The Case for Antidisestablishmentarianism

Many friends of mine — people who have worked for the progress of liberty for years — are mightily encouraged by the popularity of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. They are both radicals of a sort, people who represent a threat to the established political order, they say. We too are against the establishment, so their rise suggests rising discontent with the status quo. That’s a step in the right direction, they say.

So far, I see the point and I sympathize.

But there’s a problem. The state power we oppose is not identical to the establishment we reject. You can overthrow the establishment and still be left with a gigantic machinery of legalized exploitation. All the agencies, laws, regulations, and powers are still in place. And now you have a problem: someone else is in charge of the state itself. You might call it a new establishment. It could be even more wicked than the one you swept away.

Indeed, it usually is. Maybe always.

What is an establishment? It is a network of large and cooperating interest groups that have developed a stable relationship with state power. It includes finance, public-sector bureaucrats, large businesses with quid pro quo relationships with regulators and politicians, political families with a strong stake in the election process, contractors with government, intellectuals at state-friendly think tanks, and so on.

Czarist Russia had a deeply entrenched establishment: church, business, government, aristocracy all working together in a stable relationship. Corruption was obvious. Then it became intolerable with the war draft and rampant inflation. The establishment failed and was overthrown. What came in its place was a transitional government and finally Bolshevik rule.

Weimar Germany had an entrenched establishment: banking, government, corporations, bureaucracy all working together. Corruption was obvious. Then it became intolerable with hyperinflation followed by deep economic retrenchment. People were suffering and looking for answers. Most people regarded Hitler as a non-ideal messenger but he was fine in a pinch. No one expected the results.

The list of failed establishments replaced by more wicked states is long indeed: Mexico, Spain, Italy, Argentina, Venezuela in the last century and Iraq and Libya in our own times.

The intellectual conflation of the state and the establishment has caused countless revolutionary movements to go wrong. Eastern Europe overthrew its establishments in 1989 but kept their states, resulting in mixed-economy social democracies. Russia got rid of the Bolsheviks in 1990 and got authoritarian oligarchy in its place. To be sure, the results in these cases were better than before. But as the Italian, Russian, French, and German cases illustrate, that is not always the case. The results differ according to the plans and designs of the new power holders.

You might point to the American revolution as a contrary case. We tossed out the British and established freedom! But think again. The war itself created a new establishment consisting of political orators, military generals, bond dealers, and influential landholders. Twelve years following the Declaration of Independence, these groups got together and formed a new government that, in short order, became as oppressive and more so than the one the revolutionaries overthrew. And this occurred despite the existence of a solid libertarian public culture.

Nonetheless, in our times, freedom lovers have become so enraptured with the idea of opposing the establishment as such that many have lost sight of the actual goal of establishing freedom. It’s for this reason that so many have fallen for Donald Trump’s claim that he deserves support solely because he owes nothing to anyone. Therefore, he is not part of the establishment.

Why is that good for liberty? He has said nothing about dismantling power. Indeed, he is on the record in his desire to expand the power of the state. He wants surveillance, controls on the internet, religious tests for migration, war-like tariffs which are taxes, industrial planning, and autocratic foreign-policy power. He’s praised police power and toyed with ideas such as internments and political killings of enemies.

As for Sanders, everything that is bad about the current establishment he promises to make worse with more programs, bureaucracy, taxes, controls, and government power as the key to making life fair, just, and equitable. He speaks as if he’s never heard of the failed history of socialism and certainly hasn’t learned anything from.

Some of these ideas are so extreme that, it’s true, the establishment doesn’t like them. That’s a good thing. Establishments are as Machiavelli described: stable machines that keep competitors at bay but otherwise seek to make the system work for themselves. They resist rampant populism that would lead to a pillaging of the nation that is serving them so well.

To understand Machiavelli, realize that his black beast was the cleric Savonarola, Florence’s quasi-dictator who led a mass movement of crazed pietists who pillaged and burned material possessions as a pathway to heaven. The Bonfire of the Vanities of 1487 was one result. This is exactly the kind of mania that establishments exist to keep at bay.

It is the height of political naïveté and historical ignorance to believe that crude anti-establishment populism and the cause of human liberty are united in the same struggle. They are not.

Not that there is anything wrong with “the people” as such. As Trump might say, “I love the people.” They are great as consumers using their own property, as family members, as managers of their own lives. But the people as rulers over the political system? That’s a different matter.

Think of Iraq or Libya as recent cases. From what we observed from media coverage, the masses were struggling against despots and sought their overthrow, hoping for a future of human rights and democracy. What we got was the opposite. Only too late did most people discover that these wicked dictators were all that were standing between their populations and the advent of terror.

Here’s the problem with political revolutions. One group leads the revolution while others follow. If the revolution succeeds, the leaders expect a payout. The main payout is the control of the state apparatus that outlives the establishment’s overthrow. It makes sense that the results will be more ruthless, vengeful, and bloody than anything that came before.

This is not a case for the establishment. It is a case against disestablishmentarianism as an ideal. The ideal is liberty, not the overthrow of existing elite structures as such. Rampant and unchecked populism can be as much an enemy of liberty as unchecked ruled by an entrench power elite.

We need to be alert to the difference. A movement toward a lasting liberty has to think long term, and not find itself buffeted by the winds of politics that promise overnight results. The goal should be the overthrow of power itself and its replacement by simple human rights and a society that functions according to civilized standards.

Top-down political putsches are particularly dangerous in our times. The establishment is already on the run because of technological innovation. The ruling class is gradually losing control over communication, education, industrial development, civic planning, consumption, and so much else. The old models have been discredited and new ones are replacing them, organically, in a sustainable way.

A new dictator from the left or right threatens everything. A political movement fueled by bloodlust — mobilized by raw resentment and crying out for vengeance — could put in power a new form of oligarchic control, resulting in a calamity that no one intends as such but no one can control once it has power.

Subscribe on YouTube

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

View Full Bio

57 comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around me
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
    We don’t get fooled again
    Don’t get fooled again
    No, no!

    YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss

    -Pete Townsend, The Who, “Won’t Get Fooled Again” (The greatest rock anthem ever that, very simply, sums it all up!)

  • I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around me
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
    We don’t get fooled again
    Don’t get fooled again
    No, no!

    YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss

    -Pete Townsend, The Who, “Won’t Get Fooled Again” (The greatest rock anthem ever that, very simply, sums it all up!)

  • I feel like the section on the American revolution will be read to mean that the Federal government was, even in its first century, just as bad as the French terror or a Socialist paradise. Really though, the lesson I draw is that British rule in North America was astonishingly light before King George’s innovations (themselves trivial compared to modern government) and that the American revolution was an attempt to preserve old norms imbedded in that “solid Libertarian public culture,” and not to impose new ones. One does not have to disavow the American revolution to embrace the lesson here: You cannot GAIN freedom through revolution, at best you can preserve or restore it. This is a lesson taught equally well by a partly-successful defense of existing freedoms, and dozens and dozens of horrible, counterproductive attempts to usher in new dawns of freedom.

    • @sam1067 You cannot gain freedom through centralized, political revolution. Freedom must be gained through decentralized, anti-political revolution.

  • I feel like the section on the American revolution will be read to mean that the Federal government was, even in its first century, just as bad as the French terror or a Socialist paradise. Really though, the lesson I draw is that British rule in North America was astonishingly light before King George’s innovations (themselves trivial compared to modern government) and that the American revolution was an attempt to preserve old norms imbedded in that “solid Libertarian public culture,” and not to impose new ones. One does not have to disavow the American revolution to embrace the lesson here: You cannot GAIN freedom through revolution, at best you can preserve or restore it. This is a lesson taught equally well by a partly-successful defense of existing freedoms, and dozens and dozens of horrible, counterproductive attempts to usher in new dawns of freedom.

    • @sam1067 You cannot gain freedom through centralized, political revolution. Freedom must be gained through decentralized, anti-political revolution.

  • This article hits the nail on the head, and it is why I wish Cantwell had stayed with the ideas of forcefully expelling the state from our lands then forming a culture of resistance against all forms of criminality instead of backing Trump.

  • This article hits the nail on the head, and it is why I wish Cantwell had stayed with the ideas of forcefully expelling the state from our lands then forming a culture of resistance against all forms of criminality instead of backing Trump.

  • Truly great article, Jeffrey Tucker. The one thing I like about Trump is his ability to play the liberal media like a yoyo. They obviously can’t stand him, but his knowledge of how the media business operates plus his theatrical instincts force them to give him exponentially more face time than any other candidate. Then when they try to make a fool of him on their own tv shows, he usually manages to make them look foolish, his poll numbers go up, and they are left with egg all over their pretty or handsome faces. What’s not to like about that? Of course it is all political theater, and not as good as a B movie.

    The life blood and the Achilles Heal of the state (and the establishment) is its tax revenues. Cut that off, and the state cannot survive. Fail to cut it off, and it doesn’t matter who controls the revenue apparatus, what remains is despotism. And if the taxes are minuscule to start, they will grow to intolerable because that is what must happen when anyone is spending Other People’s Money that has been forcibly extorted. Unfortunatley, smart despots, like smart dairy farmers who know how to maximize milk production, may succeed in keeping taxes just below intolerable for a sustained period. Eventually greed will always make the smartest despots do stupid things and the established system will implode. Then, as you point out, the tax apparatus inevitably lives on only with new milk maids.

    If the tax apparatus is removed, whoever rules won’t be able to do much harm because government thugs require paychecks. We ought to focus our energies on cutting Achilles’ Heel.

    • Great comment Ned! I’d just like to add some truth serum and realism to one of your suggestions. 😉

      >The life blood and the Achilles Heal of the state (and the establishment) is
      >its tax revenues.

      Well, partially–and if taxation were the only way the state could steal from people, it would be entirely true . Unfortunately, the other life blood is fiat currency creation (the state’s lawful monopoly on currency and counterfeiting).

      >Eventually greed will always make the smartest despots do stupid things and the
      >established system will implode.

      Actually, the first half of your statement has already happened in the U.S.. It happened when our rulers and masters imposed a 100% fiat monetary system upon us. Implosion is now only a matter of (indeterminate) time! All that our rulers and masters can do now is kick the monetary can down the road, but the longer and farther they kick it, the more severe the inevitable implosion will be.

      >We ought to focus our energies on cutting Achilles’ Heel.

      This won’t do the trick. Perhaps focusing energies in this way would have worked before Richard Nixon put the last nail in the gold standard coffin about a half-century ago, but it’s too late now. In watching “Crash Course” several years ago, Chris Martenson first convinced me that the approach is no longer possible because of the design and mathematical properties of our monetary system. Since then, I’ve read other treatise from other knowledgeable people, but I recommend “Crash Course” to get a handle on a very elusive, obfuscated, and challenging subject. It’s very tough to wrap one’s brain around it. Currency, banking, and debt do not work anything like a home or even business budget, and it is why most people and even many bankers are in the dark about what currency is and how it works (or eventually doesn’t work).

      ALL our currency is loaned into existence and our system now requires the exponential growth of debt to continue to exist. Debt and currency are two faces of the very same thing. It is a mathematical property of our monetary system that at least enough new debt/currency must be created to pay the interest on existing debt. There is not enough currency in existence to pay the interest so it must be created out of thin air. The Fed/ Treasury/ Government spending loop is inextricably tied to the fiat money creation and this loop is largely how money is loaned into existence (the other means of creation being fractional reserve banking). As anyone who has studied math and science knows, no physical system can sustain exponential growth (and our monetary system IS a physical system, despite what some Keynesians in denial might otherwise argue).

      Even though politicians and voters love to talk about a balanced federal budget, it can’t be achieved–at least not without causing banks to fail (or causing people to give-up wealth that they perceive and believe to be “theirs,” which is what happens when banks fail too).

  • Truly great article, Jeffrey Tucker. The one thing I like about Trump is his ability to play the liberal media like a yoyo. They obviously can’t stand him, but his knowledge of how the media business operates plus his theatrical instincts force them to give him exponentially more face time than any other candidate. Then when they try to make a fool of him on their own tv shows, he usually manages to make them look foolish, his poll numbers go up, and they are left with egg all over their pretty or handsome faces. What’s not to like about that? Of course it is all political theater, and not as good as a B movie.

    The life blood and the Achilles Heal of the state (and the establishment) is its tax revenues. Cut that off, and the state cannot survive. Fail to cut it off, and it doesn’t matter who controls the revenue apparatus, what remains is despotism. And if the taxes are minuscule to start, they will grow to intolerable because that is what must happen when anyone is spending Other People’s Money that has been forcibly extorted. Unfortunatley, smart despots, like smart dairy farmers who know how to maximize milk production, may succeed in keeping taxes just below intolerable for a sustained period. Eventually greed will always make the smartest despots do stupid things and the established system will implode. Then, as you point out, the tax apparatus inevitably lives on only with new milk maids.

    If the tax apparatus is removed, whoever rules won’t be able to do much harm because government thugs require paychecks. We ought to focus our energies on cutting Achilles’ Heel.

    • Great comment Ned! I’d just like to add some truth serum and realism to one of your suggestions. 😉

      >The life blood and the Achilles Heal of the state (and the establishment) is
      >its tax revenues.

      Well, partially–and if taxation were the only way the state could steal from people, it would be entirely true . Unfortunately, the other life blood is fiat currency creation (the state’s lawful monopoly on currency and counterfeiting).

      >Eventually greed will always make the smartest despots do stupid things and the
      >established system will implode.

      Actually, the first half of your statement has already happened in the U.S.. It happened when our rulers and masters imposed a 100% fiat monetary system upon us. Implosion is now only a matter of (indeterminate) time! All that our rulers and masters can do now is kick the monetary can down the road, but the longer and farther they kick it, the more severe the inevitable implosion will be.

      >We ought to focus our energies on cutting Achilles’ Heel.

      This won’t do the trick. Perhaps focusing energies in this way would have worked before Richard Nixon put the last nail in the gold standard coffin about a half-century ago, but it’s too late now. In watching “Crash Course” several years ago, Chris Martenson first convinced me that the approach is no longer possible because of the design and mathematical properties of our monetary system. Since then, I’ve read other treatise from other knowledgeable people, but I recommend “Crash Course” to get a handle on a very elusive, obfuscated, and challenging subject. It’s very tough to wrap one’s brain around it. Currency, banking, and debt do not work anything like a home or even business budget, and it is why most people and even many bankers are in the dark about what currency is and how it works (or eventually doesn’t work).

      ALL our currency is loaned into existence and our system now requires the exponential growth of debt to continue to exist. Debt and currency are two faces of the very same thing. It is a mathematical property of our monetary system that at least enough new debt/currency must be created to pay the interest on existing debt. There is not enough currency in existence to pay the interest so it must be created out of thin air. The Fed/ Treasury/ Government spending loop is inextricably tied to the fiat money creation and this loop is largely how money is loaned into existence (the other means of creation being fractional reserve banking). As anyone who has studied math and science knows, no physical system can sustain exponential growth (and our monetary system IS a physical system, despite what some Keynesians in denial might otherwise argue).

      Even though politicians and voters love to talk about a balanced federal budget, it can’t be achieved–at least not without causing banks to fail (or causing people to give-up wealth that they perceive and believe to be “theirs,” which is what happens when banks fail too).

  • Really great article. This ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ thinking really is dangerous. We need to change the system not just the personnel. Especially if the new guy does not even pretend to be an advocate of liberty.

  • Really great article. This ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ thinking really is dangerous. We need to change the system not just the personnel. Especially if the new guy does not even pretend to be an advocate of liberty.

  • Wow! Equally great comment, Calin, addressing the monetary stranglehold the rulers have on their subjects. It has been a long, long time since I learned the intricacies of money and banking at the feet of Hans Sennholz (figuratively, for it was through his books) when he was the reigning monetary guru at FEE (succeeding Mises). But I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions, although it may merely be because I am missing a strand of the iron web or misunderstanding something. I confess I haven’t seen, read, or even heard of “Crash Course.,” alothough I once read much of what came out of libertarians on the money and banking issue. I will certainly give Martenson’s work a look.

    But before reading it and subject to it changing my mind, here is why I disagree with your conclusion that removing taxation “won’t do the trick,” the trick being slaying Goliath, which, IMHO and I suspect from the tone of his article it is Mr. Tucker’s opinion as well, can only be successfully accomplished nonviolently. (A violent revolution leaves violent people in the ruler’s seat no matter who “wins.” The ultimate aim of liberty, I think, is a nonviolent society.)

    Our fiat-currency money and banking system depends, as you point out, on monetary inflation. However, taxation is an integral part of what you aptly describe as “the Fed/ Treasury/ Government spending loop,” and its creation with the banks of fiat money. World wide and here in America–particularly following the Revolutionary War and in the South during the Civil War–people have had a plethora of experience–all bad–with fiat money and the inevitable hyper-inflation it generates. Enough people know what the results are of printing too much money,. It is their knowledge that inevitably brings fiat-money scams to an end. (Aside: I have in my wallet a beautiful “Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe” official bank note, which the bank “promises to pay to the bearer on demand ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS.” i purchased several such notes for under ten U.S. dollars, but it is “not worth a Continental” nor a Confederate Greyback.

    Without taxation as an integral component of a fiat money scam, the scam becomes readily apparent to sufficient number of people to quickly put the scam to rest. Even though taxes are collected and paid exclusively in those fiat notes, the scam cannot be maintained in the absence of the taxation illusion that the government is collecting something of value. It may have been the monetary scam, which he contributed to with the U.S. Greenbacks, that caused Lincoln to famously state a truism: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” (Note: The attribution to the despot, Lincoln, is demonstrably false

    For thse reasons I believe the demise of taxation will spell the end of fiat-currency scams.

    • >Without taxation as an integral component of a fiat money scam, the scam
      >becomes readily apparent to sufficient number of people to quickly put the
      >scam to rest

      Maybe?… and great point, Ned. You make many other great points too. I suspect that even as more people become aware of the scam, most of them will still vote to kick that can down the road, rather than vote to take the fall today and lose wealth. Most likely, they will revert to denial before they learn of the enormity of the scam and accept the consequences voluntarily in the short-term. In the end, the consequences of exponential growth will be imposed on them as the monetary and economic dice fall. My hope is people will understand the root cause and reject fiat monetary systems when rebuilding from the ashes someday! If they’ve already lost most of their wealth, perhaps they won’t make the same mistakes that result in kicking the can down the road and the creation of ever-growing state power..

      I guess I mis-stated my belief in saying it “won’t do the trick.” I actually believe that starving the monster in as many ways as possible will bring it to an end sooner. Though mathematically I don’t see how the landing can possibly be soft, it will be less hard if the monster is slain sooner rather than later. (It can only be soft if people voluntarily surrender wealth and sadly, war propaganda is the state’s usual means of securing that voluntarism!)

      Yes–what an iron web it is! You are certainly well studied and I’m pleased you’ll check out “Crash Course.” I believe video Chapters 3-11 contain the information:
      http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

      But I periodically re-watch the series, because it has been expanded a couple of times since I first learned of it. The information was originally contained in only something like three chapters. Based on the Table of Contents linked above, I think I need to watch it again.

      I base my conclusion on one of Martenson’s corollaries; new currency/debt must be perpetually created by fiat to service the interest on previous debt. The rate of creation is exponentially growing. There is no other money in existence to pay the interests. The interest must be paid or banks fail. The Fed/ Treasury/ Government spending loop is the primary means of creating the currency. In theory, fractional banking reserves could be stretched infinitesimally thin to do it, but they are already dangerously thin! I’m sure we are close to massive failures on this side of the money creation equation too.

      If fed.gov ever balanced its budget, it would be like a huge game of musical chairs, with many monetary losers left standing with their losses. Nobody will vote for it! Instead of voting to lose wealth, people prefer to accept the bribes of their counterfeiting masters and get their “free lunch!” An unstable and exponentially-growing system is guaranteed by fiat money systems, fueled by bribes for free lunches and political power.

      Another reference is G. Edward Griffen’s book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island,” which you may have already read. It’s more of history of the entire Fed scam and it reads like a mystery novel. As a former research scientist and former Pfeizer VP, Martenson cuts to the chase with what’s implied by design in the math of fiat monetary systems.

      There are so many smart people on Liberty.me, what do you say we start a discussion there: “Is a Balanced Federal Budget Mathematically Possible?” We can kick it off by copying and pasting our comments here and invite people to join-in. I’d really like to hash this question out from the iron web! I’ll work on it later today and you may certainly cut and copy my text from here too, if you wish to start the thread. I hope you won’t object if I get to it first and do the same. I’ll PM you once I get a thread started on Liberty.me.

      • Calin, good idea. You have at it and use anything of mine–attribution not necessary and an extraneous burden–to start the ball rolling. If you post an article on Liberty.me I’ll be delighted to join in a discussion of mythical money and real taxes. There are, as you say, many bright souls who visit and use the site and if they join in it will be great.

        Two things I want to point out, having now watched only the 38 minute condensed presentation by Martenson that is on Youtube.

        First, predicting FINANCIAL catastrophes in the near future has long been a losing proposition. Timing is crucial, but being right can be negated by being off in one’s timing. I think Murray Rothbard of all people was victimized by forecasting doom and gloom, and as I recall Mises warned economists against doing so in HUMAN ACTION. An exponential curve on a graph cannot continue forever, but it can continue long beyond rational expectations.

        I am very wary of scientists commentating on economics. The so-called scientific method (empirical) which serves them so well in the natural sciences is virtually useless to understanding economics. On the other hand, I certainly don’t dismiss men like Martenson delving into economics. As a matter of fact I have been recommending a great book by an aeronautical engineering scientist, Peter Bos. His book, THE ROAD TO FREEDOM AND THE DEMISE OF THE NATION STATE, sees the same intrinsic problems that Martenson sees, but also sees a way out that might involve what you might call a “soft landing.” There is an interesting autobiographical sketch by Peter Bos on the Voluntaryist.com website.

  • Wow! Equally great comment, Calin, addressing the monetary stranglehold the rulers have on their subjects. It has been a long, long time since I learned the intricacies of money and banking at the feet of Hans Sennholz (figuratively, for it was through his books) when he was the reigning monetary guru at FEE (succeeding Mises). But I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions, although it may merely be because I am missing a strand of the iron web or misunderstanding something. I confess I haven’t seen, read, or even heard of “Crash Course.,” alothough I once read much of what came out of libertarians on the money and banking issue. I will certainly give Martenson’s work a look.

    But before reading it and subject to it changing my mind, here is why I disagree with your conclusion that removing taxation “won’t do the trick,” the trick being slaying Goliath, which, IMHO and I suspect from the tone of his article it is Mr. Tucker’s opinion as well, can only be successfully accomplished nonviolently. (A violent revolution leaves violent people in the ruler’s seat no matter who “wins.” The ultimate aim of liberty, I think, is a nonviolent society.)

    Our fiat-currency money and banking system depends, as you point out, on monetary inflation. However, taxation is an integral part of what you aptly describe as “the Fed/ Treasury/ Government spending loop,” and its creation with the banks of fiat money. World wide and here in America–particularly following the Revolutionary War and in the South during the Civil War–people have had a plethora of experience–all bad–with fiat money and the inevitable hyper-inflation it generates. Enough people know what the results are of printing too much money,. It is their knowledge that inevitably brings fiat-money scams to an end. (Aside: I have in my wallet a beautiful “Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe” official bank note, which the bank “promises to pay to the bearer on demand ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS.” i purchased several such notes for under ten U.S. dollars, but it is “not worth a Continental” nor a Confederate Greyback.

    Without taxation as an integral component of a fiat money scam, the scam becomes readily apparent to sufficient number of people to quickly put the scam to rest. Even though taxes are collected and paid exclusively in those fiat notes, the scam cannot be maintained in the absence of the taxation illusion that the government is collecting something of value. It may have been the monetary scam, which he contributed to with the U.S. Greenbacks, that caused Lincoln to famously state a truism: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” (Note: The attribution to the despot, Lincoln, is demonstrably false

    For thse reasons I believe the demise of taxation will spell the end of fiat-currency scams.

    • >Without taxation as an integral component of a fiat money scam, the scam
      >becomes readily apparent to sufficient number of people to quickly put the
      >scam to rest

      Maybe?… and great point, Ned. You make many other great points too. I suspect that even as more people become aware of the scam, most of them will still vote to kick that can down the road, rather than vote to take the fall today and lose wealth. Most likely, they will revert to denial before they learn of the enormity of the scam and accept the consequences voluntarily in the short-term. In the end, the consequences of exponential growth will be imposed on them as the monetary and economic dice fall. My hope is people will understand the root cause and reject fiat monetary systems when rebuilding from the ashes someday! If they’ve already lost most of their wealth, perhaps they won’t make the same mistakes that result in kicking the can down the road and the creation of ever-growing state power..

      I guess I mis-stated my belief in saying it “won’t do the trick.” I actually believe that starving the monster in as many ways as possible will bring it to an end sooner. Though mathematically I don’t see how the landing can possibly be soft, it will be less hard if the monster is slain sooner rather than later. (It can only be soft if people voluntarily surrender wealth and sadly, war propaganda is the state’s usual means of securing that voluntarism!)

      Yes–what an iron web it is! You are certainly well studied and I’m pleased you’ll check out “Crash Course.” I believe video Chapters 3-11 contain the information:
      http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

      But I periodically re-watch the series, because it has been expanded a couple of times since I first learned of it. The information was originally contained in only something like three chapters. Based on the Table of Contents linked above, I think I need to watch it again.

      I base my conclusion on one of Martenson’s corollaries; new currency/debt must be perpetually created by fiat to service the interest on previous debt. The rate of creation is exponentially growing. There is no other money in existence to pay the interests. The interest must be paid or banks fail. The Fed/ Treasury/ Government spending loop is the primary means of creating the currency. In theory, fractional banking reserves could be stretched infinitesimally thin to do it, but they are already dangerously thin! I’m sure we are close to massive failures on this side of the money creation equation too.

      If fed.gov ever balanced its budget, it would be like a huge game of musical chairs, with many monetary losers left standing with their losses. Nobody will vote for it! Instead of voting to lose wealth, people prefer to accept the bribes of their counterfeiting masters and get their “free lunch!” An unstable and exponentially-growing system is guaranteed by fiat money systems, fueled by bribes for free lunches and political power.

      Another reference is G. Edward Griffen’s book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island,” which you may have already read. It’s more of history of the entire Fed scam and it reads like a mystery novel. As a former research scientist and former Pfeizer VP, Martenson cuts to the chase with what’s implied by design in the math of fiat monetary systems.

      There are so many smart people on Liberty.me, what do you say we start a discussion there: “Is a Balanced Federal Budget Mathematically Possible?” We can kick it off by copying and pasting our comments here and invite people to join-in. I’d really like to hash this question out from the iron web! I’ll work on it later today and you may certainly cut and copy my text from here too, if you wish to start the thread. I hope you won’t object if I get to it first and do the same. I’ll PM you once I get a thread started on Liberty.me.

      • Calin, good idea. You have at it and use anything of mine–attribution not necessary and an extraneous burden–to start the ball rolling. If you post an article on Liberty.me I’ll be delighted to join in a discussion of mythical money and real taxes. There are, as you say, many bright souls who visit and use the site and if they join in it will be great.

        Two things I want to point out, having now watched only the 38 minute condensed presentation by Martenson that is on Youtube.

        First, predicting FINANCIAL catastrophes in the near future has long been a losing proposition. Timing is crucial, but being right can be negated by being off in one’s timing. I think Murray Rothbard of all people was victimized by forecasting doom and gloom, and as I recall Mises warned economists against doing so in HUMAN ACTION. An exponential curve on a graph cannot continue forever, but it can continue long beyond rational expectations.

        I am very wary of scientists commentating on economics. The so-called scientific method (empirical) which serves them so well in the natural sciences is virtually useless to understanding economics. On the other hand, I certainly don’t dismiss men like Martenson delving into economics. As a matter of fact I have been recommending a great book by an aeronautical engineering scientist, Peter Bos. His book, THE ROAD TO FREEDOM AND THE DEMISE OF THE NATION STATE, sees the same intrinsic problems that Martenson sees, but also sees a way out that might involve what you might call a “soft landing.” There is an interesting autobiographical sketch by Peter Bos on the Voluntaryist.com website.

  • Fascism is a strain of statism just as is socialism. With people thoroughly indoctrinated in the ideology of statism those who haven’t tasted the inebriating cause of liberty merely shift from one strain of statism to another. Will liberty come to the forefront enough to shake the ideology of statism enough to expose its naked corruption and destructiveness? I say yes!

  • Fascism is a strain of statism just as is socialism. With people thoroughly indoctrinated in the ideology of statism those who haven’t tasted the inebriating cause of liberty merely shift from one strain of statism to another. Will liberty come to the forefront enough to shake the ideology of statism enough to expose its naked corruption and destructiveness? I say yes!

  • Fascism is a strain of statism just as is socialism. With people thoroughly indoctrinated in the ideology of statism those who haven’t tasted the inebriating cause of liberty merely shift from one strain of statism to another. Will liberty come to the forefront enough to shake the ideology of statism enough to expose its naked corruption and destructiveness? I say yes!

  • >Without taxation as an integral component of a fiat money scam, the scam
    >becomes readily apparent to sufficient number of people to quickly put the
    >scam to rest

    Maybe?… and great point, Ned. You make many other great points too. I suspect that even as more people become aware of the scam, most of them will still vote to kick that can down the road, rather than vote to take the fall today and lose wealth. Most likely, they will revert to denial before they learn of the enormity of the scam and accept the consequences voluntarily in the short-term. In the end, the consequences of exponential growth will be imposed on them as the monetary and economic dice fall. My hope is people will understand the root cause and reject fiat monetary systems when rebuilding from the ashes someday! If they’ve already lost most of their wealth, perhaps they won’t make the same mistakes that result in kicking the can down the road and the creation of ever-growing state power..

    I guess I mis-stated my belief in saying it “won’t do the trick.” I actually believe that starving the monster in as many ways as possible will bring it to an end sooner. Though mathematically I don’t see how the landing can possibly be soft, it will be less hard if the monster is slain sooner rather than later. (It can only be soft if people voluntarily surrender wealth and sadly, war propaganda is the state’s usual means of securing that voluntarism!)

    Yes–what an iron web it is! You are certainly well studied and I’m pleased you’ll check out “Crash Course.” I believe video Chapters 3-11 contain the information:
    http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

    But I periodically re-watch the series, because it has been expanded a couple of times since I first learned of it. The information was originally contained in only something like three chapters. Based on the Table of Contents linked above, I think I need to watch it again.

    I base my conclusion on one of Martenson’s corollaries; new currency/debt must be perpetually created by fiat to service the interest on previous debt. The rate of creation is exponentially growing. There is no other money in existence to pay the interests. The interest must be paid or banks fail. The Fed/ Treasury/ Government spending loop is the primary means of creating the currency. In theory, fractional banking reserves could be stretched infinitesimally thin to do it, but they are already dangerously thin! I’m sure we are close to massive failures on this side of the money creation equation too.

    If fed.gov ever balanced its budget, it would be like a huge game of musical chairs, with many monetary losers left standing with their losses. Nobody will vote for it! Instead of voting to lose wealth, people prefer to accept the bribes of their counterfeiting masters and get their “free lunch!” An unstable and exponentially-growing system is guaranteed by fiat money systems, fueled by bribes for free lunches and political power.

    Another reference is G. Edward Griffen’s book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island,” which you may have already read. It’s more of history of the entire Fed scam and it reads like a mystery novel. As a former research scientist and former Pfeizer VP, Martenson cuts to the chase with what’s implied by design in the math of fiat monetary systems.

    There are so many smart people on Liberty.me, what do you say we start a discussion there: “Is a Balanced Federal Budget Mathematically Possible?” We can kick it off by copying and pasting our comments here and invite people to join-in. I’d really like to hash this question out from the iron web! I’ll work on it later today and you may certainly cut and copy my text from here too, if you wish to start the thread. I hope you won’t object if I get to it first and do the same. I’ll PM you once I get a thread started on Liberty.me.

    • Calin, good idea. You have at it and use anything of mine–attribution not necessary and an extraneous burden–to start the ball rolling. If you post an article on Liberty.me I’ll be delighted to join in a discussion of mythical money and real taxes. There are, as you say, many bright souls who visit and use the site and if they join in it will be great.

      Two things I want to point out, having now watched only the 38 minute condensed presentation by Martenson that is on Youtube.

      First, predicting FINANCIAL catastrophes in the near future has long been a losing proposition. Timing is crucial, but being right can be negated by being off in one’s timing. I think Murray Rothbard of all people was victimized by forecasting doom and gloom, and as I recall Mises warned economists against doing so in HUMAN ACTION. An exponential curve on a graph cannot continue forever, but it can continue long beyond rational expectations.

      I am very wary of scientists commentating on economics. The so-called scientific method (empirical) which serves them so well in the natural sciences is virtually useless to understanding economics. On the other hand, I certainly don’t dismiss men like Martenson delving into economics. As a matter of fact I have been recommending a great book by an aeronautical engineering scientist, Peter Bos. His book, THE ROAD TO FREEDOM AND THE DEMISE OF THE NATION STATE, sees the same intrinsic problems that Martenson sees, but also sees a way out that might involve what you might call a “soft landing.” There is an interesting autobiographical sketch by Peter Bos on the Voluntaryist.com website.

  • >Without taxation as an integral component of a fiat money scam, the scam
    >becomes readily apparent to sufficient number of people to quickly put the
    >scam to rest

    Maybe?… and great point, Ned. You make many other great points too. I suspect that even as more people become aware of the scam, most of them will still vote to kick that can down the road, rather than vote to take the fall today and lose wealth. Most likely, they will revert to denial before they learn of the enormity of the scam and accept the consequences voluntarily in the short-term. In the end, the consequences of exponential growth will be imposed on them as the monetary and economic dice fall. My hope is people will understand the root cause and reject fiat monetary systems when rebuilding from the ashes someday! If they’ve already lost most of their wealth, perhaps they won’t make the same mistakes that result in kicking the can down the road and the creation of ever-growing state power..

    I guess I mis-stated my belief in saying it “won’t do the trick.” I actually believe that starving the monster in as many ways as possible will bring it to an end sooner. Though mathematically I don’t see how the landing can possibly be soft, it will be less hard if the monster is slain sooner rather than later. (It can only be soft if people voluntarily surrender wealth and sadly, war propaganda is the state’s usual means of securing that voluntarism!)

    Yes–what an iron web it is! You are certainly well studied and I’m pleased you’ll check out “Crash Course.” I believe video Chapters 3-11 contain the information:
    http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

    But I periodically re-watch the series, because it has been expanded a couple of times since I first learned of it. The information was originally contained in only something like three chapters. Based on the Table of Contents linked above, I think I need to watch it again.

    I base my conclusion on one of Martenson’s corollaries; new currency/debt must be perpetually created by fiat to service the interest on previous debt. The rate of creation is exponentially growing. There is no other money in existence to pay the interests. The interest must be paid or banks fail. The Fed/ Treasury/ Government spending loop is the primary means of creating the currency. In theory, fractional banking reserves could be stretched infinitesimally thin to do it, but they are already dangerously thin! I’m sure we are close to massive failures on this side of the money creation equation too.

    If fed.gov ever balanced its budget, it would be like a huge game of musical chairs, with many monetary losers left standing with their losses. Nobody will vote for it! Instead of voting to lose wealth, people prefer to accept the bribes of their counterfeiting masters and get their “free lunch!” An unstable and exponentially-growing system is guaranteed by fiat money systems, fueled by bribes for free lunches and political power.

    Another reference is G. Edward Griffen’s book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island,” which you may have already read. It’s more of history of the entire Fed scam and it reads like a mystery novel. As a former research scientist and former Pfeizer VP, Martenson cuts to the chase with what’s implied by design in the math of fiat monetary systems.

    There are so many smart people on Liberty.me, what do you say we start a discussion there: “Is a Balanced Federal Budget Mathematically Possible?” We can kick it off by copying and pasting our comments here and invite people to join-in. I’d really like to hash this question out from the iron web! I’ll work on it later today and you may certainly cut and copy my text from here too, if you wish to start the thread. I hope you won’t object if I get to it first and do the same. I’ll PM you once I get a thread started on Liberty.me.

    • Calin, good idea. You have at it and use anything of mine–attribution not necessary and an extraneous burden–to start the ball rolling. If you post an article on Liberty.me I’ll be delighted to join in a discussion of mythical money and real taxes. There are, as you say, many bright souls who visit and use the site and if they join in it will be great.

      Two things I want to point out, having now watched only the 38 minute condensed presentation by Martenson that is on Youtube.

      First, predicting FINANCIAL catastrophes in the near future has long been a losing proposition. Timing is crucial, but being right can be negated by being off in one’s timing. I think Murray Rothbard of all people was victimized by forecasting doom and gloom, and as I recall Mises warned economists against doing so in HUMAN ACTION. An exponential curve on a graph cannot continue forever, but it can continue long beyond rational expectations.

      I am very wary of scientists commentating on economics. The so-called scientific method (empirical) which serves them so well in the natural sciences is virtually useless to understanding economics. On the other hand, I certainly don’t dismiss men like Martenson delving into economics. As a matter of fact I have been recommending a great book by an aeronautical engineering scientist, Peter Bos. His book, THE ROAD TO FREEDOM AND THE DEMISE OF THE NATION STATE, sees the same intrinsic problems that Martenson sees, but also sees a way out that might involve what you might call a “soft landing.” There is an interesting autobiographical sketch by Peter Bos on the Voluntaryist.com website.

  • >Without taxation as an integral component of a fiat money scam, the scam
    >becomes readily apparent to sufficient number of people to quickly put the
    >scam to rest

    Maybe?… and great point, Ned. You make many other great points too. I suspect that even as more people become aware of the scam, most of them will still vote to kick that can down the road, rather than vote to take the fall today and lose wealth. Most likely, they will revert to denial before they learn of the enormity of the scam and accept the consequences voluntarily in the short-term. In the end, the consequences of exponential growth will be imposed on them as the monetary and economic dice fall. My hope is people will understand the root cause and reject fiat monetary systems when rebuilding from the ashes someday! If they’ve already lost most of their wealth, perhaps they won’t make the same mistakes that result in kicking the can down the road and the creation of ever-growing state power..

    I guess I mis-stated my belief in saying it “won’t do the trick.” I actually believe that starving the monster in as many ways as possible will bring it to an end sooner. Though mathematically I don’t see how the landing can possibly be soft, it will be less hard if the monster is slain sooner rather than later. (It can only be soft if people voluntarily surrender wealth and sadly, war propaganda is the state’s usual means of securing that voluntarism!)

    Yes–what an iron web it is! You are certainly well studied and I’m pleased you’ll check out “Crash Course.” I believe video Chapters 3-11 contain the information:
    http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

    But I periodically re-watch the series, because it has been expanded a couple of times since I first learned of it. The information was originally contained in only something like three chapters. Based on the Table of Contents linked above, I think I need to watch it again.

    I base my conclusion on one of Martenson’s corollaries; new currency/debt must be perpetually created by fiat to service the interest on previous debt. The rate of creation is exponentially growing. There is no other money in existence to pay the interests. The interest must be paid or banks fail. The Fed/ Treasury/ Government spending loop is the primary means of creating the currency. In theory, fractional banking reserves could be stretched infinitesimally thin to do it, but they are already dangerously thin! I’m sure we are close to massive failures on this side of the money creation equation too.

    If fed.gov ever balanced its budget, it would be like a huge game of musical chairs, with many monetary losers left standing with their losses. Nobody will vote for it! Instead of voting to lose wealth, people prefer to accept the bribes of their counterfeiting masters and get their “free lunch!” An unstable and exponentially-growing system is guaranteed by fiat money systems, fueled by bribes for free lunches and political power.

    Another reference is G. Edward Griffen’s book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island,” which you may have already read. It’s more of history of the entire Fed scam and it reads like a mystery novel. As a former research scientist and former Pfeizer VP, Martenson cuts to the chase with what’s implied by design in the math of fiat monetary systems.

    There are so many smart people on Liberty.me, what do you say we start a discussion there: “Is a Balanced Federal Budget Mathematically Possible?” We can kick it off by copying and pasting our comments here and invite people to join-in. I’d really like to hash this question out from the iron web! I’ll work on it later today and you may certainly cut and copy my text from here too, if you wish to start the thread. I hope you won’t object if I get to it first and do the same. I’ll PM you once I get a thread started on Liberty.me.

    • Calin, good idea. You have at it and use anything of mine–attribution not necessary and an extraneous burden–to start the ball rolling. If you post an article on Liberty.me I’ll be delighted to join in a discussion of mythical money and real taxes. There are, as you say, many bright souls who visit and use the site and if they join in it will be great.

      Two things I want to point out, having now watched only the 38 minute condensed presentation by Martenson that is on Youtube.

      First, predicting FINANCIAL catastrophes in the near future has long been a losing proposition. Timing is crucial, but being right can be negated by being off in one’s timing. I think Murray Rothbard of all people was victimized by forecasting doom and gloom, and as I recall Mises warned economists against doing so in HUMAN ACTION. An exponential curve on a graph cannot continue forever, but it can continue long beyond rational expectations.

      I am very wary of scientists commentating on economics. The so-called scientific method (empirical) which serves them so well in the natural sciences is virtually useless to understanding economics. On the other hand, I certainly don’t dismiss men like Martenson delving into economics. As a matter of fact I have been recommending a great book by an aeronautical engineering scientist, Peter Bos. His book, THE ROAD TO FREEDOM AND THE DEMISE OF THE NATION STATE, sees the same intrinsic problems that Martenson sees, but also sees a way out that might involve what you might call a “soft landing.” There is an interesting autobiographical sketch by Peter Bos on the Voluntaryist.com website.

  • Calin, Have you heard Ron Paul’s final “bigl warning” on the web, or read the free book being offered in conjunction with it, AMERICA 2020? Ron, of course, has been issuing warnings of the coming collapse for almost as long as I’ve known him–late 70s. I’m sure he is right, and he is now predicting that a dollar collapse is eminent, but again–TIMING. Jesus was the last real prophet, and he was wise enough not to put an exact time for the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem and Israel., but he did get it right about 40 years in advance. Unlike Paul and Mortenson, who are far from being alone in what they anticipate, as far as I know no one but Jesus predicted Rome’s destruction of Israel until the war began or maybe just before.

    • I’ve followed Ron Paul’s warnings too, but not yet read “America 2020.” I completely agree. The timing is impossible to predict, because the part of the physical system that will inevitably collapse involves peoples’ minds and free will. Of course that is why Jesus could not predict a timeline perfectly either. Yes. Within 40 years is an impressive prediction for an age with far weaker communications and information channels than we have today. Of course we must filter out a lot of “background noise,” though I’m sure the thinner data stream in the day of Rome was full of lies and errors too.

      I must apologize for not yet starting the thread. I plan to watch the latest and updated “Crash Course” sections again. The course has grown again since my last viewing. Lately I’ve been reading about “Trigger Point Therapy” for a locked shoulder instead. 🙁 Actually it’s not completely locked, but this is my first experience with it. In this age of Oh–bummer-care, one must learn how to heal themselves!

      • No hurry, Calin. The stock market has only lost $1.4 trillion since the beginning of the new year. Hope your shoulder heals quickly. Self-healing is cheaper and better than all of the alternatives. I always try spiritual healing first.

  • Calin, Have you heard Ron Paul’s final “bigl warning” on the web, or read the free book being offered in conjunction with it, AMERICA 2020? Ron, of course, has been issuing warnings of the coming collapse for almost as long as I’ve known him–late 70s. I’m sure he is right, and he is now predicting that a dollar collapse is eminent, but again–TIMING. Jesus was the last real prophet, and he was wise enough not to put an exact time for the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem and Israel., but he did get it right about 40 years in advance. Unlike Paul and Mortenson, who are far from being alone in what they anticipate, as far as I know no one but Jesus predicted Rome’s destruction of Israel until the war began or maybe just before.

    • I’ve followed Ron Paul’s warnings too, but not yet read “America 2020.” I completely agree. The timing is impossible to predict, because the part of the physical system that will inevitably collapse involves peoples’ minds and free will. Of course that is why Jesus could not predict a timeline perfectly either. Yes. Within 40 years is an impressive prediction for an age with far weaker communications and information channels than we have today. Of course we must filter out a lot of “background noise,” though I’m sure the thinner data stream in the day of Rome was full of lies and errors too.

      I must apologize for not yet starting the thread. I plan to watch the latest and updated “Crash Course” sections again. The course has grown again since my last viewing. Lately I’ve been reading about “Trigger Point Therapy” for a locked shoulder instead. 🙁 Actually it’s not completely locked, but this is my first experience with it. In this age of Oh–bummer-care, one must learn how to heal themselves!

      • No hurry, Calin. The stock market has only lost $1.4 trillion since the beginning of the new year. Hope your shoulder heals quickly. Self-healing is cheaper and better than all of the alternatives. I always try spiritual healing first.

  • Calin, Have you heard Ron Paul’s final “bigl warning” on the web, or read the free book being offered in conjunction with it, AMERICA 2020? Ron, of course, has been issuing warnings of the coming collapse for almost as long as I’ve known him–late 70s. I’m sure he is right, and he is now predicting that a dollar collapse is eminent, but again–TIMING. Jesus was the last real prophet, and he was wise enough not to put an exact time for the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem and Israel., but he did get it right about 40 years in advance. Unlike Paul and Mortenson, who are far from being alone in what they anticipate, as far as I know no one but Jesus predicted Rome’s destruction of Israel until the war began or maybe just before.

  • Calin, Have you heard Ron Paul’s final “bigl warning” on the web, or read the free book being offered in conjunction with it, AMERICA 2020? Ron, of course, has been issuing warnings of the coming collapse for almost as long as I’ve known him–late 70s. I’m sure he is right, and he is now predicting that a dollar collapse is eminent, but again–TIMING. Jesus was the last real prophet, and he was wise enough not to put an exact time for the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem and Israel., but he did get it right about 40 years in advance. Unlike Paul and Mortenson, who are far from being alone in what they anticipate, as far as I know no one but Jesus predicted Rome’s destruction of Israel until the war began or maybe just before.

    • I’ve followed Ron Paul’s warnings too, but not yet read “America 2020.” I completely agree. The timing is impossible to predict, because the part of the physical system that will inevitably collapse involves peoples’ minds and free will. Of course that is why Jesus could not predict a timeline perfectly either. Yes. Within 40 years is an impressive prediction for an age with far weaker communications and information channels than we have today. Of course we must filter out a lot of “background noise,” though I’m sure the thinner data stream in the day of Rome was full of lies and errors too.

      I must apologize for not yet starting the thread. I plan to watch the latest and updated “Crash Course” sections again. The course has grown again since my last viewing. Lately I’ve been reading about “Trigger Point Therapy” for a locked shoulder instead. 🙁 Actually it’s not completely locked, but this is my first experience with it. In this age of Oh–bummer-care, one must learn how to heal themselves!

      • No hurry, Calin. The stock market has only lost $1.4 trillion since the beginning of the new year. Hope your shoulder heals quickly. Self-healing is cheaper and better than all of the alternatives. I always try spiritual healing first.

  • I’ve followed Ron Paul’s warnings too, but not yet read “America 2020.” I completely agree. The timing is impossible to predict, because the part of the physical system that will inevitably collapse involves peoples’ minds and free will. Of course that is why Jesus could not predict a timeline perfectly either. Yes. Within 40 years is an impressive prediction for an age with far weaker communications and information channels than we have today. Of course we must filter out a lot of “background noise,” though I’m sure the thinner data stream in the day of Rome was full of lies and errors too.

    I must apologize for not yet starting the thread. I plan to watch the latest and updated “Crash Course” sections again. The course has grown again since my last viewing. Lately I’ve been reading about “Trigger Point Therapy” for a locked shoulder instead. 🙁 Actually it’s not completely locked, but this is my first experience with it. In this age of Oh–bummer-care, one must learn how to heal themselves!

    • No hurry, Calin. The stock market has only lost $1.4 trillion since the beginning of the new year. Hope your shoulder heals quickly. Self-healing is cheaper and better than all of the alternatives. I always try spiritual healing first.

  • @restonthewind That is certainly a possibility, however most of the scholars I have consulted think Mark’s gospel was written circa 66 to 70CE as against the Temple destruction in 70 CE, and it was composed from earlier sources, lending some credence to Mark’s assertion that Jesus called for its destruction in back in 30 t0 32 CE.

  • @restonthewind That is certainly a possibility, however most of the scholars I have consulted think Mark’s gospel was written circa 66 to 70CE as against the Temple destruction in 70 CE, and it was composed from earlier sources, lending some credence to Mark’s assertion that Jesus called for its destruction in back in 30 t0 32 CE.

  • @restonthewind That is certainly a possibility, however most of the scholars I have consulted think Mark’s gospel was written circa 66 to 70CE as against the Temple destruction in 70 CE, and it was composed from earlier sources, lending some credence to Mark’s assertion that Jesus called for its destruction in back in 30 t0 32 CE.

  • @restonthewind That is certainly a possibility, however most of the scholars I have consulted think Mark’s gospel was written circa 66 to 70CE as against the Temple destruction in 70 CE, and it was composed from earlier sources, lending some credence to Mark’s assertion that Jesus called for its destruction in back in 30 t0 32 CE.

  • @restonthewind That is certainly a possibility, however most of the scholars I have consulted think Mark’s gospel was written circa 66 to 70CE as against the Temple destruction in 70 CE, and it was composed from earlier sources, lending some credence to Mark’s assertion that Jesus called for its destruction in back in 30 t0 32 CE.

  • No hurry, Calin. The stock market has only lost $1.4 trillion since the beginning of the new year. Hope your shoulder heals quickly. Self-healing is cheaper and better than all of the alternatives. I always try spiritual healing first.

  • I have not read a better assessment or more logical explanation of the current state of affairs. Excellent!

  • I have not read a better assessment or more logical explanation of the current state of affairs. Excellent!

  • I have not read a better assessment or more logical explanation of the current state of affairs. Excellent!

  • I have not read a better assessment or more logical explanation of the current state of affairs. Excellent!

  • I have not read a better assessment or more logical explanation of the current state of affairs. Excellent!

Featured Product

Join Us

Donate

Get in touch

Collaboratively harness market-driven processes whereas resource-leveling internal or "organic" sources. Competently formulate.