Several people have asked why I stopped publishing. To answer the question, this will be my last post:
1. As Bill Clinton basically said when asked why his administration had been so favorable toward China after beating up Bush in the campaign about it, sometimes we don’t know what we think we know until we’ve jumped into the ring.
2. One reason I did jump into the ring was to run my own direct test to determine (a) whether change is possible, and (b) what people really want. I planned a 1-year test from the point I initially started publishing, but it took less than 9 months to conclude:
a. Change is not possible through journalism, the media, or online debates. Plus, as Chris Hedges says in Empire of Illusion, at this point it is impossible to bridge the divide between “a literate, marginalized minority and those who have been consumed by an illiterate mass culture.”
b. As I said in previous articles, IF we participate in the system, I’m not opposed to it at all. How could I be? I’d be a tyrant if I wanted to force hundreds of millions of people to change their behavior. And the fact is, that “IF” was answered long ago. We Americans have chosen the material benefits of being managed by the financial system for generations. We like demand-side freedom, i.e. choosing between Coke and Pepsi, but don’t want supply-side freedom. We like the supply-side to be taken care of for us. We love the benefits that come from it being imperially run—the credit card always works, the gas station is always open, our water faucets and light switches do what they’re supposed to do, the markets keep going up (oops…maybe not). All of our economic needs are outsourced to others, so we have the luxury of spending our time pursuing wants. And if these types of benefits are good for us, they’re good for the rest of the world. We have no moral authority to stand opposed just because we’re now going to lose our privileged position—a rather childlike perspective.
3. Given #2, my only wish is that the system would be transparent. Like Carroll Quigley, I see no rational reason not to inform people so there are fewer caught on the wrong side of the tragedy and hope dialectic. That was the purpose of my last video—to simply explain what’s happening with a slightly different twist than the others who have described the same basic system.
4. Putting all blame on the top of the system is biased and psychologically immature. Labeling a group “all bad” is an example of splitting—a primitive defense mechanism we tend to use to maintain an illusion of “all good” for ourselves, our country, our political party, etc. Some of my articles and videos intentionally played the splitting game because the media is designed to exacerbate splits, so if I wanted to pursue media work, I needed to play the game. But splitting is very harmful to society, so I will no longer do it. Moreover, as stated in #2, almost everyone contributes to the system so blaming only the top would be disingenuous.
5. Given human nature and the inherent requirement for empires to grow (or die in defeat to another empire), we will have one type of imperial system or another as long as humans are in charge. All such systems are narcissistic in form, so it’s futile in my view to argue between different forms of narcissism.
So I will not be publishing anymore, at least with the narrow focus on the financial system. It’s an illusion to think arguing about finance, economics, and markets will fix anything. But for those who want to continue learning about the system, I recommend Catherine Austin Fitts. I’ve said nothing more than her. In fact, I learned it from her—she was an insider, I was not. I borrowed the phrases “multi-generational wealth” and huge “pools of capital” at the top of the system from her. Noam Chomsky’s phrase is “coalitions of investors.” Same thing…I’ve revealed nothing new.
I also recommend Hedges’ Empire of Illusion for those who want to dig more into the spiritual and psychological dimensions of the situation in which we find ourselves. I agree with him, “The world that awaits us will be painful and difficult.” It’s useful to accept and adjust to this inevitability rather than wishing it away or being angry about it. There is no way around it because the ruleset we’ve lived within for decades was not sustainable. It depended upon exponential growth, exponential debt, exponential resource consumption, and exponential environmental impact.
As the world goes through a necessary reset of the rules, we will experience significant upheaval. I recommend Chris Martenson’s material at http://www.chrismartenson.com to understand the exponential ruleset and to dialogue with an enlightened community taking steps to minimize the upheaval for their local communities. That is the only prudent option at this point.