THEY LIVE - Stay Safe!

Here is another way of attending the positive,a seemingly good thing and a perfect salutation to anyone, spoken or suggested as sincere or not:  

"Stay Safe" 

Reality is that life is not always safe. No matter how much prevention or precaution one takes (or gives), some level of risk resides...is realized.   

An actuary, risk analyst or others who in some way account and/or apply statistics certainly understand such to underwrite and in the most severe of outcomes, undertake the consequences of risks' realized, positive or negative.   

Why all this heightened attention, anguishing over safety, security? 

The simply answer is the virus as of late, a pandemic in the making, and before that, a time of terrorism brought on by the claims that "They hate us."    

But is the answer simple?  After all, there are many simply answers to complex questions (or problems)--none of which is ever correct, complete.  

At present, the public is pressed to such levels of attention, even to anguish (fear) given the portending and publicizing that 

"If you don't do ________, then this or that will happen."      

It is natural to plan and practice good health and welfare against the realities of life and living. 

But then the unnatural...which is not reality or experience but more perception(s) propagated by propaganda: 

"This or that can--and will--happen unless you do what we tell you to do." 

Thus, you must: 

• OBEY 
• CONFORM
• CONSUME
• SUBMIT
• MARRY...DIVORCE 

And above all, Be Enlightened!  

So finally, risks are exploited, the plan and purpose to control folks, fear as a means.   

THEY LIVE - Be Enlightened

Another theme (more order) that combines the title of that ‘90's dystopian film, THEY LIVE, and the present pandemonium presented by the suggested masking—as a preventive measure, of course, for the virus.   

I believe that the mask (outfitting) is not really about prevention as much as it is about conditioning; that is, and once more, using fear to force to coerce or compel folks to do something on the pretense that it is for the common good, health, safety and such. 

The dangers of exploiting science are legion.  When the state or politic uses science at their discretion—or when it serves their interests of/for power—then they are functioning by expedience; that is, where the end justifies the means rather than a scientific approach of hypotheses testing via analysis, calculation. 

Policy or procedure is fine as long as it supports the state's interest; otherwise, it is discretely, decidedly dismissed or disregarded in view of the larger canvass of corruption.  

One may say, “I am enlightened,” or more “I know the truth”, only to later discover their misunderstanding, doubting their earlier conclusions or altogether dismissing what turns about to rubbish, rhetoric or a ruse.   

Let us face the fact(s) that some institutions simply don’t consider the facts, or least not all, but purposely choose what best serves their interest; and again, it is expedience.  

A prosecutor will judiciously draw the evidence from the process of Discovery that best serves the end—which is usually to punish—while downgrading or altogether dismissing that which does not.   And to them, such practice is merely the formation of their case albeit dealing from a deck that is not by any means a fair hand--or justice.    

To be enlightened is in part the result of experience; one must observe criminal courts in action to really appreciate that described above as expedience—as opposed to due process.  Without any experience, relying entirely on what the media present or other means propose, one may mistakenly think that criminal court practices due process and that the 5^th Amendment is honored, applied, but they would be wrong. 

Be careful on where you draw your so-called light from, the source and their intentions, motives!  For what you may presume or presuppose as light—and thus to be enlightened—is nothing of the sort, but only the appearance (pronouncement, proclamation, perception, and persona) and thus darkness in the making, the masking. 

From Francis Shaeffer,

‎People have presuppositions... By 'presuppositions' we mean the basic way that an individual looks at life- his worldview. The grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth (or projection of light) of what exists. A person's presuppositions provide the basis for their values- and therefore the basis for their decisions.

THEY LIVE – SUBMIT to the elite

The late Francis Schaeffer speaks of the inevitable consequence of The West’s surrendering of “the Christian consensus”; that the present quest for “’personal peace’” and prosperity (affluence)” as “poor values” would result in a relative few of elites governing the world, most to SUBMIT.

"SUBMIT" is not an altogether bad word, action. The Book of Proverbs, for example, instructs the believer or child of God to submit in all ways such that your paths will be straight (3:6).  

But SUBMIT is not altogether good either—and especially when it is done under the deception of lies and the compulsion of fear.  

Should you SUBMIT to such…under lies and fear?

Romans 13 - Submitting to government

  

For a world order to govern the world, nation states or sovereigns must SUBMIT (or surrender), their supposed citizens convinced, compelled, or coerced to SUBMIT or face dire circumstances.   

An ideal or altogether clever way of submission is on the apparent or announced basis of something good, right, and even noble for example, public health, the preservation of freedom, safety and security, or something similar. 

Of course, “the ideal way” means that there must be some form of existential threat, real or perceived; disease or virus, a rouge nation-state, a terrorist cell or movement, or an altogether clear and present danger; that individually or collectively serve to strike fear among the citizens and thereby persuade them to act—even beyond the unthinkable!  Propaganda is very effective in this process.  

To SUBMIT is to accept without exceptions, doubts, or disputes.  

Even in the last days of Nazi-Germany, some held-on to Hitler, still believing in The Thousand Year Reign—too proud to doubt, too fearful to dismiss, or too deceived to the deeper madness, maniacal and malicious as is seen in retrospect.

But could (can) something similar happen here, in the U.S.? 

Where does The FED get all the money to purchase everything?

I don’t know, or said another way, I cannot imagine as trying to understand where all that money comes from. I might as well try to estimate the grains of sand on a beach—or all beaches wherever they may be and for whatever the tide, time of year or any other variations may bring.

Who knows where all this money comes as unceasing, unlimited and, as it is, unfathomable?

But what is money really?  We know it’s a finely printed paper and that it is exchanged for goods and services.  We also know that without money, one cannot seemingly survive.  

Maybe it’s true that love makes the world go round but it sure seems as the it’s money….

The FED is said to the lender of last resort; that when/as (and always), the state wants for money that The FED is there to save the day—buying treasuries and more (bonds, mortgages, etc.)

In his book, Anatomy of the State, Murray Rothbard describes money as the “command post of the economy and society”—the modern monopoly of the state.  

But back to The FED and money, the central question, “Where is does it all come from?”

Where the Fed Get its Money

THEY LIVE – MARRY…CUSTODY

Continuing in the series of masks and the movie, THEY LIVE, I turn to the latest of labels:  MARRY, REPRODUCE, DIVORCE AND CUSTODY.  Unlike the previous postings, this one is personal, painful, though I must say is equally if not more important in the times we live, now and our future.

Where the family goes so goes society. 

When first researching the history of marriage (in the U.S.) and the more recent divorce reform(s) that went into effect across our land around 1969, I began to accept that the legality of divorce became a boom.  Yes, divorce became big business in that divorce reform brought about a growth in divorce whereby for every attorney in California around ’70 there were 20 by the next decade!  Yes, California was the genesis of divorce reforms passed under then Governor Ronald Reagan. 

But besides the business of divorce is also the certainty that divorce reforms represent the single largest threat to marriage, so says the president of the counseling organization Marriage Builders some years ago.  Indeed, the subsidizing of divorce—or easing of the guidelines and justification (cause)—render marriage defenseless in our civil courts.  Never forget that anything the government subsidizes, it grows, as so too divorce that skyrocketed in the in last half of the last decade, and meanwhile, marriage per capita in the U.S. continues at gradual decent with less than 20 percent of Millennials married.     

But marriage is losing ground, not strictly due to divorce reform but primarily because of it.   

The state licenses marriage for a modest fee, and thus is the primary governance of this institution, marriage; yet, it also conducts  divorce which is often initiated by one of the two married without any powers given to the other, the defendant.  And while divorce seems more involved and expensive then a marriage license, it nevertheless continues to not only diminish marriage but to also dismember families, awarding children to one while reducing the other to that of a “non-custodial”.

The non-custodial, or the one who loses custody of his children, is often if not always imputed with the liability, namely “Child Support”, for his children—legally but unjustifiably removed from his care.   

But it gets worse, sometimes much worse.  Who wouldn’t wonder what the state is doing other than reducing one parent, often the father, to bluntly a financier—the father be damned.  

Under Title IV-D of the IRS Tax Code, the state that collects Child Support is subsidized (e.g. Alabama receives $2 for every $1 collected, and thus is using this program to generate state revenue).  In short, Child Support or Title IV-D is an incentive for states to separate the children from one parent, often the father.  Yes, the state has an incentive to separate children from one parent per Title IV-D. 

Divorce involving dependent children is doubly costly; first, in devaluing marriage and second in devaluing parenthood. But more, and as the system is designed, it systematically contributes to single-parent homes and fatherlessness.  What is worse, the subsidizing of divorce and support of Title IV-D is contributing to the destruction of our society, dismantling the family first with the father and then by systematically devaluing marriage as an institution.   Does marriage have a chance against such systems?

Divorce destroys society by undermining the viability and value of marriage and family.     Any loss of strength of society is then, as though a physics’ axiom, transferred to political power. 

So much more has been written and read on the subject but, in summary, let me end by saying that the state’s authority over family is a marriage made in Hell. 

THEY LIVE – NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT

To explain INDEPENDENT THOUGHT is to consider several phrases similar, such a Leo Tolstoy,

Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking...

Or Emma Goldman,

People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.

Never mind notions of one’s personal “right”, but more, much more, INDEPENDENT THOUGHT is our responsibility to toward ourselves and then to others regardless of what the authorities say, do or force upon you—which is why it takes courage and a desire for truth and with that, hope. 

In a hopeless environment, INDEPENDENT THOUGHT is criminalized, crushed, and condemned, with any possibility for truth long muted in a mainstream of information and data manufactured for public approval, propaganda.  

In the film THEY LIVE, discovery of truth is possible only with the special sunglasses, (never mind the possibility of hope).  As presented, the plot is to ensure that the remaining human class is not only denied truth but is further, deceived by these bodies, any awareness of the humanoids conspiring and collaborating to control them and perhaps replace them altogether. 

A lengthy but timely interview on truth, independent thought, words and action,

Donald Best Interview

With the loss of INDEPENDENT THOUGHT so too truth without courage, as Orwell warned, 

In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. 

THEY LIVE - CONSUME, Buy & Shop

This next in a series that combine “the mask” and the film, THEY LIVE, is about one or two of the “’ism’s” not taboo or forbidden in our society, culture.  (Referring to Ralph Nader's description of the tabooed "ism's" of the McCarthy era).  

Materialism/consumerism is on a scale like that of no other single sovereign and, in all assessment, is one possibility of the true form of American government that we serve—though inclined to believe that it serves us, present and future.  

With materialism/consumerism is also  secularism; emphasized as essentially the ethos of our economy (not a system based on production as much as consumption, debt much more than saving and an endless and unlimited indulgence that finally produces nothing but dissatisfaction, disillusionment and even distrust among/between persons, parties and classes).     

As the Romans are acclaimed to have given their countrymen bread & circus, so too does our society; first, as 5% of the world’s population consuming around 25% of output (bread), but also as a people saturated in entertainment (circus)—the consequences of which is the power of prosperity however illusive and ill-gained it is, has become, however distracting and deceiving “the show”, theater, with a bag full of goodies. 

"CONSUME" is a softer side of tyranny; a side angled as to appear as though it is altogether good and right in keeping with a quest for The American Dream.  Our lives are saturated with this theme, and insatiable appetite driven far above and beyond our needs. 

Who can argue that prosperity is not the point, after all?    More toys, preoccupations and attractions that invariably leave the astute or aware if much the same dilemma as that of King Solomon:  "all is vanity--a chasing after the wind".  

As an alternative to naked or brute force, CONSUME is clever in doing deceptively the dirty work of a despot; and for any who yet to achieve or to reclaim The American Dream, don't worry, because we're draining the swamp and are going to bring America back.  

From Noam Chomsky,

All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.

To some degree, and to their credit, young folks of the '60s attempted to push-back on what Francis Schaeffer called “the plastic culture” (consumption, consumerism, etc.), “dominated by materialism.”  He writes: 

...the hippies of the '60s did understand something. They were right in fighting the plastic culture, and the church should have been fighting it too... More than this, they were right in the fact that the plastic culture - modern man, the mechanistic worldview in university textbooks and in practice, the total threat of the machine, the establishment technology, the bourgeois upper middle class - is poor in its sensitivity to nature.. 

Francis Schaeffer - Materialism

Sadly, much of our society wears the mask of/to CONSUME, Christians and non-Christians alike, practicing a religion that is replete with Relativism and finally vanity--a chasing after the wind.  

THEY LIVE - CONFORM

I know that I sometimes CONFORM, call it consciousness, conscience, or just plain-ole insecurity about being different, odd, or weird.   Maybe most of us are this way, dyed-in-the-wool conformists—most comfortable and comforted when conforming to what appears as normal, acceptable, and even respectable.

Here, in the backdrop of the film THEY LIVE is the word and action, "CONFORM"; as to be controlled as though a programmed robot--and not a human capable of critical thinking, a moral base and all other aspects of thinking and doing endowed to man.  

Ralph Waldo Emerson lays down the gauntlet, saying

To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.

Adding much more on this, CONFORM, is Doris Lessing, where she writes in The Golden Book: 

Ideally, what should be said to every child, repeatedly, throughout his or her school life is something like this: You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination.

A favorite film and book of which is Into the Wild; here, the author, Jack Krakauer writes:

…The very basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion for adventure. The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun.

The central character of Into the Wild was, while dangerous, was courageous too; a young person who turned his back on convention and all the lure of a upper-middle class lifestyle, to follow what some may think a reckless and rebellious choice while others, an adventure aimed to find a final frontier and see life in the most extreme of needs, the least of resources.   

Another from the highly existentialist, Henry David Thoreau, Walden:

Any fool can make a rule [and] any fool will mind it.

And then another from Howard Zinn, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times,

But human beings are not machines, and however powerful the pressure to conform, they sometimes are so moved by what they see as injustice that they dare to declare their independence. In that historical possibility lies hope.

Finally, I leave you with the last of a litany of quotes, this final by Rollo Mays:

The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it's conformity.

THEY LIVE - OBEY

When I see the word, OBEY, what do I think?  On the one hand is something respectable, respectful, but on the other is an order or command without exception, exclusion, aimed to move us well beyond what is normal and indeed to madness, among and between us. 

“To obey is better than sacrifice”, so says Bible scripture, to infer that obedience to God is foremost, an outpouring of the faith, trusting that God’s order or command is righteous, without flaw , falsehoods and failure.   

As to orders or commands imposed to/on me by others, and especially institutions, is to sometimes raise a flag; not always, and often I am sure that I attempt to honor or respect such dictates whether out of devotion to or dread of authorities, right, wrong, indifferent, with or without deference; but sometimes, and increasingly, I am cautious of unilateral orders and unjustified commands—and especially the kind that are not reasonable or simply said, 

“This makes no sense.”

An example of a nonsensical order or command is the present “shelter-in-place”, presumably aimed to flatten the curve or otherwise reduce the spread of this virus.  

But then, the confusion and chaos that seems almost if not created, manufactured to mislead and misdirect the general public; and more, is the motive or intention behind the orders or commands--the difference between what is said or suggested and what is actually occurring--behind the scenes, the show. 

In no other time of national history have the healthy been "sheltered" or quarantined as a prevention for a viral spread. 

Presently reading a biography on Hitler, I seem quickly put-out or put-off by the politics of this man, his mind, manner, methods. Hitler was obsessed by (and in) politics more than anything or anyone, deeply moved by the power to move others to a place that, unless driven by fear, would not likely go, even imagine.  The author, Alan Bullock. writes in Germany’s days entering economic depression, hyper- inflation (1928):

Millions of Germans saw their apparently solid framework cracking and crumbling.  

He continues in the next paragraph:

It was already clear that an economic crisis would produce a political crisis. In such circumstances, men are no longer amendable to arguments of reason.

To obey is better than sacrifice given the motives and intentions of authority are just and right, true & true, but when motives are unjust and wrongful, then to obey is without reason unless an economic crisis within which reason does not matter and fear is all there is. 

Hitler’s movement was doubly steeped in fear; first that once great nation and Arian race were subordinated and subjected to other states, and thus threatened of what remained, and second of no recovery, reprisal or even respite from the present, dire circumstances.   

It seems a perfect storm to expect folks to obey without reason, to submit whatever the sacrifice.  

A Return to THEY LIVE

Once again, the film, THEY LIVE, as the backdrop for this latest theme and subject of masking for medical or other reasons.  

As you may recall, the film is dystopian; depicting Las Angeles during such times with lots of folks in tent cities, struggling to survive, while beneath the human appearance, a relatively few humanoids rule the day.   

What remains for one relative newcomer, a main character, is to discover sunglasses that do more than shade; quit the contrary, these lens actually enlighten the wearer as to the truth of what is taking place and still more, the real faces and facades of these humanoids that run things, apparently relegating the public to some form of servility, struggle, amid many illusions, perceptions and propaganda.  

THEY LIVE - best quote  

Folks are forced into a system to: 

• OBEY - without reason or cause 
• CONFORM - earnest individualism, as to thinking and being, are forbidden 
• CONSUME - a culture of materialism and consumerism 
• STAY ASLEEP - living the dream in a dream or tranquil, medicated state 

...and so on and so forth. 

In the postings to follow, THEY LIVE is the backdrop for examining the current practice and policy of mask-wearing.   

What's coming...down and up the pike

The inspiration for the post's title is George Carlin; one of his kinder, gentler stand-up's.  

Coming down the pike begs the question, as George suggests,  "What's coming up the pike?" After all, if things can come down then why can't they come up? 

But whether "up" or "down"..., great changes are coming to the greater earth, both natural and man-made.  As to the later, the unnatural, some description of what to expect.  

The latest experience of this virus is one to behold in terms of the conditions imposed on an international scale; the restrictions, lock-downs and other measures disseminated and delegated to/from international to local governance, and while it may seem warranted to some, it has never been done before--never!  

For the powers behind it, this effort has set in place yet another level of just what the public and persons are willing to do never mind the fact that the state seldom delivers just the facts; indeed, these institutions go to great length to withhold facts simply because such denial is a form of power--the lifeblood of the state.  

Need I elaborate on how a false witness can destroy a good name when given the leeway to say anything with impunity; that is, without accountability for or responsibility in their testimony, the evidence (which is why perjury is a criminal offense). And yet, on a grand scale, the state is a false witness; wielding and abusing power by purposely withholding or denying the facts--all the while knowingly misleading the public, leveraging fear as a deep, dark and destructive force and imposing ever increasing restrictions behind a curtain of abstracts, vagaries and seemingly good intentions.      

The winds of change are fierce, howling and hellbent, and show no signs of dampening or dying-out; no, these prevailing tempests will tear your hearts out, taking all but the final source of our hope; that is, the life hereafter.  God willing that we should stay the course such that it may be said, 

Well done good and faithful servant.  

...and be done with what's coming, down and up the pike per Albert Pike:  

We shall unleash the nihilists and the atheists and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to all nations the effect of absolute atheism; the origins of savagery and of most bloody turmoil.

Then everywhere, the people will be forced to defend themselves against the world minority of the world revolutionaries and will exterminate those destroyers of civilization and the multitudes disillusioned with Christianity whose spirits will be from that moment without direction and leadership and anxious for an ideal, but without knowledge where to send its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer brought finally out into public view. A manifestation which will result from a general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and Atheism; both conquered and exterminated at the same time.

Uncovering "The Mask" once more

Zorro wore a mask to conceal his identity; that while he fought for those oppressed, somewhat like Robin Hood, he did so under the cover of a mask -- as though that would work.  

Lot's of characters wear masks for much the same reason while others, a select number of "super-heroes"; are among this supernatural, some choosing to gird the mask while others, their identity out there.  On the face of it, super-heroes that are faceless make you wonder, 

"What (and why) are they hiding?" 

Batman and Robin wore masks -- though you have to wonder how many masks they went through with all the brawling -- and meanwhile, their arch enemies did not always. You must wonder while The Penguin did not...with a face like that, while The Cat-woman did...with a face like that.  

I speak of this comical side of masks but in fact a masks in not a joke.  Walk into a bank with a mask on and see just how fast things turn on you.  

Meanwhile, much of the world seems to be fixated on masks given the notion that they are doing their diligence to slow the spread, flatten the curve, accelerate the cure or merely forestall illness while a vaccination is concocted -- never mind the actual, factual statistics, the preventive quality of cloth masks.  

To say that "They are wearing a mask," suggest a figurative view; that they're pretending to be something that they are not, hiding from their "true self", the real you behind the veil.   No doubt that we each wear this figurative mask from time to time, imagining or pretending or even playing-out on the premise that others are pleased, we're accepted.  

Conversely, a mask say more about us; who we are and what we think, as Oscar Wilde suggest, 

A mask tells us more than a face.

In this present pandemic, a mask may say, suggest, 

• I'm afraid of me, of you and of it 
• I just want to do the right thing, conform and obey the state's order(s) 
• I want to believe that this is an effective prevention (even though it is not...)

But be careful about the mask, the masquerade, for

If you wear a mask for too long, there will come a time when you can not remove it without removing your face. (Matshona Dhliwayo) 

A Virus, Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind

A recent quote from Anthony T. Hincks, 

Who benefits from all the money that being splashed around; who will pay for it and more importantly, who owns the companies that do the printing and produce money out of thin air?  

Will we be put under increased surveillance to justify tracking the virus? 

'What' and 'Who' are very important question words, but more importantly, what the answers?  

Somehow I don't think we will ever be party to the truth of the situation.

The phrase, "The Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind", comes from The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith. 

'All for ourselves and nothing for other people' seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. 

Reportedly, the shifting of wealth has been underway since the 1970's; that with each passing decade, an increase in the gap rises--giving rise to all the adverse consequences, social, economic and otherwise.  

Where are we going, the gap? 

A similar, extreme of inequality occurred in the 1920's leading-up to The Great Depression, and while not the singular cause, still, had (and has) some adverse effect on the standard of living and prospect for growth, access to capital.  

The vile maxim meanwhile is somewhat a silent partner; not nameless but nefarious, nebulous as to its relations with/of the state and corporations--never mind the commons, "other people".     

Pandemic of 1957 -- when folks faced the matter

In 1957, the Asian Flu came to the U.S., resulting in 116K deaths; and in the totality of the matter, folks faced the matter without the intervention of international governance and national shutdown. 

The same pandemic caused over 1M deaths worldwide and still, no shutdown.  

Why Then...versus Now; why no shutdown with incomparable statistics versus shutdown with a fraction therein?  

And before you consider that it's due to modern times, advanced medicine and any other natural or scientific cause, consider that it is because the agenda of authorities was different Then (1957) than Now (2020); more specific, Now is partly a ploy, a program for the state to seize power as yet another ploy to invoke and instill compliance and conformance, the compromise of all personal liberty and privacy per the oldest trick in the book; fear.  

Understand that I acknowledge the reality of the virus as to its authenticity; still, the response has gone well beyond the top and sadly, folks fail to face the matter as it really is--not what they promote.  

The FED, finally

I don’t know. I might as well try to estimate the grains of sand on a beach—or all beaches wherever they may be and for whatever the tide, time of year or any other variations.

Who knows where all this money comes? Unceasing, unlimited and, as it is, unfathomable?

But what is money really?  We know it’s a finely printed paper and that it is exchanged for goods and services.  We also know that without money, one cannot seemingly survive.  

Maybe it’s true, that love makes the world go round but it sure seems that it’s money. 

The FED is said to the lender of last resort; that when/as (and always), the state wants for money (really, financing) that The FED is there to save the day—buying treasuries and more (bonds, mortgages, etc.) to yet again bail out banks or to otherwise lift the moral hazard of malinvestment, malfeasance or any other mal-adjustments made by the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.  

In his book, Anatomy of the State, Murray Rothbard describes money as the

“Command post of the economy and society”—the modern monopoly of the state. 

Other monopolies are:

• Violence (force)

• Judicial power

• Communications (media)

• Transportation (land, sea and air)

In truth, the endless money of the FED--as it seems--is  the mortgaging of all assets in America; it is debt peonage on a grand scale.  This financial fandango is simply the selling-out of sovereignty; it is the way in which a relative few use the many as either a milk cow or, worse yet, a meat cow; either way, "the herd".   

From President James Garfield: 

Whoever controls the volume of money is any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce. 

Maybe more to come on the dollar, $, and what is a certain death to usher in the world currency and yet more enslavement of humanity.  

To divide is to conquer the tribes

Most of us may be aware of the term or phrase, "Divide and Conquer", but what does it really mean or, in the context of community, what does it really do? 

In the 3-minute video below, a summary of this strategy or tactic applied to, yes, politics. 

Divide & Conquer

But at this time and given scale of this international effect per the virus, is it possible or likely that some high-level of the politic are doing this very thing: dividing and then conquering? 

You may think or say, "No way!", followed by a question/statement, "Why would they take down much of the world's economy without a justified or reasonable cause?"  

As to the "Why...", I am not sure yet, but as to the possibility of such motives (by the politic), I rely on several time-proven behaviors: 

• First, that the state and media lie, or said another way, they deliberately withhold the truth, the facts and figures that do not comport with their agenda, their interests

• Second, that the state uses power as both a means and end, and thus it's motive is always driven by power or force for power, control, domination or by any similar description, its interests 

You may believe (if you care or are concerned), that the government is generally good; that they care about community and folks and that they motive are thus in no way to divide and conquer.   I believe that some individuals do, but then the system, institution and the dangerous combination of authority without accountability.  

But if that were true in the modern day in our culture, than tribes would still exist, co-exist; that is, independent, self-governing communities.  Recall that to tame The West, and the entire land mass of America, the government had to eradicate tribes of any kind, ostensibly the native american but others too, hence "the melting pot".    

Tribes and the state cannot coincide or coexist as the later's demands are to no end whereas the former is distributive power that, while constructed of a hierarchy, depends much more on unity then division, much more on trust than force and much more on the whole rather than a few.    

When bad things happen to bad people

You may be familiar with the best-seller, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People", Harold Kushner, 1981. 

What about when bad things happen to bad folks? Of course bad happens to "the bad", but then the question

What or who is the bad; how is "bad" determined, designated?  Are there degrees of "bad" or is it an absolute, either bad or good--no partials or particulars to apply? That too depends, for the determination of "bad", if not presumed however, is often a matter of perception, experience.  

One watching a program on TV or other outlets has a point of view, perspective or even an opinion if they care at all, based on past experience. One views a figure that fits a profile and presumes...with or without taking anything or anyone else into account. 

In a court scene, whether a drama or actual session, the viewer presumes those in cuffs and chains as bad while those in suits and robes as good--or at least respectable.  Who is to say in actuality that some of the folks in chains did nothing criminally wrong or, if they did, that it pales in comparison to a judge who takes "kick-backs" and under-the-table payoffs as gratuity for graces afforded to those who can afford to buy some justice.  

I know, I know; I sound cynical but in truth this actually happens; indeed, judges can be corrupt, conducting all manner of conduct never mind the cabal formed with the counsel who incidentally contributes to the judge's campaign and just happens to below to the same country club.  

Seldom does such "bad" in these respectable get called-out or taken-down--as rarely do those of power ever face the full measure of the law. 

As with so much in our land, justice is a commodity; purchased, parceled-out to those who possess that much needed power of impunity or otherwise are above the law.   Many years ago, one of our presidents said it simply as, 

If the president does it, it's not illegal 

How often does power trump prosecution let alone any allegation or other step of the criminal justice system at any level of the hierarchy?  

H. L. Mencken always has a unique way at looking and expressing matters.

 “The gang” (the constituters exploiting the government) is well nigh immune to punishment. Its worst extortions, even when there baldly for private profit, carry no certain penalties under our laws.Since the first days of our Republic, less than a few dozen of its members of its have been impeached—and only a few obscure understrappers have ever been put into prison.
The number of men sitting in Atlanta and Leavenworth (Federal prisons) for revolting against the extortions of the government are always ten times as great as the number of government officials condemned for oppressing the taxpayers to (and for) their own gain.

A person's deeds, mine included, are not hidden from all; no, we each must/will be accountable or give account for our "bad", exposed not in the corrupted world power but in the supreme power of God.  

Help me to be accountable for my bad.