piece of the
nation in stocks and bonds. I submit that such claims are an
earthenware container of organic fertilizer.
Wall Street is a complex mechanism for manipulating wealth--
in the form of symbolic paper--and its attraction for high
financiers is the lure of a quick killing by buying low and
selling high. If financiers guess wrong they may jump out
windows--or take a flight out of jurisdiction with embezzled
funds to evade criminal prosecution. The little Americans who
lose their shirts when the market crashes never know what hit
them. It happened in 1929, and is due to happen again--despite
the best efforts of economic "experts" to keep it from happening
by more and more controls.
The fact is that Wall Street is a bubble perilously close to
bursting. Our economists can't control Wall Street, so how the
hell can they pretend to control anything else? I'll tell you
how--by bluff and bluster.
We all know that Social Security will be bankrupt in about
thirty years, and Medicare in about ten, and that our economists
created the mess by meddling in the free market system instead of
letting banking and insurance institutions offer retirement
pensions by consensual contracts. Now our "experts" admit that
Social Security is in trouble, and their God-given superiority
has advised them exactly how to prop it up.
Invest in Wall Street--the world's biggest gambling casino!
And stupid Americans continue to trust them! How long can
their brains hibernate before they wake up and smell the coffee?
SUMMARIZING FOR THIS TIME
The Medicare Program will go bankrupt in perhaps ten years,
and Social Security will go down the tubes perhaps twenty years
later--if we're lucky. These blatant swindles are the legacy of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and for proof of this statement please
read my previous articles in this series.
The collapse of our country will be the result of numerous
interlocking factors, which I have here tried to separate for
individual consideration by thoughtful readers. The factors are:
1) The overpopulation of the planet, by about 50% of what it
should be.
2) The domination of politics by a two-thirds majority of
people below IQ 120, who are the least qualified to make
intelligent political decisions.
3) The facts (few) and fallacies (many) in the so-called
science of economics which have contributed to, and continue
to maintain a moribund national economy which gets worse as
time passes.
4) A bit about the psychology of the American people, and
the propaganda tricks which are used to deceive them.
HOW AMERICA WILL COLLAPSE
There are two options--neither one desirable--but I cannot
say with certainty which will prevail because I broke my crystal
ball last week, and my Tarot cards are out for repair.
One possibility is that political revolution will come
first, if apathetic Americans can be galvanized to take decisive
action to force reconstruction of our corrupt bureaucracy at all
levels. A proposal for the first step is a Constitutional
amendment to bring the American people back into the political
process in a meaningful way. See THE TIME BOMB IN OUR CONSTITU-
TION for details on our plan to restore freedom and civil rights
in a country which is shown to be a de facto police state, though
not recognized by the mentally retarded majority.
The second possibility is more likely, in my opinion--
namely, that Americans are too cowardly to take action until
economic collapse becomes a reality. That collapse will come
with the end of Social Security and the sudden termination of all
welfare programs which bleed all Americans to support the present
corrupt regime.
With the collapse of government programs and, therefore, the
entire government, the so-called "Domino Effect" will cause a
remorseless chain reaction worldwide. First, American money will
instantly become as worthless as Faberge eggs, and Wall Street
must crash almost immediately. With the collapse of Wall Street,
all foreign exchanges must follow as the panic spreads, and our
so-called leaders--a pack of congenital idiots--look, for the
first time, for lifeboats on the S.S. Titanic. There aren't any,
because the Titanic is unsinkable, right?
So, must we all sing hymns as the ragtime band plays
"Nearer, My God, to Thee"?
BUT WAIT! IS THAT A SHIP ON THE HORIZON?! CAN WE BE SAVED?!
Maybe.
It's the U.S. Congress, and if the crew is intelligent
enough to see what needs to be done--and has the courage and
integrity to do it--they might yet be able to keep us afloat and
tow us to shore safely.
The problem is that the crew of the U.S. Congress has been
on a binge for sixty years, getting drunk with power--that's
always been our problem. Will there be any heroes on board the
Congress who'll sober up in a hurry and do what has to be done?
I'll have the script for our eleventh-hour rescue in my next
article.
But will anybody in Washington read it?