The Scientific Method

Here's how the scientific method works:

1. Craft a plausible hypothesis for an observed phenomenon.
2. Compile data that addresses that hypothesis.
3. Examine the data. Is it valid? Is it accurate? Were the parameters for gathering it credible & conforming with established scientific methodology?
4. Dismiss any claims of expertise.. those are irrelevant to any scientific inquiry. That is a fallacy, not science.
5. Critically examine the 'science'.. that is, the data, the hypothesis, & the conclusions. Do they line up? Is the conclusion justified by the data? Do the predictions line up with the actual data?
6. Support or discredit the hypothesis, based on the conclusions of the data.
7. Grow in understanding. Add to the human knowledge base with sound reasoning, dispassionate scientific inquiry, & systematic methodology.

THAT is science.. but is that what we see? Not much, anymore. And hardly at all, in public discourse. And, not at all, with the theory of evolution. Instead, here is how it goes:

1. Craft a plausible hypothesis for an observed phenomenon.
2. Provide no data, or ignore data that conflicts with the hypothesis.
3. Assert that the data supports the hypothesis, with no logical or scientific compelling conclusions.
4. Ridicule, blackball, & insult any who question the claims, the data, or the conclusions.
5. Demand that 'experts' be given authority over scientific methodology.
6. Rely on fallacies of science & logic to support the claim.
7. Demand that the hypothesis be believed, and mandate conformity.
8. Set back science for centuries, & return to the dark ages.

Fortunately, this New Science has not taken over all of science.. yet. It is the domain of the politically driven pseudo scientists, however. I have updated the labelling of this trend as 'Fake Science' to be more current with terminology. It is a major setback in the quest for knowledge, & is a return to the dark ages, where truth is mandated, & conformity demanded.

This kind of 'science' is most visible in the 'soft' sciences of climate & biology, where philosophical beliefs flavor the outlook, rather than compelling data. And, it is lawyers, politicians, celebrities, & other NON scientific people who are the most vocal for this kind of 'science'.

The decline of scientific methodology is one of the most tragic trends in our culture.. and demanding that the common man submit to 'experts' is the antithesis of science. 

Critical thought. Skepticism. Asking, 'WHY?' 

THESE are the hallmarks of scientific thinking, not blind submission to mandated belief.

I have used the hard sciences for all of my professional life. I have seen & used proven methods of engineering, formula calculations, geometry, & hard data to arrive at solutions for practical problems in the world. But my arguments are not based on my personal experience, or beliefs, but those of science. So any argument for some alleged 'science!' claim is easy for me to see. Is it based on hard data? Do the facts support the hypothesis? Is the data credible? I have not seen ANY credible data or arguments that support the theory of evolution. It is all contrived, extrapolated, asserted, or based on flawed assumptions. It does not take an Einstein to see this, but it is easier if you have some background in real science, & not just the pseudo science that is pitched these days. 

So how about it? Anyone want to take a shot at presenting some REAL SCIENCE to support the claim of universal common descent? Can you demonstrate, WITH DATA, that this phenomenon is even possible? I am very clear as to the assertions.. & the eye rolling.. & the disdain for any who question the basic tenets of this belief, but i have not seen ANY compelling data to suggest this is even possible. If anything, the exact opposite is observed. Organisms do not increase in complexity, or add chromosome pairs, genes, or traits, but they decrease. How do you combine the speculative claims of this hypothesis with observable reality? They are opposites.. diametrically opposed concepts.

Show me. Provide the mechanism that demonstrates HOW you can go from 23 to 24 (or 22) chromosome pairs, with the necessary genes to explain the major differences between a chimp & human. Show me HOW you can add genes, or modify them in such a way that major changes to the genetic architecture is permanently affected. HOW do you add wings, warm bloodedness, construct an eye, or any of the fantastic events that this god of evolution somehow creates? It is absurd. It is madness. It is UNscientific. It is a religious belief, with no basis in science.

Living with Indoctrination

Have you ever been mistaken? Have you ever been told something that later you discovered wasn't true?

How do you know that what you think now about something is correct, and not just another misconception?

I have been wrong in the past, am likely misled or mistaken now about some things, and will no doubt be wrong in the future.

There are many levels and factors that shape our world view and perceptions about reality. Some of them are benign or inconsequential,  while others are critical parts of our world view. Most of these overlap, and blend together to form our belief system.

1. Incomplete information. We arrive at a conclusion, but it is based on partial knowledge. We either fill in the gaps of our data with assumptions, or we dismiss the importance of sometimes very critical building blocks in our knowledge base.
2. Partial truth. Sometimes a nugget of truth is extrapolated to a flawed conclusion. A false equivalency or other faulty process is used to blend truth, assumptions, and lies to a plausible, but mistaken, conclusion.
3. Flawed assumptions. We have a smattering of facts, but they are processed through assumptions we make. The resultant conclusion might be logical, but it is based on unproven assumptions.
4. True facts. Most of our knowledge base is based on true facts. Most of what we learn is true, whether from personal experience or from others.
5. Blatant lies. Some of what we believe to be factual is not, but is based on deliberate falsehoods. Most of that is from others, but at times we lie to ourselves.
6. Assertions. At times 'truth' is merely declared, with no factual or logical basis.

The raw data that comprises our knowledge base comes from two main sources:

• That which we learn and discover experientially, through our own senses and observation.
• That which others have imparted to us.

Most of what we 'know' has been provided by others. Very little of our knowledge base is from self discovery.

There are also many reasons and motivations for those who dissiminate information to us. 

1. Manipulation and control. Deliberate distortion of truth to extract money or action for the agenda of the manipulator.
2. Sincere ideological belief. They truly believe their information to be factual, and are providing a useful service for humanity. They might be completely wrong, partially wrong, or completely right.
3. It is their job. They have been hired by other parties to impart information, which might consist of truth, half truths, and lies, depending on the agendas of the other parties.

But regardless of the source or motivation, most of our individual knowledge base is filled with facts, beliefs, and assumptions from others before us.

So how do we verify the information imparted to us? 

• Trust. We believe the information that really smart people have told us. Authority.
• Skepticism. We doubt the information from sources we don't trust. Null hypothesis.
• Verification. We research the information to see if it is credible. We discover that it is true, false, or unknown. Scientific methodology.

The default human position *should* be, 'i don't know.' But that is not satisfying, so we prefer flawed assumptions and falsehoods to an admission of ignorance.  I see a decline in the quest for Truth, for truth's sake, in this ever changing culture.  

“The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief” ~Jacques Ellul

Now we have a united front of propaganda.. a marxist/darwinist world view that has become the default pop religion of the day.  Is the basis for this view on absolutes?  Of course not.  It is based on indoctrination, propaganda, & constant pounding of the world view until it becomes the only plausible belief system.  There is no tolerance of other world views, in the pop religion of leftist ideology.  Their elitist, state-centered, truth-by-decree philosophy has overcome any past views of open inquiry, scientific methodology, & critical thinking.

So, how do you know if you have been indoctrinated?  How do you know whether some of the things you believe to be true are nothing more than propaganda from an agenda driven ideology?

1. You live in modern western culture.
2. You went to a public school.
3. You have watched entertainment.
4. You have watched the news media.
5. You follow news feeds, and the selective information given by social media.

IOW, if you have been alive in America over the last 50 yrs or so, you are a victim of indoctrination.. some of what you believe is nothing more than lies that have been spun to appear plausible.

So how do you correct indoctrination?  How do you determine the actual truthfulness of the things you believe?  It is a never ending process, that requires skepticism over what we hear, a critical view of what we consider to be 'facts', & a gearing of the mind to pursue truth, whatever the cost to our belief system.

He that would seriously set upon the search of truth ought in the first place to prepare his mind with a love of it. For he that loves it not will not take much pains to get it; nor be much concerned when he misses it. ~John Locke

Of course, this all presupposes that truth can be known, & that the universe is not all relative, or filled with unknowable mysteries.  But that is another topic.

...

Nobody is born in a vacuum, or grows into adulthood without any influences on their beliefs or world view. There are many things that mold & shape us into the 'thinking machines' that we become, & we are merely reflections of our influences.

I think the simple observation of the rise of atheism is an illustration of that. It is not like there have been any more startling discoveries, that have proven how life or the universe originated, or that somehow have disproved any possibility of the existence of the supernatural. No, the rise of atheism is more due to indoctrination from the educational system. So instead of churches indoctrinating people to become theists, we have the progressive educational system indoctrinating people to become atheists. Does that make any sense? Does anyone else see that correlation? Is that a plausible 'theory' as to the 'cause' of increasing atheism?

Please don't take this as a pejorative.. i mean it as a simple analysis, or search for 'why' for this cultural trend. And, if you disagree, let me know why, or what your 'theory' is, for why atheism has been increasing rapidly in western culture.

I'll show a study that presents evidence for this phenomenon, of increasingly atheistic worldviews in our society:

"Atheists, in general, are more likely to be male and younger than the overall population; 68% are men, and the median age of atheist adults in the U.S. is 34 (compared with 46 for all U.S. adults). Atheists also are more likely to be white (78% are Caucasian vs. 66% for the general public) and highly educated: About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 27% of the general public.
Self-identified atheists tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party and with political liberalism. About two-thirds of atheists (69%) identify as Democrats (or lean in that direction), and a majority (56%) call themselves political liberals(compared with just one-in-ten who say they are conservatives). Atheists overwhelmingly favor same-sex marriage (92%) and legal abortion (87%)."

10 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center

I see a study like this, & i am forced to conclude that the correlation of the ideology, & the consistency of the worldviews, makes a conclusion of indoctrination hard to miss. There seems to be a steady, state sponsored indoctrination trend to produce ideological followers of progressivism. Almost all the individual beliefs fall in lock step with the agenda of progressivism.

Newton vs Darwin: Basis for Worldviews

I see 2 basic foundations for world views:

1. Newtonian.  The universe is orderly, with immutable laws governing its processes.
2. Darwinian.  The universe is constantly changing, there are no absolutes, & everything is relative.

Newton continued the quest for scientific truth started by Copernicus, the father of modern science.  Some say the Copernican Revolution, the birth of modern science, concluded with Newton's laws.  This worldview is the basis for all of our modern discoveries, & they laid the foundation for all the technological, medical, & scientific discoveries for the last 200 years.  This was the Age of Reason, where empirical truth overcame superstition, & science explained the world we live in.  It was an instrumental factor in dragging western civilization from the dark ages, & was the foundational basis for the American experiment, Natural Law, & other Enlightenment values.  Physics, Astronomy, Mathematics, & other sciences had a basis in empirical facts, derived from an orderly universe.  Most of these early scientists believed in a Creator, who made all things, & created Laws to govern the universe.  There was no conflict between science & faith.  Science was seen as a way to explain the universe, & to understand what God had wrought.

In contrast, Darwinian theory was based on change.. constant change.  Nothing was absolute, & laws could vary & change with the environment or other variables.

The Newton pattern is science’s holy grail: universal laws, fixed interactions described by tightly causal equations. The Darwin pattern is fundamentally different: universal processes whose logic, applied locally, creates a looser causality, including parts with behaviors that aren’t fixed, often involving choice and change. Hence detailed outcomes aren’t as mathematically describable or predictable.  ~JAG BHALLA

America was founded under Newtonian principles & the Enlightenment.  Marxism, Progressivism, & Socialism (among others) came from the Darwinian world view.  That is why the left is unconcerned with Truth, as a principle.  They are only concerned with the end result, & the means of getting there.  Expediency, not accuracy, is their focus.  Facts can be spun to make a point, or accomplish a goal.  Lies are ok, if they further the Cause.  The end justifies the means.  Hence, the pattern of mandated 'truth' by the left.  Evidence & scientific methodology are not important, but crafting a plausible belief system, that works with an agenda.

1. Naturalism is the only explanation for origins, science, & the existence of life.  Evolution is proven fact.  Those who are superior should rule.
2. Global warming (or climate change) is settled science, & show the need to give power to the superior elite.
3. Facts are irrelevant in examination of an issue.. Obama's birth certificate, Hillary's emails, Benghazi, all ask for trust, not critical examination & due process.  The Expert elite should be trusted, & the superior should rule.
4. Smear campaigns against ideological enemies are not base on empirical fact, but accusation & phony narratives.  'Racist!', 'Denier!', and other pejoratives are used in place of facts.  Trust the experts.  They are superior, & they should rule.

As long as the foundation for this worldview remains, the ideology will continue.  Unless a return to empiricism occurs, we will continue the slide away from the scientific method, back to science by decree.  Critical thinking has given way to belief in the elite, & opinion of 'experts'.  The constant argument is over credentials of the claimant, not the accuracy or evidence of the content.  But Truth is not a democratic process, or a matter of consensus. 

The only conclusion that can be made is the superiority of the evolved elite, & a mandate for them to rule.  This is contrary to American principles of self rule, & human equality.  It is a stark difference in worldview, but it has become the State Religion, & is indoctrinated in everyone from every institution in modern society.  It portends the end of America, & a return to the dark ages.

I do not see the election of Trump as an indicator of a return to Enlightenment principles.  I see it as a temporary setback for the progressive agenda, & a nostalgic gesture for 'the good old days' of American values.  The root is still there, & the indoctrination continues for darwinian, marxist principles.  As long as progressivism is seen as a benign or even preferable world view, the decline of America & the principles of human equality, freedom, & self rule will continue.

Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views.
Karl Marx on Darwin's On the Origin of Species
December, 1860

Dear Sir:
I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.
I remain, Dear Sir
Yours faithfully,
Charles Darwin
Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl Marx, October, 1873

Rights or Commodities?

In most of Western Civilization, there is confusion about what constitutes a 'Right'. Many times, what some people call their rights, are merely commodities, or privileges provided by a social collective. Let's analyze what makes something a 'right', vs a commodity.

A right is something inherent.. it is part of your nature as a human being, & is something you own, either by birth, or from working. Here are some of the elements of a Right:

1. A right is something you have, as an individual.
2. Someone can take or violate your rights, but you can also defend them.
3. Your Rights are not dependent on the involvement or labor of another.

During the Enlightenment, Natural Rights were defined as life, liberty, & property. Here are some examples of Rights, that belong to every human:

1. The Right to Life. You are born a free human, & have the right to live.
2. The Right to expression. You have the right to speak your opinion, & express yourself.
3. The right to belief. You can believe in whatever ideology you wish, & live whatever worldview you choose.
4. The right to property. You have the right to use, keep, & dispose of your property, that you have worked for, as you see fit.
5. The right of Liberty. You can choose your way in life, & make decisions regarding your future, your property, & your beliefs.

There are limits with individual rights, when they affect the rights of others. So any individual rights are always mitigated by the rights of others.. there are no universal rights. They are always interdependent with other people's rights. For example, your right to free speech ends at yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater, or inciting riots, or slander.  And, as always, power is always the final arbiter of any human disputes, & individual rights will require this power to secure them.

Now, let's look at Commodities, & see how they differ from Rights. At the very core, there is little difference between a commodity & a privilege, & the distinction could be binary, just between rights & commodities. I have included 'privileges' as a subset of Commodities, as they are something provided by a collective social system, for the benefits of the citizens.

1. A commodity is something that another person creates, that is used as an exchange for other commodities.
2. A commodity must be worked for, by someone, to exist.
3. A commodity can be bought & sold, & is usually something tangible.

Here are some examples of commodities:
1. Food.
2. Clothing.
3. Housing.
4. Utilities.
5. Transportation.
6. Consumer goods.
7. Employment.
8. Health care.
9. Justice.
10. Protection.
11. Infrastructure.

All of these things require the labor of someone, to create them. None are inherent to anyone, but require the intelligent labor of another. SOME of these things can be provided as privileges, to a collective, if the collective wishes & can afford it. Items like Justice, Protection, & Infrastructure are commonly provided privileges by the collective social process. Any of these things COULD be provided by the collective, as a privilege to the citizens, but the cost & consequences should be weighed carefully, to see if it is a wise or viable action for the society to make. But none of these are inherent rights, as they require the active, intelligent labor of another to create them.

One of the problems in an affluent society, is the blurring between Rights & Commodities. Some people begin to believe that certain commodities are owed them, as an inherent right. They begin to believe that the world 'owes them a living', but this is usually an adolescent fantasy, that they outgrow. The problem really begins when this adolescent fantasy becomes a mainstream political belief, & is institutionalized. Instead of outgrowing the fantasy, they become entrenched in entitlement, & believe that they are owed all the commodities of life. But this is a skewed & distorted view of life. Usually, Reality educates people & they become aware of the need to work & earn their own commodities of life, & not consider them an entitled right. But some institutions & human circles become entrenched in entitlement, & begin to believe that all commodities are rights. You see this most commonly in areas where there is abundance, & a disconnect between the needs of survival & human labor. When affluence & easy money flows in a culture, many of the citizens lose the perspective that someone has to work to provide these things. Life comes easy for them, & they think it is that way for everyone. They live in a disconnected fantasy world, away from the struggle for survival that most humans have had, for all of human history.

Emotion & a Scientific Theory

Sometimes the question comes up, 'Why'? Why do we debate the 'theory' of evolution (the ToE) with such passion & intensity, if it is just a cerebral discussion about some scientific theory?

IMO, it is because it is NOT a scientific theory, but a basis for a philosophical outlook. It is the foundation for a World View, & as such carries tremendous importance. It is the core belief of a naturalistic view of the Universe. There are only 2 ways to look at the Universe, relating to origins:
1. Naturalistic.. all life (and complexity) is here from observable natural processes (that we have yet to observe or define).
2. Supernaturalistic.. all life is here from some unseen supernatural process, that we cannot observe, repeat, or define.

That has been the debate for millennia. I would like to point out some facts about this debate:
1. There is NO empirical evidence that compels a conclusion about either 'theory'. We can neither observe or repeat either mechanism of origins... either the natural or supernatural.. they are beyond the realm of science, & are firmly in the area of belief & opinion.
2. A naturalistic view is no more scientific than a supernaturalistic view. Since there is no science that compels EITHER conclusion, and since both are matters of belief, to claim one is 'scientific' while the other is, 'religious', is only a definitional dodge.. there are no facts that make concluding naturalistic processes any more 'settled' by science. It is an attempt to smear the opposing view to define one as 'science' & the other as 'religious'. Both are philosophical beliefs, with no compelling scientific conclusion.
3. ID, creation, alien seeding, or any 'supernatural' explanation cannot be observed, repeated, or even defined, as to the process. The ToE also has some mysterious process that cannot be observed, repeated, or defined, as it claims increasing complexity through gradual, cumulative changes in the genetic structure. A false equivalence is made, conflating 'micro' variability changes in an organism, with the ability to make 'macro' changes in genetic structure. This has NEVER been observed, & the science of genetics is making this concept seem less plausible all the time.
4. The 'data' of the fossil record does not compel either conclusion. The fossils are a partial record of past living things, not an exhaustive one, & the conditions of their fossilization are primarily unknown. Dating methods are highly speculative, rely on circular reasoning & prior assumptions, & are slanted in favor of a naturalistic view, when no such conclusion can be drawn by the mere existence of the data.

Some will dispute these 'facts' as they conflict with their BELIEFS about the ToE. But if this issue is studied without an agenda, i believe a thinking person will see the truth, & realize that the ToE is merely a belief system.. it is not 'settled science'. In fact, there are huge holes in this theory, that no one has been able to fill.

This is not really a new debate. Socrates hypothesized a 'naturalistic' theory of origins over 2k yrs ago, & there were no doubt people before that with that view. For over 2 thousand years, the popular naturalistic view was 'spontaneous generation'. That is the theory that life spontaneously is generated from non life. It was 'settled science' for millennia, until thinkers & methodology from the Age of Reason began to systematically dismantle it with real science. The final death blow to this 'theory' was in Louis Pasteur's experiment/demonstration at the French Academy of Science in 1859. There was now no valid 'theory' of naturalistic origins. The only option, they thought, was some supernatural one, which many found (and find) unacceptable. Ironically, & perhaps coincidentally, in the EXACT same year that spontaneous generation was debunked by scientific methodology, a 'new' theory of naturalist origins was taking root. Charles Darwin published his book, 'The Origin of Species', in Nov. 1859. Within 100 years it had become the de facto, 'settle science,' naturalistic view that spontaneous generation once held. It was a slow morphing, but eventually, the science caught up with the beliefs, & the ToE is the status quo belief for a naturalistic view of the universe. IMO, it was not because the ToE was so compelling, but because they had no alternative, since spontaneous generation had been debunked.

IMO, the distinction between spontaneous generation, & evolution, or 'abiogenesis & biogenesis' as Huxley presented it, is a redefinition. Evolution is merely a repackaged 'theory' of spontaneous generation, with a twist. You can see the 'evolution' of the ideology, which is a fascinating study of the human mind, more than anything.

But i submit to you that the reason for the wide belief & indoctrination for the ToE is NOT from compelling science, but necessity. It is the ONLY valid theory of naturalistic origins out there, & it is defended with religious zeal. The actual science is non existent, for proving gradual, cumulative changes in the genetic structure.. genetic science has not been able to confirm or demonstrate any mechanism or ability in living things to make those kinds of vertical changes in the genetic structure. You cannot add complexity, or chromosomes, or traits, by any visible process. It is a belief, that it happens, but it is not based on science.

And that is the reason, IMO, why the ToE is defended & promoted with such intensity.. it is not merely a scientific theory of origins, but is The Foundational Element in the naturalistic view of the Universe. As such, it cannot be pondered with detached intellectual reflection, but is the Central Tenet of Faith in the naturalistic religious view of the universe.

I believe this perception to be flawed, as there can be other naturalistic views, as history has shown. We may not know them, yet, but that is no reason to dogmatically cling to a fading theory just because our scientific knowledge is incomplete. The truly scientific minded person should be open to possibility, not dogmatically declaring 'truth' when the facts do not compel it. But the emotional investment with evolution blinds the True Believers, & they cannot even question their core beliefs, as they 'feel' it would betray their World View. That is the nature of Man, who is not always rational & scientific, but is driven by ideology, emotion, & a life assembled world view.

I do not expect this philosophical analysis to change anyone's perceptions.. those run too deep, & are a combined product of school indoctrination, reinforcement from human institutions, peer pressures, compatibility with ideology, & prejudice toward alternate views. But i offer this as a plausible explanation for the passion & intensity in this debate.

Mo Money

Money is a man made commodity. It is nothing but a symbol of value.. a representation of the goods or services offered in exchange for other goods or services. So Man, whether in positions of govt power or not, has the ability to 'create' this symbol. The true wealth is the goods or services provided by human labor.

This System of money has evolved in the human animal over thousands of years. It is a better solution for storing & carrying the wealth we have created than the items themselves. The problem lies in the nature of the storage unit. It lends itself to corruption & manipulation by unscrupulous charlatans. Money has ALWAYS been counterfeited by crooks & scoundrels. Whatever the storage unit, it has been faked. And the problem becomes exponentially worse when the ISSUER of the currency/money is complicit in the faking. This is what has happened with the American dollar. It was once a stable currency, with the full force & confidence of the American System of government. But thieves & scoundrels have infiltrated this system, & manipulated the currency for their own enrichment & their cronies. They have, in essence, counterfeited the dollar. By printing more than the value it represents, they dilute the real value of the dollar, which causes inflation. But all that does is steal from those who own these symbols of wealth, by behind the scenes meddling with the currency. Instead of providing a stable, consistent, reliable symbol of American wealth & production, they print out billions of paper symbols with nothing but reputation & nostalgia to back them. It is like a ponzi scheme.. a bubble of their own creation that will burst at some time, if drastic steps are not taken to bring stability & security to this global currency.

Debt itself is not a major problem. Absurd, astronomical debt is obviously a problem, when the ability to pay it off becomes untenable. Govt induced debt, filled with corruption, redistribution, & cloward-piven strategies of overload, use the system of money to accomplish their dirty deeds.

This, IMO, is not a flaw of the system.. it is the Nature of Man. When the citizens of a nation of self rule do not keep a watchful eye on the administrators of the collective organizational system, it is too easy for unscrupulous scoundrels to weasel their way into positions of power & use it to enrich themselves & their cronies. Bankers & other money related industries are too happy to go along with the corrupting practices, as long as they can work the system too.

I don't know of a better way to prevent abuses of public currency management except a system of checks & balances, like the American Experiment. But even it has become corrupted, as charlatans have taken over EVERY phase of the system. There are no watchdogs to warn of these subtle, behind the scenes meddlings. And the currency is a critical part of any society. EVERYONE is affected by the currency manipulations. Those on the inside, with connections to the power mongers, can profit from monetary policy. But everyone else loses. It has become a corrupt system of looting the working man.. stealing his labors with invisible, behind the scenes juggling of the money supply.

When a currency is stable, those who create things become wealthy. Interest rates are moderate, & provide capital for investment. Nobody gets rich by shuffling money around. A successful business MAKES something, or provides a useful service. But when a currency is inflated & unstable, the creators of wealth are robbed by the issuers of the currency.  A cursory check of our current system shows that money shufflers are the ones getting rich, now. Most people getting 'rich' now have not created anything, but merely expanded their money stores by shuffling it around.. speculation.. insider trading.. political maneuvering. The farmers, builders, manufacturers, & workers who actually CREATE something are slowly being fleeced by the diluting process of monetary policy.

Wall street loves this. Money shufflers have exploited the system for nearly a century, now, to get rich without doing any productive work. Govt insiders love it too. They do not call politics 'the revolving door to riches' for nothing. It is a method of getting rich by fleecing the producers, the favorite tactic of thieves & scoundrels for all time. They do no work themselves, but merely TAKE from those who have. What is most insidious about them is their pretense of being 'public servants'. They act like they ache with compassion for the plight of the working man, while they rob him blind of what he has worked for. They are not even honest thieves.

Solutions? It will not be easy, or pretty. JUSTICE will have to be applied to deter thievery.

1. Strict & swift penalties for public corruption.. confiscation of property, capital punishment, labor camps, guillotines.. something negative that will deter corruption in the public administration.
2. Management & administration of the currency by ELECTED officials, held accountable by other ELECTED officials in an open, transparent forum. End the FED. Remove the management of the American currency from special interests & private bankers.
3. Link the money supply to actual production. Formulas can be calculated to determine the proper amount of money to 'create', based on the actual production of the nation. Voodoo economics & subjective opinions or ideology are removed, when the currency is tied to real numbers.
4. Phase out the old, & establish the new. The old dollar has been ruined & corrupted by the FED & those managing it. Let the Congress mint a stable currency, as they have been charged to do by the constitution. The old FED issued one can be phased out, & has become less viable & useful as a national currency. A lot of money shufflers will be screwed by this change, but they were complicit in the corruption of the dollar so they should bear the brunt of the collapse. The working, TAX PAYING American citizen should be given priority in the initial exchange of old to new dollars, then the banks, investors, foreign nationals, & anyone else who has profited from the manipulations of the dollar.

IMO, with the fundamentals of the currency in such shambles, it will not matter who is elected as president. Pick your poison. We are in a downward death spiral, & putting a new pilot in the cockpit will not make a difference. Unless & until we can make DRASTIC changes to monetary policy, & return the management of the currency to elected officials who have some accountability to the public trust, the plunder of the treasury & the working man will continue.

The Greatest Mystery of the 21st Century: Money

At least so far... We are still relatively early in the 21st century.

This spring i've been dealing with a lot of collective organizations. ..attending commencements, interacting with police, fire depts, insurance companies, charitable fund raisers, etc. I am always amazed at the levels of entitlement among people involved in public institutions. The widening chasm in the American Discourse is also a matter of great concern to me, as entitlement sweeps the next generation, & each new crop of young people seem more entitled than the one before. Why? What is the source of this mindset? Why do people believe that other people owe them a living? 

I have been a philosopher & a student of the human animal all of my life. I am constantly intrigued by the root motivations of people, & the source of thinking & the evolution of philosophical agendas. The more i observe humanity, & analyze the thinking processes, motivations, & mindset of people, the more i have concluded that there are core differences in our perceptions about Reality. There are misconceptions that build upon each other, to arrive at a mythical view of Reality that has no basis. The fundamentals are flawed, & the subsequent conclusions are based on faulty assumptions.

Myth: Govt creates money.
IMO, this is the central flaw of modern progressivism. This is where leftist thought begins in their perception of reality, & where all other flaws in their thinking & conclusions originate. The reason is that this is not really a myth. Govt DOES print money. But they do not create the SOURCE of wealth.. they do not originate the True Source of money. Unfortunately, this myth is not only with the progressive left. It is sweeping the thinking of conservatives & other philosophical world views.

Money is merely a symbol of wealth. It is a means of exchange. All wealth in the human collective is created by Labor. Somebody has to work to create wealth, which is then represented by govt printed money. The ONLY source of wealth is in productive labor. The engine that drives the Human Economic Train is productive labor for the survival needs of humanity.

Sustenance: Food & water
Protection: Housing, clothing, defense from the elements & predators.
Those are the essentials. You can live without a smart phone, but not without water. You don't need tv or music, but you won't live long without food. EVERYTHING that we do is predicated on someone working for these essentials, & the rest of us buying their products with the fruits of our own labors.THAT is the Human Economy: You work & produce a needed commodity. Someone else does the same. You trade your products. ALL of the wealth generated in a society is done at the survival level. Luxuries & incidentals come later. Observation of many 3rd world countries, all of the animal kingdom, & the history of man should make this plainly obvious, but for some reason, it is increasingly mysterious, & the source of wealth is seen as coming from a Magical Provider: The Govt.

Bastiat wrote of this in the 1800s:
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." ~Frederic Bastiat

For the most part, people do not see themselves as mooching off of other people. They believe that Govt has a Mystical Ability to provide all the necessities of life: Food, clothing, housing, health care, pensions, & jobs. But that is a flawed perception of govt. Human governance is merely a collective action for justice & social protection. That is its prime directive. The working people of the land provide their hard earned wealth to PAY someone to administer justice & protection in society. That is the essence of Govt. And when those in this protective role use their assigned power to plunder & exploit the working man, they have failed in their basic duty, & no longer provide a useful service. They have become complicit with the looters of the working man, & no longer protect his labors. They have joined with the predators & eventually the working producers of the land cast them out & organize a new collective system of govt. Historically, the changes in human governance have not always brought periods of freedom & prosperity. Most of the time, it has been, 'Meet the new Boss... same as the old Boss'.

The Reality is that SOMEONE has to work & produce the necessities of life. Govt does not create food, housing, or clothing. They can only TAKE from those who have. That is why redistribution has a look & feel of Govt as the source of these things. The recipients of the free stuff do not see the force employed in taking it from someone else. They imagine huge warehouses of stuff.. a goose that lays golden eggs, or a money tree that generates the necessities of life automatically. They do not see themselves as mooching off of other people, but merely taking their fair share from the govt.

But it is a lie. It is Fiction. Govt has NOTHING, except what they take by force from someone who has worked. The champions of govt like to portray it as govt making things fair. The evil corporate exploiters of the working man are the targets of their Social Justice, not the actual working man. But that is a diversion. The corporate exploiters of the working man are ALMOST ALWAYS complicit with the govt looters. They work together in harmony to fleece the producers of the nation, to enrich themselves & to empower themselves with votes from useful idiots who believe the Lie. But they do not actually fleece the evil corporatists. All they ever do is plunder the working man.

As long as this perception of money & wealth remains, entitlement & collectivist delusion will continue. People do not see their survival needs coming through productive interdependency, but from a Magical Provider. Govt has become the new god, & the free stuff is manna in the wilderness.