"NoLabels?" Thanks, but no thanks.

There's a new political campaign out there, calling itself "No Labels" (nolabels.org). David Brooks of the NY Times wrote about them on September 1, with the headline "If an Alternative Candidate Is Needed in 2024, These Folks Will Be Ready." The gist of it is that "If one of the parties nominates a candidate acceptable to the center of the electorate, then the presidential operation will shut down. But if both parties go to the extremes, then there will be a unity ticket appealing to both Democrats and Republicans to combat this period of polarized dysfunction." I expect that Brooks regarded Hillary Clinton as "acceptable to the center of the electorate," in contrast to Bernie Sanders who was not (despite the overwhelming support he enjoyed during his campaign). Be that as it may, NoLabels has been around for a decade, producing "bold ideas to rebuild our democracy." I have not done a deep dive into all their programs and proposals, but when I encountered the list of their “enduring beliefs that guide No Labels– beliefs that we hope will once again guide the political and policy choices of our leaders,“ I stopped to write them an email explaining why they would not be getting my support. Here it is:

While your mission looked interesting at first, your “Belief #4” was a dealbreaker. It reads, 

"We believe there is no such thing as something for nothing, and because of this we believe in the importance of a balanced budget. The growing tendency of both parties to support more tax cuts or government spending with no regard for their impact on future generations will lead to a lower quality of life for our children and grandchildren and make it harder for America to tackle future challenges to our national, economic and environmental security."

This belief is incompatible with my recently-gained understanding of macroeconomics (usually referred to as MMT, for "Modern Monetary Theory") and is wrong in so many ways that I cannot support your movement. The American people have been deliberately divided into warring tribes, based on propaganda promoted and controlled by the people currently in power—I believe the appropriate label is "kleptocrats." Some hold office, but most work behind the scenes.They have succeeded in controlling the mindsets of most of us in ways that ensure their continuing power. Let me elaborate.

They have formed a club to maintain their control. It does not need a name or a "Board of Directors," although there are many formal groups that collaborate to the same end. They have a set of beliefs, too, and they recognize each other by their actions more than any set of formal memberships they share. Asa George Carlin liked to say, "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."

Here's what I believe that list of beliefs would look like if it was ever written down:

1) Ordinary people outside our club must not be allowed to know what we do. They have no right to be told, and they are not competent to manage national or world affairs, but club members are.

2) Public-facing remarks and stated positions of club members are intended to present ourselves as being concerned with, and intended to promote, the public welfare—while, of course, they are not. Private-facing information which could reveal our true, self-interested motives must be kept within the club and never publicly acknowledged.

3) We must always promote divisions between groups and set these groups against each other, to distract them from what we are doing and deflect them from attacking us.

4) To neutralize any political opposition to the workings of our club, we must maintain the forms and appearance of a democratic society, providing the illusion of choice through a "two-party system." At the same time, we control "both sides" by selecting the nominees of "both parties" and funding them both. If these measures fail to exclude our opponents, we shall resort to other measures, including blackmail and, as a last resort, "wet ops."

Although there are more than four, these are the essential core of the list.

Returning to the fatal faults in "belief #4" of NoLabels: this belief could be the official manifesto of "deficit hawks," who treat federal (Congressional) spending (appropriations) as equivalent to household, state, or local spending, where all expenditures must come from a finite source (microeconomics) and be subtracted from savings, taxes, and fees, or be borrowed. In each case, a budget must be balanced; spending over income will drive such an entity towards bankruptcy. Currently (and overtly, since Nixon took us off the gold standard), Congress functions within a fiat system. While every federal program must be funded, the required funds are "spent into existence" through appropriations by creating the funds simply by entering numbers on a spreadsheet. The Constitution gives to Congress the exclusive power to issue our currency. Everyone else, by law, is a user of currency.

Non-federal spending of all kinds must come from taxes, borrowing, or fees, where a budget imposes a finite limit on spending. By contrast, federal appropriations are limited only by the total productive capacity of our nation. Since the term "spending" refers to microeconomics and finite amounts in a budget, it does not apply to Congress, the sole issuer of US currency. Therefore, there is no such thing as "federal spending," as it is created through appropriations, not subtracted from a preexisting quantity.

Yes, "both parties" support tax cuts and/or increased (federal) "spending," believing or pretending) that "unbalanced" federal budgets will cause future generations to have a lower quality of life ("and make it harder for America to tackle future challenges to our national, economic and environmental security"). "Both parties" are wrong.

Military (warfare) "spending" is the only kind on which (kleptocrat) Club members put no limits, for which they never demand a balanced budget. They understand our fiat system, in which the sole issuer of currency (Congress, via the Treasury and the Fed) can never run out of funds, or go bankrupt. As Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Yet, when bills before Congress require appropriations for other reasons, to tackle non-military "challenges to our national, economic and environmental security," they pretend that the federal budget is like a household budget and raise the alarm that we "don't have the money to pay for it," raising the false fear of "deficit spending," just as you did in your fourth Belief. They falsely claim that "paying for" these programs will require higher taxes or more debt, which must be extracted from them through higher taxes or ruinous borrowing. 

The kleptocrats know, but want everyone else to be ignorant of, the fact that (under our fiat system) federal taxes DO NOT FUND FEDERAL "SPENDING" (appropriations). They're well aware that Congress creates the funds for federal programs by issuing (not "spending") money into existence. So, why do we need federal taxes at all?

Federal taxes serve to delete currency from the "money supply" (actually the credit supply) to control inflation. They are never put into a giant Scrooge-McDuck-like money pit or spent back into the economy. They are deleted from the credit side of the federal spreadsheet. If taxes were paid in cash, they would be shredded.

When any President takes "credit" for reducing our deficit, he is committing fraud. He (or the Fed Chairman) should accept the blame for shrinking the economy, and increasing unemployment, poverty, homelessness, and death rates. The only entities who profit from a federal surplus and its deadly effects are the corporations who gain from depressed wages and the depressed victims who are unable to find jobs with livable wages.

This is why I will not be joining your efforts, no matter what good you might do in pursuing your other beliefs. With profound sorrow, I'm providing my own label to your offer to join: "Rejected."

The Party's Over!

Our kleptocrat overlords, seeking to leverage the “culture wars” to divide us into warring camps, continue to distract us from the grim fact of their thieving control over us. For example, they encourage both overt and closet misogynists to battle the pro-privacy and pro-choice among us over whether or not we should embrace or oppose the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v Wade, with the help of four recently-appointed justices who falsely testified under oath that they considered Roe to be "settled law.” Some blame Democrats in Congress for this debacle, because they resisted codifying Roe into law to raise money, leveraging fear that Republicans overturning Roe would help fill their campaign coffers.

Democrats helped confirm four candidates who lied under oath. How are these candidates different from those who lie on a job application? They should be removed, if not prosecuted for this offense. Democrats should codify Roe into law NOW. In addition, they should increase the number of justices to at least 11. 

If partisan politics remains a barrier to implementing the will of the People, I advocate an end to parties. They were never part of the Constitution and were opposed by George Washington. Parties are not what they seem; rather than affinity groups uniting behind nominees through "primary" elections, they are lobbying corporations whose officials can nominate anyone they choose, ignoring the will of the voters. Want proof? The DNC got a lawsuit against them for stealing the nomination from Bernie thrown out of court by speaking this truth, and the judge agreed. 

Meanwhile, the RNC, acting as the agent of Trump, is coordinating a campaign to install pro-Trump state officials who are eager to ignore their voters and appoint "alternate" electors to the Electoral College, to install Trump (or a surrogate like DeSantis) should they lose again in 2024. The events of January 6 were not so much a “failed coup” than a rehearsal for 2024. (See Gregpalast.com for in-depth reports.)

To jumpstart a movement I've dubbed "The Party's Over," I'm backing an independent candidate for president willing to support the People's wishes so real reforms can be enacted; no more rule by party bosses funded by corporate lobbyists to enrich the kleptocrats who now rule us by proxy. Visit his page here on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/JonStasevich2024) and tell him what real reforms should be first. Term limits? Age caps? An end to lobbying? Codifying Roe? Shouldn't it be up to We the People, not "We the Corporations" and "we the parties" to decide how we govern ourselves?

Revisiting 9/11, 21 years later

As of this writing, babies born on 9/11/01 are now old enough to drink alcohol anywhere in the country.

America is roughly divided in half on the question of whether or not we can trust the official “government story” of what happened on that day. Most believers of that official story agree that skeptics of the story are deluded “conspiracy theorists” in need of psychological help, or simply victims of such people.

Among the half in the “skeptics” camp are those who simply say “we will never know the truth” to highly-respected professionals in engineering, insiders with personal knowledge, and dedicated researchers who have authored dozens of volumes on why the “official story” simply cannot be true, according to the laws of physics and voluminous evidence on record. They follow the principle of solving a crime by following the money, examining all the evidence and discarding the impossible until only the possible is left from which to establish the truth.

My analysis of this evidence has led me to accept many inconvenient and uncomfortable truths. Following the money was the most fruitful avenue, and pointed to the most (nominally) rich and powerful people on the planet as the perpetrators, within and outside of (or “above”) what we think of as “our government.” It simply could not be anything other than an “inside job.”

The goals of the operation (codenamed “The Big Wedding”) were many and varied, but they were all motivated by power and money. Here’s my summary of the “cast of characters:”

1) At the top of the hierarchy are the personnel within the global credit control system. They care for nothing but doing their job, which is to maximize profits for the global corporate system. (For details, start with this link, The 147 Companies That Control Everything - Forbes and keep going. The 147 are controlled by four other corporations, at the very top of the pyramid. They are amoral, rather than immoral. They just do their job; the result is all the evil we see in the world. (There is another way to “run the world;” for that, see real progressives.org).

2) For the “command and control” think tank which specifically engineered “the attacks of 9/11,” see https://web.archive.org/web/20180907220950/http://newamericancentury.org/ (the organization, and its successor, have both been dissolved and removed from direct access) you will find this quote: “…only a "new Pearl Harbor" (would) enable the military and defense policy transformations the group desired to rapidly take place.” For an in-depth discussion of this aspect of “the attacks, see David Ray Griffin’s book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush ...(Administration and 9/11), one of many excellent books by Griffin on the subject.

3) For the role of Dick Cheney, see Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil.

4) For the roles of George Bush (Jr. and Sr.), and many others, see Webster Tarpley’s “9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA“).

For the technical reasons why the “official story” cannot be true, from a brave and dedicated group of architects and engineers, see https://www.ae911truth.org.

Regarding “conspiracy theories:” this phrase first came to my attention in 1963, as the “government” sought to paint skeptics of the official legend of the assassination of JFK as disloyal and dangerous nuts. It was said that, if a “theory” departing from the “lone gunman” story was allowed to gain traction, and international suspicions that JFK’s murder could have been an “inside job,” that America would lose its standing as the legitimate “leader of the free world.” Such speculation was thus tantamount to treason. As an 18-year-old, I felt the scorn of my contemporaries at holding such thoughts as possibilities. If our “own government” had killed our President, it had to be kept secret, for “national security.” A corollary was that any skeptics could become the subjects of termination with extreme prejudice, as was JFK.

That’s the real meaning of the pejorative term “conspiracy theorist.” If you value your job, your family, your friends, and your life, don’t  think the unthinkable.

Me, Jane Fonda, our cancers, gaslighting, and you

Jane Fonda recently announced that she’s been diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, the same kind of cancer I had.

I was given the same diagnosis, and got (probably) the same treatment. It worked, and all testing since indicates it's not coming back. That's good news for the two of us. Now, here's the bad news for most of the rest of us: as Jane says,

"I feel very lucky. "I’m also lucky because I have health insurance and access to the best doctors and treatments. I realize, and it’s painful, that I am privileged in this. Almost every family in America has had to deal with cancer at one time or another and far too many don’t have access to the quality health care I am receiving and this is not right." 

My "luck" comes from being a USNR veteran, and therefore covered by the VA healthcare system (even for non-service-connected health problems). I’m also covered by Medicare, where my bills were originally sent for payment (because I was not aware that this would happen by default). After the 6 months of treatment, I got the bill for my 20% Medicare copayments, over $10,000 (which I did not have).

I was able to persuade the VA to take over the payment responsibility from Medicare, and this story had a relatively happy ending. But wait, there’s more bad news…

Jane and I are concerned not only about treating cancers, but keeping people from getting them in the first place. How did she and I (and countless others) get non-Hodgkins Lymphoma? One demonstrated (and legally-settled) cause is exposure to man-made carcinogens like Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. If you bought some and used it, you were exposed (and can join a mass-tort suit for compensation, if the lawyers get rich by winning). There’s a catch (other than dying before the check clears): Roundup has been so successfully marketed, directly to big-and-small agriculture and to consumers at home centers (like Lowe’s and Home Depot) that it’s now so ubiquitous in our environment (soil, water and air) that every American has some degree of exposure. It’s banned in most of Europe and elsewhere, but in the US it’s deemed to be at safe levels by our “watchdog” agencies (read “corporate lapdog” agencies).

To discover how much of these toxins you carry, visit detoxproject.org and immh.org to discover how. I’ve been tested twice; the first test showed that I was in the top third of test subjects. The second test, after changing to an all-organic diet and drinking water only from a clearlyfiltered.com filter jug, was in the bottom third of results. My recommendations to all who read this: get tested, stay away from non-organic food and unfiltered water, stay alive, spread the word, and don't let the self-serving propaganda of corporate kleptocrats (and their well-paid lackeys in Congress) kill you.

This cancer can be sneaky. In many cases (as in mine), the only symptoms are cold-like, fatigue, a desire to sleep mid-day, and muscle weakness. Swollen lymph glands and night sweats may or may not be present. On diagnosis, it’s usually at stage 4 (spread throughout the body, as it affects the lymphatic system). Chemotherapy is the preferred treatment, and usually provides a complete cure.

The bigger picture: if you get it, unless you are rich (or are a Veteran), it will take money you don’t have to get well. The current lack of health care (remember, health insurance is not health care) may be the death of you. Politicians (both on the “right” and “left”) will claim that we can only afford National Health Care (successful in most civilized countries) by increasing taxes; the left proposes to pay for it by much larger taxes on the rich, and the right says (in effect) “let ‘em die.” Those who love any federal program (as long as it’s for “defense”) are fine with what they term “deficit spending;” as Dick Cheney once said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." By contrast, they attack any federal program to “promote the general welfare” (a phrase which should sound familiar if you’ve read the preamble to our Constitution) as an “unaffordable waste of taxpayer dollars.” 

Those who’ve learned MMT can see the gaslighting double-standard which has enabled this scam to survive in Congress for decades. They know that federal taxes do not fund federal programs, and what those taxes are really for (inflation control). They know that the only non-inflationary limit on Congressional appropriations is the total productive capacity of our nation.

Our nation, and the world, faces many existential crises, from climate change to all the ills that artificial scarcity produces. Only widespread knowledge of MMT can save us from these crises, and the best central resource for this knowledge that I know of is realprogressives.org. Be there or be nowhere.

Do we really have a "2-party system?" No.

I see the "Third Party" issue this way: the phrase itself begs the question that "we have two parties/we are a 2-party system." This issue is bogus, gaslighting, a trap for those blind to the reality that the "2-party system" is the puppeteers' term for their political theater. Each "party" is really a corporate lobbying group with loyalty to the same club of kleptocrat, corporate paymasters. 

Case in point: when the DNC was sued on behalf of Sanders, claiming that the nomination was stolen from the real peoples' choice (Bernie), the DNC's lawyer 's defense was deflection—holding that, as a private corporation, the DNC has no obligation to the electorate or even to its own rules; that it can choose to select a candidate by any backroom method it chooses, and the courts can have nothing to say about it. The judge agreed; case dismissed. I got this through a net search; you can do the same. (I recommend this one: https://inthesetimes.com/article/in-its-defense-against-fraud-suit-from-bernie-supporters-the-dnc-just-dug-i)

The "system" includes maintaining the necessary stagecraft to maintain the illusion of choice. Are Republicans different? Sure. In contrast to Democrats, they have a stronger consensus these days about choosing (or selecting) their candidates, and have taken a different tack. The party which celebrates exclusion of minorities (especially the darker ones) and blaming the victims of austerity for their suffering, must anticipate that these folk will likely "vote blue.”

As the numbers of Blue voters grow, Republicans see that the only way they can win future elections is by excluding these voters from the polls. (See Gregpalast.com for details on the scams they've developed to "meet this challenge.") Under Trumpism (which is what  has replaced “Republicanism”), it’s either that or other schemes to steal elections, which they’re now openly plotting (rebranded in Orwellian fashion as  “protecting election integrity”). The Jan. 6th Congressional hearings have already touched on this subject, in one case involving the wife of a sitting Supreme Court Justice (and her husband).

What can we do to “reform our 2-party system?”

Nothing. The first step in solving a problem is properly identifying it. We the People must first acknowledge the truth: There Is No Such Thing as “our 2-party system.” When a “system” is revealed as a fraud, it must be abolished, liquidated, much like 45’s fraudulent “University.” Washington warned our young nation that political parties were a very bad idea. Voting for “the lesser of two evils” perpetuates an ever-growing evil, no matter what its “color” is. 

I haven’t found a workable solution yet, but progress towards one must start with recognizing reality. What if “parties” were outlawed, and all candidates had to run as “independents?” I’d call that a good start.

“How will we pay for it?” Here’s how.

I have good news for all Americans. (Well, almost all.) We can have everything we need (and that Congress can be persuaded to allocate funds for), without inflation, up to the limit of the real productive capacity of our economy. Not only do we know how to do this, but it’s the system under which all federal "spending" has been done since at least 1971 when Nixon took us off the gold standard. 

Since the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913, our federal government has funded all programs by spending the funds into existence, abandoning the previous “hard money” system where our currency had to be backed by silver or gold, and moving to a double-entry-bookkeeping system of credit/debit, where every “dollar” spent (debt) is entered on the books with a balancing credit entry. These funds are not extracted from a giant money pit somewhere; they have no physical existence. They do, however, have a sort of “virtual backing;” it’s usually called “the full faith and credit of the US government.” Only our federal government (not state or local ones) has the authority (and obligation) to do this, under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It’s our only national issuer of currency, and the US Congress has the sole “power of the purse.”

So, unless you’re dealing with silver or gold coins, the “money” we use is not “real;” it exists only as debits and credits in a computer. The Federal Reserve Notes we think of as money are really IOUs, promises to pay (that’s what a “Note” is). Legal Tender (by law) yes, money—no.

Getting back to the point: when we think of Congress allocating funds, they’re actually tapping into that “full faith and Credit” thing. Imagine a giant credit card, with every American’s name on it. That’s where the “money” comes from. Here’s another fun fact: everyone seems to imagine that federal spending is funded by federal taxes. That's simply not true.

“WHAT?!” I can hear you saying to yourselves. “Then why do we have to pay federal taxes?” The main reason is to reduce the money supply in order to control inflation. (Another reason is to discourage undesirable spending, as in “sin taxes” on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms (with the possible exception of Texas, where spending on firearms is a virtue).

Let this sink in: federal taxes don’t fund federal spending. However, some powerful interests have made a point of preserving this fiction. How often have you heard, or said to yourself, when it comes to ANY government spending, the plaintive question “But how will we pay for it?” Or, “We must reduce the amount of deficit spending,” or any other scary thoughts totally irrelevant to a sovereign nation like ours that issues (creates) its own currency.

How many times have you said to yourself, "I don’t want my hard-earned taxes to be spent for THAT!" 

Don't worry, they will never be used to fund federal spending. So, stop saying this to yourself, or to anyone else. As John Haldeman was forced to acknowledge in the Watergate hearings, “that statement is inoperative.” 

Don’t be too hard on yourself, however, for these thoughts or words. That’s the way you were taught and encouraged to think all your life. That’s what members of every party I know of still harbor in their minds and say out loud, despite having graduate degrees in economics and/or high positions in government and banking. Fear of inflation or the danger of budget deficits is what you constantly hear whenever federal spending is the subject of discussion…

…Except when the spending is for war or the tools of war. Then, no expense is to be spared. Damn the deficits, full speed ahead! Ask yourself who benefits from this attitude, and who loses. Then, observe who has the lion’s share of power and control in our society, and who funds the campaigns of most of our “elected” officials. Also observe how our choices at the ballot box are effectively restricted to one of two parties, both funded by large contributions from the largest corporations, aided by the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision which made money equivalent to “free speech.” Now, observe the disconnect between polls on the main issues and votes in Congress which vastly increase the profits of those corporations—the correlation is near-zero. How do the ardent desires of those mega-corporations correspond with the way Congress votes? Nearly 100%. I’ve drawn my conclusion. How about you?

Perhaps you agree with me that the kleptocrat corps wants carte blanche from Congress for any and all military spending (that's where most of the money is). But what's their motivation for wanting to choke off spending for anything else, things that would promote the general welfare, such as expanding Social Security, providing universal health care, free higher education, a guaranteed jobs program, paid maternal leave, support for strong unions, and so on? Just this: disallowing all these things makes changing jobs or becoming more prosperous more difficult, and makes it easier for large corporations to keep wages depressed. 

Suppose most voters come to realize that there is no practical limit on federal spending, within the limits of the nation’s productive capacity. We could perform feats not accomplished since we mobilized to defeat the Axis powers in WWII. We could fund what’s needed to feed the hungry, house the homeless (or prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place), provide universal health care (as they do in other developed nations), institute a guaranteed jobs program, stop climate change (within the 8-year window we have left), and much more. If (real) inflation becomes a problem, we have plenty of multi-billionaires to tax (and thereby reduce the money supply). Problem solved.

Unlike the era of fighting the Axis powers, we will not have the burden of mass mobilization for war. The wars we are fighting now are wars of choice, and the choices are being made by our Military-industrial complex, not to “defend freedom” or “spread democracy,” but to expand an empire that only benefits our masters of war.

How do we spread the word to enough people to make this happen in time? There are plenty of resources to accomplish this, most of them available at, or linked to, realprogressives.org. Their primary mission is to spread knowledge of what’s known as Modern Monetary Theory (“MMT”). Its opponents are primarily those in the current establishment responsible for recent financial crises (like Robert Rubin and Larry Summers) who disparage it as “dangerous nonsense.” In reality, it’s just a new name for the macroeconomic system we’ve used since (I say again) Nixon took us off the gold standard.

Consider, for a moment, what a remarkable feat of thought control it has been, by those who have insinuated themselves as our masters, to keep an entire nation and its federal system of representative government from comprehending (or revealing) these two truths: that Congress creates "money" by spending it into existence, and that federal taxes do not fund federal spending—for over fifty years! They make us baselessly fear economic disaster about funding what we need to survive and thrive, but confidently promote more funding for weaponry than the military asks for, without being called out for deliberate, self-serving deception. 

Isn't it about time we all learned how our federal finances work, forced our "representatives" to acknowledge this truth, and get on with the business of saving our planet from disaster (and from the criminals who profit from that impending disaster)? Perhaps we should rebrand MMT to "Modern Monetary Truth."

So, the next time you hear about our federal government not being able to afford to fund an essential program, not for more efficient killing but to meet human needs and save lives, reduce or end unemployment with a guaranteed jobs program, slow climate change until sea level rise no longer causes islands to disappear and coastlines to recede, provide free higher education as other first-world countries do, end hunger and disease—in short, end rule by kleptocrats—and you hear the begged question "how will we pay for it?!" (The question is begged because it implies a false premise, that the federal government has to "pay for" what Congress allocates.) Reject this criminal gaslighting. When asked this begged question, simply respond like this: "Congress doesn't have to "pay for" anything! Under the Constitution, only Congress can issue our currency, allocating (not "paying for") new funds for all programs, limited only by the productive capacity of the nation. Inflation is limited by federal taxes, which are deleted from the currency supply." 

Currently, the three richest Americans together hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans. The 1% have nearly total control over Congress. The proportion of taxes they pay is so minimal that wealth inequality has risen to an all-time historic high. Taxes must be adjusted so that gains in wealth from higher productivity are shifted away from the extractive class and back to the productive class—for economic justice, not to "balance the budget."

When the wealthy corporate "elite" (the polite term for kleptocrat) pay their just proportion of federal taxes, those funds (deleted on receipt) can limit inflation without burdening the working, productive classes, and we can fix what's been broken for so long. In a sense, higher taxes on the wealthy will go towards needed programs, just not directly.

If this post seems hard to understand (or to believe), please consult realprogressives.org for a complete set of resources to help clarify what is, for most people, a new paradigm of macroeconomics. The perplexity you may feel is no accident: the "elite" have trillion$ of reasons to make the workings of federal finance as confusing as possible. That's how they keep their power and enrich themselves at your expense.

 

The Biggest, Most Harmful Lie (disguised as a begged question)

What is a "begged question?"

Here's the link to the Wikipedia article, "Begging the question." From that entry: 

In modern vernacular usage, however, begging the question is often used to mean "raising the question" or "suggesting the question." Sometimes it is confused with "dodging the question," an attempt to avoid it, or perhaps more often begging the question means simply leaving the question unanswered.

These days, I almost never see it used as Aristotle taught it, as "an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it." (A comic example of a begged question is that of a prosecutor, in court, asking the accused: "When did you stop beating your wife?")

The "modern vernacular usage" of this phrase is an example of "creeping Newspeak," the invented language George Orwell described in his novel "1984." from this blog:

By controlling the language, Big Brother controls the way that the people think. With a limited vocabulary, the people are limited in how much they can think, as well as what they think about. In another passage, Syme says to Winston, “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”  With the people’s inability to commit thoughtcrime, the hope of the party is that the people will no longer act out in disruptive or subversive behavior. Big Brother will have complete control of the people in every way, right down to their thoughts, and the people will become, essentially, mindless zombies who are willing to worship and do what they are told with no questions asked. They are able to achieve this by also destroying literature and controlling what the people are able to read."

1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale of a future dystopia powered by thought control, not an instruction manual for the masters of Newspeak. It seems that the true meaning of Aristotle's "informal fallacy" has been replaced by its "modern vernacular usage," and that this fallacy has been effectively deleted from our language, and thus from our awareness.

What's my nominee for "the most harmful lie of all?" In the context of funding a federal program, this phrase is uttered by almost everyone, whatever their party or ideology:

"But how will we pay for it?"

Why do I consider this question "begged?" It assumes that (as "everybody knows") there are only one or two ways to fund federal spending,  either to raise taxes or borrow money. Therefore, the begged question asks the listener or reader which of these he will choose. Because the question is valid (if the spending is by a state or local government, or that of a family or individual), it's deceptive and misleading, because it simply does not apply to federal spending. 

Federal spending is unique, for under the financial system used in the United States since the Federal Reserve system became law in 1913, funds for federal programs are created as if from thin air (backed only by the "full faith and credit of the United States," which is effectively the credit lines of all Americans in aggregate). Under our Constitution, only the US Treasury can issue our currency.

The only practical limit to federal spending is the total productive capacity of our economy; spending above that limit causes real inflation (as opposed to the price gouging of corporations which think they can get away with it, and usually do).

This raises (not "begs") the question: if federal taxes do not fund federal spending, and they serve a function, what IS that function (or functions)?

There are two: to discourage behavior deemed undesirable by making it more expensive ("sin" taxes), and to shrink the money supply, to limit inflation. That's it.

I see two reasons why this question is asked so often. First, it's a valid question, in the context of personal experience (household spending), where spending is limited by income and savings, and state or local spending, where taxes actually do fund spending, under balanced budget constraints. In the context of federal spending, this question has been begged for over a century, and I see two reasons for this as well. First, financial literacy is seldom taught in our schools; secondly, kleptocrats who benefit from gaslighting us use this Big Lie as a weapon against us.

How do the kleptocrats benefit from the Big Lie? By invoking fear—fear that "deficit spending" will cause inflation, devalue the dollar, cost them (the taxpayers) more money, perhaps funneling money from their pockets to those "less deserving," and so on. These fears allow them to justify denying funds for one of government's biggest reasons for existence, to "promote the general welfare." By doing so, they promote general misery, which helps the kleptocrats maintain their control. People struggling to survive don't have the time or energy to defend themselves, being forced to work multiple low-wage jobs without benefits while having to support dependents who can't work or find jobs.

The Big Lie is so ingrained in the mass psyche that even good-hearted, smart people who should know better (Bernie Sanders comes to mind) fail to challenge it. He rails against "the 1%" and the mega-rich who pay little or no tax, advocating "fair-share" taxes on these folk, as a remedy for "budget shortfalls," when in reality we don't need their money to fund what We the People need to thrive, not just survive. 

Don't take my words as authoritative truth. Discover for yourself what I did, from those who understand and advocate "Modern Money Theory" (MMT). All the proof you need, and the tools to effectuate change, can be found at Real Progressives. (MMT is a "theory" in the sense of "the theory of gravity." It's demonstrably the way our economy actually works. There is more than one theory of gravity, but whatever its true nature, it serves to keep our satellites in orbit, and deters us from dropping hammers on our toes.)

Once the truth you will find there sinks in, I suggest that every time you hear the "Big Lie Question" (in the context of federal spending), you answer that question with this reality-based answer:

"We will pay for it just as we pay for all federal spending: spend the funds into existence." Elaborate as appropriate, using your new-found knowledge of MMT.

Visualize a new world where "we can have nice things:" the things we need, the things we want, the life-affirming, death-defying things the whole planet cries out for. Speak the truth to power, but realize that the power has been ours all along. Help me make that vision a global reality. Stop asking why so much is so terrible, see that vision yourself, and ask "why not?"

"The Con:" a "big picture" (within an even bigger one)

Patrick S. Lovell is a film and TV producer (see his condensed resume at the FB link #johnnydeppisafinancialexpert). His intro says he's "Fighting the Good Fight with everything I've got," the truth, by the way. See this link, where Patrick features the Magnum Opus of his Good Fight, "The Con," a five-part series (see the con.tv for four watch options). Please follow the links in this paragraph to Patrick's amazing, honest, shocking, gripping, must-read, and must-see information.  

It's the story of what happened in 2008 to the global economy, variously known (depending on who's talking) as The Housing Bubble, the Financial Crisis, or the "Foreclosure Crisis" (often used by the international "mainstream" corporate press). A more accurate and appropriate label is the one Patrick uses: "the largest engineered criminal conspiracy and cover-up in history."

As watching the whole 5-part series takes almost six hours, if you feel pressed for time but want to watch a condensed version, I recommend starting with Part Five and following up later with the whole series when you can.

A no-cost option to get the same information is to visit the Real Progressives website (realprogressives.org). On the homepage, you will find (at the top) a dropdown menu “Media.” Choosing “The New Untouchables” will take you to this link.

“Two full seasons to binge!” There’s an introductory “trailer” and 14 episodes (each about an hour long), each with an abstract and a link to a transcript. (They’re also available on Apple podcasts, but without the transcripts.) Below the episode links, there are links to two episodes of another Podcast, “Macro N Cheese,” which provide the backstory to the series, along with a link to a book by a featured New Untouchables speaker, William K. Black, “The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry,” with an Abstract and a link to buy.

I'm writing this post to support and amplify Patrick's work on The Con by adding a bigger-picture perspective, focusing on the best way to disinfect the toxic dialogue that the corporate press continues to use, a dialogue that enables the current run-up to The Con 2.0; all the factors which made The Con 1.0 such a smashing success for its perpetrators in finance and government are still in place. It made so many so rich the first time (if you don't count the "Crash of '29" as the first), why would the same perps not boot up the same con again? Most of the players in The Con are still in power on Wall Street and in Washington, and most of the legal framework which made it possible is still in place. That's why it's so important to know the true story of The Con so that these rich criminals will be exposed and not reboot The Con—an event which Part Five sees as inevitable.

What's "bigger" about my perspective? Patrick has identified all the key elements which had to work together like a well-oiled machine to pull off The Con: the criminal regulators, officeholders, and banksters who knew how to use the revolving door between Wall Street and Government to their advantage, the members of Congress who (knowingly or not) provided the legal and financial support for The Con, and the support and cover provided by the corporate press. With this expanded perspective, you will gain the ability to see through the hidden curtain maintained by a network of kleptocrats for the club of beneficiaries of this Con, and many other cons as well.

Patrick's production doesn't shy away from the term "conspiracy," which The Con clearly is. It's not necessary for all the players in a conspiracy to be aware of all the other players; they only have to recognize how they will benefit, and know that others will help them not get caught. Whistleblowers do not faze them; they've seen what happens to them (it's not pretty).

Patrick puts The Con in historical perspective, showing how the S&L crisis served as a prequel and rehearsal for The Con; in particular, the story of how, while many of the players in the S&L scandal were successfully prosecuted for fraud and illegal maneuvers, one (Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide) escaped prosecution by converting his S&L to a mortgage bank, and applied what he learned to a new, "successful" (for him) career in mortgage banking, as described in The Con.

In a video posted on 1/27/2022 on Patrick's FB page (Patrick S. Lovell, he reveals his frustration and disappointment, but not despair, over the slow progress of his quest for justice. After 13 years of digging out the truth, it seems that the struggle has not borne the fruit which it should have produced by now. 

Let's help Patrick (and the rest of us) wipe out the ubiquitous corruption which has led to the current sad state of the 99%. Patrick has identified the integrated, well-oiled machine which made possible the events he's described in "The Con." What I hope to contribute is an unmasking of the tools which this criminal conspiracy has used to gain control of an obscene stash of wealth. If there was a contest to determine the "largest engineered criminal conspiracy and cover-up in history," the one Patrick's team has uncovered would lose to the much older and far larger one I am about to describe.

These tools have been used by a small group of conspirators over hundreds of years to conceal their crimes, to gain control of all the key elements which allow any modern civilization to function and prosper. These elements include the monetary systems, communication networks, and educational institutions that influence and ultimately control all societies, but the primary method used to achieve this control has been and continues to be, the control of language itself. It's the ultimate means of control; once you have it, any aim can be achieved. It's at the heart of "control fraud." From Wikipedia:

"Control fraud occurs when a trusted person in a high position of responsibility in a company, corporation, or state subverts the organization and engages in extensive fraud for personal gain. The term "control fraud" was coined by William K. Black (featured in The Con) to refer both to the acts of fraud and to the individuals who commit them."

The use of a "foreign language" has been a prime control weapon of religious movements, such as the Latin Mass in the Roman Catholic Church, which only in relatively recent times has become obsolete. In law, "legalese" is the weapon of choice. In everyday speech, the international conglomerates, which own both mass media and military contractors (one example: Blackrock owns Netflix), make sure that key phrases and concepts are endlessly repeated until everyone parrots them without thinking. By controlling the use of language, they can control thought. It's the ultimate means of political, social, and economic control.

Once this variety of thought control is revealed and understood by enough people of good conscience, such control will fail.

Since time is of the essence, I will post this now and put the details of "thought control via language control" in an upcoming post. Until then, please visit realprogressives.org and listen to, and/or read the transcripts of, these podcasts.