More good news: Trump’s triumphs the media tries to hide and some conservatives try to ignore.

It is fashionable for some conservatives and libertarians to point out dumb things Congress or President Trump does, and to huff it makes no real difference which party controls the federal government. I feel that way myself sometimes. The impression is reinforced by a media that, in its most recent hostile self-embarrassment frenzied wrongly over how Trump tossed too much fish food into a koi pond, while largely ignoring his substantive and successful visits with a number of heads of state. Herewith, some recent reasons I’m pleased that Donald Trump won last November.

On the domestic front, At Trump’s direction, cabinet heads are overseeing a historic slowdown and rollback of intrusive regulations. Business confidence and consumer confidence are surging as a result. A Democrat administration would never take this direction. It’s doubtful whether any of the other Republican candidates from 2016 would have, either.


Singling out one of the stars, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is bring law and order to an agency with a history of overreaching lawless disorder. On a matter of substance, Pruitt is unraveling the EPA’s power grab over electricity generation via its sweeping rewrite of pollution laws. The war on coal is over, Pruitt declares.
On a huge matter of process, Pruitt declared an end to collusion between radical environmentalists and sympathetic bureaucrats, the so called sue and settle strategy. For decades, it’s been a dirty little open secret that activists achieve regulation through litigation. They would bring a lawsuit against the EPA arguing for more aggressive enforcement of various policies. They agency would settle, and gleefully put the screws to business and property owners, because it “had to.” No more, Pruitt says:
The days of regulation through litigation are over. We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle.
On foreign policy, I’m pleased to have a president who puts American interests first and does not seem embarrassed by American strength and prosperity. Consumers of American media wouldn’t know it, but Trump’s Asia tour was a resounding success. He was received with respect, he schmoozed ably with world leaders, and reached a number of favorable understandings and agreements. This includes a little reported pact with China, in which China agrred to invest an eye-popping $84 billion in petrochemical projects in West Virginia.
None other than Piers Morgan formerly of CNN wrote that Trump’s trip was a triumph the media tried to hide.
Undoubtedly, they’ll keep trying.

“The Most Fatal Thing A Man Can Do Is Try To Stand Alone”

“The most fatal thing a man can do is try to stand alone.” ― Carson McCullers

Some smart people have drawn parallels between our current global society and culture and the culture and society the world knew in the years leading up to World War I. On the surface those comparisons appear preposterous – but if one looks a little deeper then perhaps the critical traits are very similar. The primary trait that we appear to have in common with 105 years ago is the belief that the world dynamic and organization is static. Now – again – on the surface that assertion appears preposterous. Look a little deeper and it is perhaps not preposterous at all.

One can easily argue that the Trump people and the Sanders people are interested in burning it all down. However if one was to listen to what they actually proclaim then they are less interested in burning it down than they are in cherry-picking events, policies and social dynamics from the past. Furthermore they are predicating this wish list of cherry picked items on a perpetual continuation of the current system.

The differences in Trump and Sanders culture are really not about changing the fundamental system but more about which cherry picked items from the past get included on this wish list. Beyond even that the cherry picked items are often derived from a fictional past created to conform to an ideological and political imperative. The wish list has little to do with what really happened in the past and nothing at all to do with cultural, economic and political context around these supposed events. Both the Trump and Sanders people to a large degree believe that sheer government power can create a fictional past that they wish to reside in today.

Sometimes societies just collectively go insane. However it is a strain of insanity that we have known before.

In a very real way the Trump and Sanders people are fighting against change. Perhaps more specifically they are fighting against the unknown that is an inherent component of change.

Socialist in 1912 Europe were ostensibly fighting for change – but were they really? Socialism was derived as a response, and successor, to a specific government-economic-cultural model. Once that specific government-economic-cultural model ceased to exist the socialist argument also ceased to exist. In order to perpetuate the socialist argument the socialist have had to create fictional straw men to argue against – because the pro-socialist argument simply ceases to exist when the target of its’ argument also ceases to exist. Socialist always become fully invested in a static system – having to create new fictions and new straw men in order to adapt to change and make your ideas appear appealing is strenuous work. When the pre-existing system utterly melted down from 1917 to 1919 the only socialist capable of taking advantage of that meltdown were Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin and Trotsky succeeded due to their willingness to kill anyone with an alternate idea and by creating fiction on the level that Orwell wrote so eloquently of in ‘Animal Farm.’

Socialism is predicated on opposing a specific system – and if that system does not exist then a fictional opposition system must be created in order that socialism not appear as absurd as it actually is. For the socialist, Franz-Josef must always be on the throne and if he is not then his straw man must be created.

To summarize, change is the lethal enemy of socialism.

The Trump people often seem to be equally as wedded to cherry picking the past. The newsflash here is that Trump is not Reagan and this is not the 1980’s – but quite a few people seem to have predicated their view of the world on Trump being Reagan and this still being the 1980’s.

The world is changing and that change is quite possibly going to be on a similar scale as 1914-1919. Demographics, debt and the human yearning for power and wealth drives the change. These three things are intertwined with each other. To a large degree we in the United States are oblivious to the change and how these things are connected.

These three things are not secrets but the popular culture in the United States has relegated them to the category of not important – mostly because they do not fit the narrative that popular culture desires to be true. Four articles from just this weekend’s news:

From “Deutsche Bank: The Fiat Money World May Be Coming to An End”:

“Reid’s basic contention is this: The dominance of the fiat currency system since Richard Nixon decoupled gold from the dollar in 1971 “is inherently unstable and prone to high inflation,” and an offsetting disinflationary shock that kept it afloat since 1980 is now slowly reversing.

If that’s the case, Reid says the fiat currency system — a term which describes any currency whose value is backed by the government that issued it, rather than by a commodity like gold or silver — could be “seriously tested” over the next decade.”

From “Is There Any Way Out of the ECB’s Trap?”

“Despite the massive injection of liquidity, he knows that he can not disguise political risks such as the secessionist coup in Catalonia. The Ibex reflects this, making it clear that the European Central Bank does not print prosperity, it only puts a floor to valuations.”

From “Animation: The Rapidly Aging Western World”

“However, one problem of particular importance – at least in places like Europe and the Americas – is a rapidly aging population. As the population shifts grayer, potential consequences include higher dependency ratios, rising healthcare costs, and shifting economies and cities.”

From “What Now?” by James Kunstler:

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has been a giant gasoline bomb waiting to explode for decades. It occupies one of the geographically least hospitable corners of the earth. Its existence as a modern (cough cough) state relies strictly on the reserves of oil discovered as recently as the late 1930s, that is, within the lifetime of people still reading this blog. The oil supply is in steep decline, and so, of course, is the stability of the kingdom.

Politically, it’s a super-medieval operation, an absolute monarchy tied to a severe religious order with the law floating precariously between the two, and old-fashioned customs such as the public beheading of criminals (for misdeeds such as “adultery,” “atheism,” and “sorcery”). The Saud clan has controlled the throne all these years, and its grip on power is slipping as the country itself slips into the prospective next era of its history, minus the endless gusher of oil that has made its existence possible — hence, a true existential crisis without the usual pseudo-intellectual bullshit.”

Of course on top of all of this is the global debt. Global debt now approached 360% of global GDP (see attached chart) – debt accumulated by the same constituencies that also have aging demographics. Let that sink in. Paying that debt back or defaulting on that debt is a requirement – a requirement that does not fit the narrative of either the Trump or the Sanders people. The demographics-debt conundrum is driving the change that both the Trump and Sanders people violently oppose. Just a note – debt and demographics are infinitely more powerful than any political system or fantasies that our popular culture embraces. Our collective insanity is the compulsion to embrace and predicate our lives on the ephemeral when that ephemeral has a limited shelf life with the expiration date in clear sight.

The world has elected to adopt an unsustainable monetary policy that has created unprecedented debt – and elected to do that at a time when the demographics for the people who have consumed that debt are such that repaying that debt would be most damaging and unpopular. Change is barreling down the highway at us and we have decided to have a picnic in the middle of the road.

Beyond even that – the linchpin in the global monetary system is the political stability of the Gulf States and most importantly of Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia were to turn away from the petrodollar it is then entirely likely that the whole house of cards as we have known it will come down.

Everything we know in terms of government services is likely to change. By change, I mean to go away. The welfare state is dying due to debt-demographics and having predicated its’ continued financialization on the House of Saud. No matter how many North Africans that Europe imports or Central Americans that the United States imports it will not be enough to change the fundamental demographics – but it does change the fundamental culture. China and Japan are not even trying to import younger people in order to salvage their welfare states – unlike Europe and the United States, Asia appears simply willing to take the pain. Global monetary policy has created a debt trap in order that the shelf life of our fantasy narratives may be extended – a debt trap dependent on the Saudi’s to boot. The debt trap will eventually spark a liquidity crisis that will lead to a general economic crisis. As I said above, it is a strain of insanity that we have known before. When interest rates rise, as must inevitably happen someday, the fantasy narratives will come to an end for all but the most deluded.

Those of us who recognize this demographics-debt-monetary policy-Saudi situation is driving the change that will come, we have more interest in determining what comes next than arguing violently over what are ephemeral issues, excepting circumstances where the ephemeral issues will determine what comes next. In short – the more freedom and liberty then the more fluidly and adeptly we will be able to adapt to the coming change. This is why enhanced government control – such as socialism – will cause more pain as the changes occur. In fact, government control can only extend the pain. The last thing we will need is government trying to ‘fix this’ or make it ‘fair.’ That is an invitation to experience the next Lenin and Trotsky.

I began this article with a quote from Carson McCullers, “The most fatal thing a man can do is try to stand alone.” A coalescing is beginning to occur among those who acquiesce to the reality of the coming change. While it may sometimes appear that we stand alone, every day more and more people from across the political spectrums who have maintained that ability to recognize fictional narratives for what they are point out the reality to come.

Buckle up.

Unwarranted Despair

I do not know if I have ever in my life seen so much despair – unwarranted despair.

Why is that? I suspect it is because society has created a fantasy universe in which to dwell and many people have an impending sense that reality is about to intervene. Society has created a universe where the stock market only goes up and never down. Where – in the several thousands of years of interest rate history – global interest rates are at the lowest they have ever been and that will never change. A universe that has a single super power that cannot be challenged. A universe with endless economic growth, no matter how tepid that growth has become. A universe that has endless government benefits to address every conceivable personal issue. This fantasy stands in contradiction to everything we know about history, economics, math, culture and human beings.

Those who dwell in the land of reality are not the people that are despairing – they are preparing and holding on to what is permanent. The fantasy – and the despair – is predicated on retaining the ephemeral.

The fantasy is dependent on a universe where the endless debt that must be acquired in order to fund all of the above must never be paid back or defaulted on.

Where as Americans have historically been known for our courage we have now become dreadfully afraid of reality. Americans are afraid of a stock market that may go down instead of up. Americans are afraid of interest rates rising. Americans are afraid of other countries challenging our superpower status. Americans are afraid of economic decline instead of growth. Afraid that the gravy train of government benefits must come to a logical end. In a very real way Americans have become afraid of being human.

We have become horribly afraid of the reality that defines our being human.

We are afraid of what other people say. We are afraid of what other people do, even when it has not the slightest thing to do with ourselves. We refuse to trust anyone who does not agree with us on politics and culture and life. To paraphrase William F. Buckley, society is demanding diversity and then shocked and dismayed to find there are people out there armed with facts and data that might impugn the fantasy universe that the popular culture has created.

Underpinning all of this is debt. Personal debt. Corporate debt. Government debt. This entire culture that we have created is dependent on ever increasing debt. The national debt (that portion the government chooses to count) has risen $640 billion in the last eight weeks alone. The Federal debt is now increasing at $16 billion per business day. To quote David Stockman, “…a $5.7 trillion increase in the public debt in just six years since October 2011. That is, during a period which supposedly constitutes the third longest business expansion in US history.”

What do you think that looks like when times get tough?

Some more from Stockman: “That’s right. Way late in the business cycle—–between month #89 and month #101 of the expansion—-the debt is increasing at a rate just under $1 trillion annually. Yet there is virtually no one in the Imperial City or in the Wall Street casino who has even noticed.

Nor have they noticed that revenue collections continue to weaken—-even as a massive surge of spending for the four disasters since August—Texas, Florida, California (fires) and Puerto Rico—– crank up, along with the Donald’s sharply increased tempo of defense operations.

During the last four months (July through October), in fact, revenue collections came in at $918 billion. That represented just a 2.9% gain over the $892 billion collected in the same prior year period, and barely 1% in real terms after factoring in CPI inflation during the interim.”

The debt is that reality that will intervene – and not just government debt. The stock markets reached a new high this month in leverage, i.e. debt, just as a new high in leverage in the markets has been reached each month for many months now. The house that I paid $150,000 for less than seven years ago is now worth in the neighborhood of $400,000. Parking lots are full of new cars. Yet in September of this year the inflation-adjusted household income finally regained the level it was at in September of 2008.

What has propelled prices upward so dramatically if the average household has just regained the income level that it first attained nine years ago?

It is the historically unprecedented levels of debt that has propelled prices.

To quote Lance Roberts, “Since 2014 the economy has only grown by a little less than 9%, top-line revenues by just 3% along with corporate profits after tax, and reported earnings by just 2%. All of that while asset prices have grown by 29% through Q2.”

The zeitgeist is that the fantasy will never have to end – and those who despair at reality intervening also then comfort themselves by proclaiming that if it does end then it is all Trump’s fault.

Yes, it is that absurd. No wonder they despair.

A few random reasons I’m pleased Donald Trump won on November 8, 2016.

Let us count some ways…
Ambassador Nikki Haley speaks bold truth to the shameful and corrupt United Nations. They aren’t used to that.
Secretary James Mattis and US forces have refocused military priorities on effectively defending America and fighting its enemies. The conflict with ISIS has turned in a big way.
Secretary Rex Tillerson is not trotting the globe trying to surrender American interests to dictators and global terror leaders.
Secretary Scott Pruitt is working hard to bring reason and law to the pursuits of the out-of-control, lawless bureaucrats of the EPA.
Secretary Betsy DeVos is working to restore due process to accused students in universities, and working to retract micromanaging regulations in K-12 education.
Donald Trump withdrew America’s submission to the Paris Accord, forced unilaterally by Obama and Kerry.
Donald Trump is moving to withdraw Obama’s illegal subsidies to insurance companies to make Obamacare appear to work.
Donald Trump withdrew America’s participation in the globalist Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Donald Trump withdrew Obama’s unilateral bans on drilling in Gulf waters and in the Arctic.
Donald Trump refused to lie to certify that Iran is complying with the nuclear deal.
Secretary Rick Perry is working to allow energy production, not to choke it.
Trump and Pruitt withdrew Obama’s so-called clean power plan, a sweeping takeover of the electric grid and an assault on coal energy.
Donald Trump talks about enterprise, business, and profit like they are good for America, not like they are suspect, selfish pursuits that deserve scrutiny and a tight leash.

“Trickle Down Economics”–It’s the New “Racism”

Apparently, in advance of Congress tackling tax reform, the 80s called and offered Democrats their class warfare vocabulary for the debate. “Trickle down economics” is the new go-to sneer, more valuable even than “racist.”
Lower, flatter tax rates are just trickle down economics, sniffs Salon. Tax cuts are about nothing but trickle down, huffs PBS. Esquire, for variety, accuses Republicans of voodoo economics, and reserves “trickle down” for the search tags. The American Prospect intones that reducing U.S. corporate tax rates (among the highest in the world) just perpetuates the trickle-down myth.
Tax reform is a sticky wicket, with near infinite details to facilitate the mud wrestling of interests, industries, and politicians. But, the tired smear “trickle down economics” has always been an incoherent mess. What does it mean? That if we don’t tax the rich snotless, maybe they’ll pour some spare pennies down on the heads of the poor? Nonsense. Beyond achieving a miserly-sounding sneer, the pairing is exactly wrong in at least three different ways.
First, in the ordinary course of things, the wealthy don’t actually trickle anything down on anyone. They pay for things they need and want, with whatever effects that produces in the economy. They don’t trickle their wealth generously, they spend it selfishly. Meanwhile, people and companies make money providing goods and services. That’s how the economy works. The real trickle-down is what progressives seem to prefer–a system to wring the rich like a wet towel and politically drizzle the money on the poor—what’s left anyway after government waters its favored causes and cronies.
That’s the approach of the shake-down state economies of the Euro-moribund zone and of the great Peron-Castro-Chavez banana tradition of strongmen. They gain power, neutralize competing power centers–like checks and balances and media—and seize economic control, thus chocando the fortunes and freedom of formerly rising Latin powers. (“Chocar” doesn’t mean “to choke” but close enough).
That turns out to be the real “trickle down”: extract lots of money from the rich, feed it through the digestive tract of government and its many corrupt parasites, then dribble what’s left on the heads of the grateful, dependent poor, thus securing their suicidal votes. Come to think, “trickle down economics” also reasonably describes the redistributive obsession and promises President Obama powerfully and empirically debunked in an exhaustive 8-year field study. Bravo, Mr. Ex-President!
Second, what liberals call “trickle down” is just good ole’ “supply side” or “free market” economics. It means human freedom in commercial activity. Get out of the way of people’s pursuit of happiness and gainful labor, so free exchange and economic growth can build prosperity. Investors, entrepreneurs, managers, and workers build enterprises that hire employees to market goods and services. Opportunity spreads out from there.
Third, interestingly, if any vertical-spatial metaphor makes sense here, it’s not “down,” but “up.” “Trickle up economics” describes free enterprise far better than “trickle down.” The way to build wealth in a free economy is to satisfy the market, meaning consumers. That is, to get rich you have to offer goods or services for which A) people are willing to pay you; B) a price higher than your cost of providing; and C) in sufficient quantity that profits proliferate. And your offer has to be more attractive than your competitors’.
If people get wealthy in a free economy, it’s because the wealth trickles up as a result of others’ free choices pursuing their own benefit. All the related suppliers, employees, contractors and others also gain from the same flowing currents of wealth generation. Apart from charitable giving–a different subject–the rich don’t pour or trickle anything down on less fortunate heads; rather the middle and working classes earn income in the streams that trickle up toward profit.
Ever since this silly insult first trickled harmlessly off Ronald Reagan’s Teflon, its logic has been amiss. But when you hear it, be charitable. The speaker probably suffers from a public education and is innocent of any exposure to economics.

Our Love Of False Narratives

As the country spins farther and farther into division, truth becomes more and more of a punching bag.

One might reasonably believe that truth would unite us to some degree – even if we disagreed on what to do about it. Yet the fictional narratives in service of ideologies and scams are never ending. It does not matter if it is the government, politicians, Hollywood, the media or your neighbor – spinning fictional narratives in order to gain personal advantage has become the cultural norm. Americans attempt to hide their absurdity in numbers – “the more people I can get to believe my narrative the less absurd it becomes” is the general line of thinking. Check in on Bernie Sanders as the classic example of that line of thinking.

It does not matter how many people believe your narrative – it is still absurd if it contains only selective truth used to bolster the overall falsehood.

Camille Paglia recently remarked, ““What has happened is these young people now getting to college have no sense of history – of any kind! No sense of history. No world geography. No sense of the violence and the barbarities of history. So, they think that the whole world has always been like this, a kind of nice, comfortable world where you can go to the store and get orange juice and milk, and you can turn on the water and the hot water comes out. They have no sense whatever of the destruction, of the great civilizations that rose and fell, and so on – and how arrogant people get when they’re in a comfortable civilization. They now have been taught to look around them to see defects in America – which is the freest country in the history of the world – and to feel that somehow America is the source of all evil in the universe, and it’s because they’ve never been exposed to the actual evil of the history of humanity. They know nothing!”

How true – but in the absence of actual knowledge the false narratives abound. None of the false narratives are as damaging as the complete lack of knowledge as to how we arrived at our current economic dilemma, which I explained here.

Ray Dalio shared a very important post on his Linked-In page this weekend, “Our Biggest Economic, Social, and Political Issue The Two Economies: The Top 40% and the Bottom 60%.”

The post is worth your time.

Dalio remarked, “To understand what’s going on in “the economy,” it is a serious mistake to look at average statistics. This is because the wealth and income skews are so great that average statistics no longer reflect the conditions of the average man. For example, as shown in the chart below, the wealth of the top one-tenth of 1% of the population is about equal to that of the bottom 90% of the population, which is the same sort of wealth gap that existed during the 1935-40 period….

There has been no growth in earned income, and income and wealth gaps have grown and are enormous. Since 1980, median household real incomes have been about flat, and the average household in the top 40% earns four times more than the average household in the bottom 60%. While they’ve experienced some growth recently, real incomes have been flat to down slightly for the average household in the bottom 60% since 1980 (while they have been up for the top 40%). Those in the top 40% now have on average 10 times as much wealth as those in the bottom 60%. That is up from six times as much in 1980.”

I have often remarked that on the apples to apples comparison, i.e. white men, real-wages have been static since 1968. Note: the reason why white men are the apples to apples comparison is because other races and women were to varying degree shut out of portions of the economy at that time. Dalio remarks that “Since 1980, median household real incomes have been about flat” – which is including the absorption of all races and women into the economy. Household real-income gains from 1968 to 1980 are mostly attributable to the cultural shift from one- to two-earner households that took place in that time frame.

In short – the income and wealth disparity is primarily due to the financialization of the economy, and the financialization of the economy is primarily due to the tremendous amount of debt and more specifically the policies put in place in order that the debt may continue to be serviced with out government at all levels having to make hard decisions that might lead to guillotines. These policies have distorted the markets in such a manner that those who can create credit or invest in credit gain immense wealth for nothing more than moving that credit about in the digital world. What is driving the tremendous, historically unprecedented debt and historically unprecedented policies in regard to the debt are never ending political promises for more comfort.

The progressive argument that the solution to this is more taxes is absurd – if you are giving people free money in unlimited amounts they do not care if you tax them at 20% or 40% or 60% – you are giving them free money by the trillions! This is the very definition of hitting an empty paper bag.

Why are the progressives so wedded to trillions of dollars in wealth transfers to the 1%? Because all of the social spending promises that they have made and yearn for are dependent on the never-ending increase of that debt and the never-ending increase of that debt is dependent on the policies that transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the 1%.

The fictional narrative the progressives have adopted is that this is a fiscal issue, not a monetary issue. The progressives have truly made a deal with the devil – never ending free money to the 1% in exchange for social spending. Everything the progressives claim they are against they actually enable – but the fictional narrative is that this is not so. The narrative is that it is anyone else’s fault but theirs.

The Trump people are not exempt from fictional narratives. They have created their own false narratives where monetary policy is not driving the overwhelming majority into poverty while enriching the top tier. One of the more interesting exclusions from the Dalio post is the effect of government debt and obligations on net wealth – so if you include your share of government debt then deduct another two million dollars or so from your net wealth. That the GOP congress and Trump appear perfectly willing to continue that game of selective statistics and expanding debt just feeds the false narrative.

Selective statistics in order to convince the public that things are going more swimmingly than they actually are is the one thing our government is genuinely good at. Take unemployment, where the current U3 number is 4.2%. The Clinton administration switched to the U3 measurement in order to exclude people who had historically been defined as ‘unemployed.’ During the Reagan administration for example, U6 was the measurement. If we still measured unemployment using U6 as we did during the Reagan years and a couple of decades before that the current unemployment rate would be 8.9%. Not exactly something to brag about – in fact U6 never dipped below 9% for the entire Obama administration. But wait – it gets worse! The Kennedy administration adopted U6 in order to exclude others from being counted as ‘unemployed’ for political gain – if we measured unemployment in the same manner as we did in the Eisenhower years the unemployment rate would be 22% at the moment – Great Depression level. No one gets re-elected with a 22% unemployment rate – so they repeatedly change how that number is measured in order that they may get re-elected and brag about how effective they are.

Still think the Obama years were great with an apples-to-apples unemployment rate of 22%? Well, to the point Dalio made – they were great years for those at the top.

This government data manipulation goes on and on and on – if we measured inflation today by the same method we measured it in 1990 the current inflation rate would be about 6%, not sub-2%. If we still measured GDP by the same method we measured it until 1993 then the United States has not had a single year of positive economic growth since 2004. No one gets re-elected on those numbers either – so the measurements have to be changed for the politicians to have a re-election narrative.

All of the data manipulation by the government is fodder for the endless false narratives – and at the end of the day the false narratives inevitably are simply story telling to explain why policy is not really reducing your net wealth and increasing your debt load while enriching the few. As a people we no longer have any comprehension of what happened, how we got here and how we get hoodwinked daily and is to Paglia’s point – “They have no sense whatever of the destruction, of the great civilizations that rose and fell, and so on – and how arrogant people get when they’re in a comfortable civilization.”

Even more to the point was Thomas Sowell – “When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.”

Our comfortable civilization is predicated on debt and wealth transfers to the 1% – we continue to demand the impossible and willingly accept the lies because they allow us to maintain our arrogance and comfort.

“We’re willing participants in our own demise” – Eric Peters

Future historians will speculate on how we collectively went insane.