Saturday, December 31, 2011

Voting For Our Perpetual Enslavement

Up until the second George W. Bush term, I took the "lesser of two evils" approach to voting. I registered, I stood in line, and I "exercised my freedom" to "do my part" to chose my new set of rulers for the next period of time.

A single trite statement at Vox Day's blog woke me up from this dialectical belief in voting I had been brainwashed with: voting for the lesser of two evil's is still voting for evil.

Since abandoning the voting booth, I've only become more steadfast in my belief that abstaining from voting is the only logical course of action under the two-party system. Now...if Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, and he actually makes it alive to the General election, I'll re-register, get in line and cast my vote for the man who represents literal good versus evil, freedom versus tyranny...or to put it more starkly - the first non-Federal Reserve/Council on Foreign Relations stooge to have a realistic shot at the Presidency in my lifetime.

Because unless you vote for someone who stands for obliterating the status quo and ending the Bankster Party's 98 year stranglehold on political power (they've run the show since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913), voting for any other candidate than one opposed to the Bankster party's agenda is simply assenting to our collective Slavery.

Gary North describes it plainly in his latest post:

Whenever any would-be borrower approaches a lender for a loan, he must be prepared to offer collateral, just in case he cannot repay the loan. If he defaults, the lender wants to be able to gain possession of the collateral, and obtain it quickly.

Every government that uses bond sales to maintain its level of expenditures must offer collateral. This collateral is its ability to extract sufficient revenue from those people under its jurisdiction so that it can make interest payments on the bonds.

As North titled his article: YOU ARE WASHINGTON'S COLLATERAL

Think comparing a typical American voting tax payer to slaves is a bit over the top hyperbole?

North makes an analogy that clearly shows that in fact calling voting taxpayers complicit in their own slavery a literal statement of fact:

In the South of 1850, a planter could buy slaves on credit. He pledged the future productivity of his slaves as collateral for the loan. He made sure that he extracted sufficient wealth from the slaves to pay off his loans. He lived well. They didn't.

Why did he borrow? In order to buy more slaves. He used leverage. He built his plantation with borrowed money and the heirs of kidnapped victims. It was good business.

The typical voter thinks of himself as a free man. After all, he has the right to vote. He does not think of himself as a slave. While trade union organizers – a truly hopeless career these days – still use the phrase "wage slave," it never made any sense, either legally or economically. A worker can legally walk away from his employer. A slave cannot.

What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes on money you earned with your own labor? Our slave masters will show up with guns in your face and convert you from a productive slave into another make-work project for the Industrial-Prison complex.

Washington has borrowed more heavily than any planter ever dared to or could do. Why so much debt? To get more leverage today. What is being leveraged? Promises. Voters trade votes for government promises. This system requires an ever-increasing supply of slaves in order to pay the interest on the debt. Problem: the rate of population growth is slowing. There will not be enough slaves to pay off the debt.

Voters have not thought through the implications of government debt. They do not perceive themselves as collateral for loans. But they are. This is the meaning of the phrase, "the full faith and credit of the United States government."

This is the reality behind the admonishment of those of us who see "democracy" for the illusory lie that it is. "The Right to Vote" is nothing more than a mass delusion of implied consent to the systemic enslavement of the people to the State.

If you vote, and you base your vote on the idea that the politician you are voting for has suggested some policy or platform that involves using tax dollars to achieve it, you are complicit in your own slavery.

Often times, when I write a post like this, I often get negative feedback from commenters that I'm condescending or coming across as thinking myself superior to the average citizen. The phrase "sheeple" seems to offend many.

My fellow tax slaves, I'm no better off than you. When I say WE THE SHEEPLE, I am including myself in that statement.

I'm every bit the slave you are.

The only difference is, I've decided I will no longer go along with it as much as possible. I will resist wherever and whenever I can.

As long as we have a Central Banking Cartel system based on fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, and a government that finances it's operations by borrowing from that cartel using WE THE SHEEPLE's future labor earnings extracted by force as it's collateral, a vote for any politician who is NOT seeking to end the Federal Reserve Banking system and the Government borrowing endlessly from it, is a vote assenting to your own slavery.

I am a slave like anyone else in today's Brave New World Order. I do not vote, because I do not wish to be complicit in my own slavery.

In the 2012 election, Ron Paul is the only vote that would be a vote against our collective enslavement.

I'd like to wish all my readers a happy new year. I can't believe I've been doing this blogging thing for 5 years now. Thanks to all for your reading, and thanks to all for your commenting.

Hau'oli Makahiki Hou

Saturday, December 24, 2011


Merry Christmas

The Sun Rises in the East

I started writing this comment, than realized it reached post-worthy length, so here it appears, rather than where it was originally composed.

I like Susan Walsh and her blog, Hooking Up Smart.

Interesting blog, interesting perspective, unique comment section.

That being said...after reading this entire thread and it's comments, Dalrock's take on this entire conflict looks accurate to me:

Susan appears to have taken my repeated efforts to keep any disagreement from becoming personal as a sign of weakness. Instead of debate the issue, she scolded me like a dog which just soiled the carpet. She has never yet either defended her claim or withdrawn it. In place of debate, she kicks up dust and makes accusations. She wanted to make it personal; she outright insisted. So be it.

Logic has cornered Feminine emoting.

Is Frivolous Divorce Overstated in the Manosphere?

Not just no, but HELL NO.

In the face of indisputable logic, dissembling is the female's primary defense.

This is what Susan is doing here.

Saying so does not mean I am "piling on" or "attacking" her (please note the first line of this post).

I'm just pointing to the rising sun and saying - "The Sun rises in the East."

When a woman engages her emotions because she feels attacked, this is what she defaults to. I've been married for 14 years and counting now, and believe you me, I understand this perfectly.

It's a very hard earned wisdom to learn to recognize this dynamic in action between your wife and yourself. Ignorance of this nearly lead to a frivolous divorce of my own on several occasions.

All women do this when they FEEL attacked...and it's obvious that Susan feels attacked here.

Dalrock has consistently reminded her (and everyone else) that he's endeavored to keep the debate impersonal and respectful, and focused solely on the conflicting ideas:

@Susan Walsh

I’m no victim, just a realist. Dalrock has had me in front of the firing squad several times before, lol.

This only makes sense if your definition of “firing squad” is “challenged me to back up my statements in a non personal way”. I’ve gone out of my way to frame any disagreements we have as not personal, and have repeatedly asked my readers to offer you the same courtesy. I only wish you had responded in kind. This is a sphere of intellectual debate, sometimes involving strong intellectual disagreement.

That you can’t separate this from the personal suggests to me that you aren’t cut out for what you are doing. You have a worldwide platform, are mentioned in the national media, and I’m sure have thousands of hits a day on your site. Yet you want to be allowed to say whatever you want as “your own truth”, and anyone who challenges this (even while taking pains to make it non personal) is a mean man who hurt your feelings.

IMO, Susan has failed to refute Dalrock's logic and he has accurately called her out on her dissembling.

All that being said, I'm not commenting here to declare a winner.

(I still like Susan, her blog and I still endorse that others continue to read her.)

Rather, I'd like to make an observation:

This entire debate is similar to an argument between a husband and wife, in which the husband is arguing with logic and the wife is arguing with emotion.

Logic vs. Emotion = masculine frame vs. feminine frame

The thread is an excellent example of Dalrock demonstrating "married man game" in this debate.

Of course, for a happily married father in a post-feminist world, he makes it look effortless.

It's much harder for a husband who is not aware of the subtext of his logic-based argument vs. her emotion-based response frame of interaction with his wife, and mistakenly thinks that they are both discussing a point of logic.

Husbands don't like to see their wives upset or angry. When we don't know any better (take the blue pill), we seek to appease and end the emotional onslaught, even when we know we are logically correct.

This is precisely how the AMC (Average Married Chump) often finds himself "winning" an argument, but still losing it in the long run. That's because he acceded to her frame instead of reaffirming his own.

You proved your point, you were 100% correct...yet you're still sleeping on the couch.

See the similarities with this current debate?

Because Susan is generally well regarded in the manosphere (note regular manosphere commenter Clarence's vigorous defense; note once again the first thing I wrote in this comment,) and has had good will and a history of positive interactions with Dalrock and many other manosphere bloggers, Dalrock could have relented his frame and offered Susan an easy out here and not held her feet to the fire of his logic in an effort to soothe this all over.

"Can't we all just get along?"

This is the temptation husbands face with upset wives.

Take note men. When you are right, and you know it...act like it, no matter how upset she appears to get, no matter how much of a soft spot you may have for her. That is the only way you both "win" an argument.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Blue Collar Blues

As I mentioned previously, I've been working the blue collar trades again to make ends meet. Been meeting a whole bunch of new guys I work with, and like most men who labor together for hours, we start to share our life stories.

I literally work with an entire crew of men who are all forced to work under-the-table just to survive, because working above board and on the books would result in garnishment of their wages by the State of Hawaii child support enforcement bureaucracy.

These are guys in their mid-40's with ex-wives getting 60% of their unemployment checks garnished...and unemployment checks are only a fraction of what these guys used to make before joining the swelling ranks of laid off workers in our Great Depression 2.0.

One guy's story is especially maddening.

He came home one day because a job had gotten rained out, only to find the mother of his two children getting her ass nailed to the bed by their neighbor. He went nuts punching holes in the wall and breaking things (but never touched her) while the neighbor ran out of the house. The cops got called and he ended up getting arrested for domestic violence.

She ended up with the house and a child support settlement.

He drives an old beat up pickup truck, she drives a lexus.

He lives in a small apartment, she a three bedroom house in an upper middle class property in suburbia, and her never employed loser boyfriend lives with her and the two kids.

She hasn't had any kind of job in 20 years. He's essentially paying her to live a comfortable life for her and her live-in surf bum fuckbuddy.

She gets 60% of his unemployment check, forcing him to find under-the-table work just to pay his own rent, food and transportation bills.

She regularly denies him visitation. He's filed more petitions than he can count to force her to allow him time with the kids he's supposed to have under their court adjudicated divorce settlement. They never enforce her violations of his visitation rights. The only thing he ever gets told is to file another petition. He finally gave up in frustration.

His son is now in his late teens...and he, like so many other boys raised in the typical broken home of our brave new world order, has gone off the rails and gotten involved in petty crimes, drugs and is now in rehab.

And now the ex-wife is telling him that once the boy turns 18, she thinks it would be better for the boy to come live with him in his one bedroom apartment.

While he is like most guys, a blue pill dude all the way, he fully comprehended the injustice of it all. He noted that of course, as soon as the son was no longer going to bring her child support revenue, only then does she now want their son to spend quality time with him.

In my new-coworker's words "Unreal, yeah? I'm basically a slave to her! I'm barely making ends meet, and she's buying jewelry and a new car ever few years...all paid for with my sweat and hard work!"

That's when I quipped "Now you know the truth. They call it No-fault divorce, but they treat it like it's "his-fault."

He laughed when I said that. He said he could only laugh now, because he'd spent so many hours just driving around the island while crying.

I assured him that I indeed knew very well precisely what he was talking about. His story is all too common nowadays. But he is finally hopeful. Despite realizing his ex is playing the system to the hilt, he's still happy to finally have a chance to get to know his son again and try and help him regain a shot at a productive, non-criminal life. And his daughter is only 13, so he's only got 5 more years left of his unjust peonage to his cheating whore and parasite of an ex-wife.

The real travesty of it all is just how common this whole system is. The family court system is a vampire, sucking the life blood of civilized society, one broken family at a time. This is unsustainable in the long run. I've seen this story so many times now in friends, family and acquaintances. Most people never grok the big picture of it all, because they are so consumed with the personal details of their own personal tragedies the system mires them in.

My co-worker told me "the system is broken."

I disagreed. The system is doing precisely what it was designed to do. He asked me what I meant.

Time to hand out a red pill.

I told him that the Federal Government literally matches the funds for every dollar taken from his check in child support. He knew that...he just never considered the implications of it. I said "Think about it...the Federal Government is literally paying the State of Hawaii to break up families like yours. It's an industry unto itself. It's official government policy to break up families. All those social workers and courts...they make their entire living doing what they did to you, to men all over the country."

He was speechless for quite awhile, working while thinking about our conversation intently.

Despite becoming a commonplace experience, most people fail to realize the larger truth that the broken family subsidized by the garnished wages of the working man is the Government preferred family model of our Brave New World Order.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Quiplinks V: Anti-Christ 2012 Edition

Down-low brother getting the lowdown on the down-low, 666 style. - Tex Arcane

There are actually only two distinct candidates in the 2012 election. There is Ron Paul, who represents the U.S. Constitution, and there is Newt Romney O'Bama, who represents the Bank Party. - Vox Day

I’m happy to announce that I’ve declared jihad on fat American women. - Roosh

There is no way the Prophet could have predicted, with all his infinite wisdom, that one day a single woman would have the girth of two. - Muhammed V

By raising women’s status and emphasizing “equality,” feminism has performed the psychological equivalent of a clitoridectomy on our society’s women. - Welmer

The female strategy has always been to nag and manipulate until men stop doing what men want to do and start doing what women want them to do. - Jack Donovan

The military is really looking for stupid individuals who haven’t figured out what Empire wants from them so they’ve taken the example of video games and turned their recruiting into, “Join, it’ll be just like a video game!” - Simon Rierdon

Off the clock, who cares how you spend your time? My life away from work is my own. Only the slave concerns himself with the value of his non-earning activities. - An Unmarried Man

How can so many people not notice what is going on? - Alte

In other words, Jesus ain’t the reason for our present tumultuous and discordant season. - Ulysses

Most ‘professional’ women are forced into an uncomfortable choice in life. - Rollo Tomassi

The only way game works is if it takes a realistic appraisal of human nature. - Roissy

Roissy was the voice that clarified a unified theory of these three separate fields: Seduction, Sociobiology, and Conservatism. - Frost

One way to look at the history of feminism is consider it as men and women working to remove women’s fears. - Dalrock

For those waiting for my endorsement (and I know you are) it is, of course, Ron Paul. - Default User

There’s no point in trying to band-aid the bullet holes on this country gasping for its last few breaths of greatness. - Terry

People are funny creatures. They don’t care about real things nearly as much as they care about imaginary things. - Delusion Damage

And remember everybody - violence against women must be stopped...violence against men - like a man being drugged, tortured, abused and sexually mutilated - gets good ratings. - Scarecrow

Get ready for some amazing parenting advice from a dude who doesn’t actually have kids! - Bronan

Men should remember that when a woman’s reaction to something is out of all proportion to the stimulus, there is something deeper that is troubling her. - 7man

In the matriarchy, breast cancer is not about breast cancer any more than rape is about rape. - Alcuin

What patriarchy built, hypergamy has tore down. - Peacemaker

Makes me wonder what the remaining 60% are smoking. - Johnny

As with health care, costs rise when the government distorts the market. - G.L. Piggy

We have set up a system which guarantees that everyone will have their heart broken at least once. Why the hell did we do that? - Cassandra Goldman

If you start running from the truth no matter how ugly, you’ll have to keep running and it’s very tiring in the long run… - Omnipotron

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Quit Being a Quitter

In my post advocating Newt Gingrich becoming the GOP Presidential Nominee, I stated that I quit voting. I haven't voted since 2004.

I just read latest post from Wes Messamore, the Humble Libertarian:

There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.

Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he's also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he's now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.

Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul's strength in Iowa and Barack Obama's in 2008- he's doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters:

-59% of likely voters participated in the 2008 Republican caucus and they support Gingrich 26-18. But among the 41% of likely voters who are 'new' for 2012 Paul leads Gingrich 25-17 with Romney at 16%. Paul is doing a good job of bringing out folks who haven't done this before.

-He's also very strong with young voters. Among likely caucus goers under 45 Paul is up 30-16 on Gingrich. With those over 45, Gingrich leads him 26-15 with Romney at 17%.

Looks like Mitt Romney has gone the way of Hillary Clinton, the establishment party pick in the 2008 Democratic Primaries:

Like the great, fallen front-runner of 2008, here is another well-funded, Establishment-blessed, presumptive nominee whose supposedly firm hold on his party’s greatest prize seems to be slip-sliding away.

There are differences to be sure, most centrally that Romney has yet to face a Barack Obama-like, central foe (though Newt Gingrich is now auditioning convincingly for that role) but instead has fought a series of rear-guard actions against a series of candidates-of-the-moment.

Right: Mitt Romney is going the way of Hillary Clinton. Wrong: Romney does face a central foe who will unseat him-- Ron Paul. The media-- including the article quoted above-- simply isn't reporting it. But it's happening.

If by some miracle Ron Paul does win the GOP nomination, I will quit quitting on voting. I'll get off my ass and re-register and go and vote. I'll even get my wife to re-register and vote for him too.


Monday, December 12, 2011

Comparing 1.0 to 2.0

Vox Day was at the forefront of the blogosphere and most of the mainstream Rockefeller Economists several years ago when he predicted the recession of 2007 would turn into the Great Depression 2.0. He even wrote a book entitled The Return of the Great Depression that came out in 2009, long before most other economists even began to have an inkling that the housing bust would lead to the return of the big D. Here we are, 2 years later, and the premiere Rockefeller Economist cheerleader and partisan hack, Paul Krugman, is finally getting around to admitting what Vox has been forecasting for years now.

I was in agreement with Vox back when he first began predicting this. I've been calling it "Great Depression 2.0" to my family, friends and acquaintances for a couple of years now. Many of them laughed when I first began using the phrase. Many no longer laugh when they hear me use it...and a few have begun using it themselves.

Yet many folks still remain oblivious. They don't understand what the huge fuss is. Things SEEM to be not too bad.

It got me thinking about the differences between Great Depression 1.0 and the current iteration:

- Unlike the 1.0 era, we now have a near majority of Americans who are Government employees. In Hawaii, the State Government is THE largest employer. While Government employees are supposedly paid their salaries and collectively bargained benefits with tax revenues raised from the private sector, we are now in a state for which Governments are simply borrowing astronomical sums of debt-based fiat currency to keep the illusion of running an already broken and unsustainable system going.

- During 1.0, the American society was a far different structure than it is today. The nuclear family was still the foundation of society. Men were by and large family men and dedicated providers. Women were housewives and mothers, and they supported their men as they struggled to find work to provide for their families. The lack of work led to mass migrations of families, with Heads of households looking for work to provide for their households. When there was no work to be found, they depended on charities (most of which were religious-driven) soup kitchens. Now, everyone is living off of extended unemployment benefits and the EBT food stamp system. No one need look for work, just wait for the government check in the mail.

- In our current era, we have an almost infinite supply of technologically driven distractions to keep the masses mollified. Some of the greatest entertainment spectacles available through mass media broadcasting offers mass distraction to every corner of the globe. During the decline of the Roman empire, citizens had to travel to the nearest arena to see the latest spectacle. Now, you just have to turn on a tv or computer or your "smart" phone.

- While Government debt financing has helped to keep the illusion of our unsustainable system going, the same holds true on a personal level. Many folks are living off of their credit cards and equity credit on their houses to keep up the urban and suburban lifestyle appearances of the 21st century.

Despite the many differences between then and now, I still think the end results are still going to be horrific and ghastly.

1.0 purportedly ended with World War 2. Millions of lives were ended, many cities, homes and societies were utterly devastated in the last great war.

We are now in approximately the 5th year of Depression 2.0. If History truly does repeat itself, we are only about halfway through this, and things are going to get much, much worse. The hard times are going to get a lot harder in the near future. When the welfare state ultimately collapses, mass starvation and civil unrest is assured.

I believe that there is no politician or political party that we can elect that is going to make a damn bit of difference. The system is what it is, and this economic disaster is the unavoidable results, regardless of who is in power - CFR Donkeys or CFR Elephants will continue to run the script that got us to this point, and is leading us to a predetermined outcome.

Something more spectacularly disastrous than WW2 is going to be the catalyst the ends the our Great Depression 2.0. Some sort of disaster which leads to permanent changes for society and the way we all live our lives - a New Order of the Ages.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

I want Gingrich as the GOP Candidate

Does this mean I plan on voting for him?

Hell no. I quit voting.

Got better things to do with my time than register and stand in line on election day to carry out a symbolic gesture that really amounts to nothing but reaffirming the status quo of our Brave New World Order and it's current trajectory.

Yes, I support Ron Paul and his "End the Fed" platform.

But I also believe we would be best served if Newt Gingrich were to become the GOP candidate to face Obama in '12.


If Ron Paul is exactly who he portrays himself as - a strict constitutionalist and avowed enemy of the federal reserve system - a legit electoral win by him will only end up with the good Dr. sharing the fates of JFK and Lincoln: those who control the fiat currency cartel system will never allow a substantial challenge to their monopoly on manufacturing debt-based money for their profit and our servitude.

I want Newt to be the candidate, because I believe his candidacy would wake up a hell of a lot more people to the reality that our "two-party" political system is nothing more than a charade designed to divide and conquer the masses. He's got plenty of baggage that would make many Social Conservatives stay home in disgust, or perhaps wake up to the truth of our so-called "two-party" system.

In either case, it really doesn't matter.

See, whether Obama or Gingrich "win" the presidency, their victory really represents the only true party in today's system: the Council on Foreign Relations party.

Now just exactly who are the primary founders of the CFR? Why, it appears to be the same folks who helped found the Federal Reserve system.

From John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s Wikipedia page:

"...crucially funded the formation and ongoing expenses of the Council on Foreign Relations and its initial headquarters building, in New York in 1921."

Imagine that.

From Newt Gingrich: Cashing In On His Political Connections

Every administration since Woodrow Wilson has staffed their major cabinet positions with members of the CFR, and Newt Gingrich has been right there since 1990 as one of their most articulate and distinguished members and spokespersons. He was already a member of the CFR for five-years before he became the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

We either vote for the CFR Donkey candidate or the CFR Elephant candidate. In either case, we end up with a CFR President and the CFR agenda continues as it always has.

Vote for change?

Not possible when your only available options all come from the same place.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Rockefeller Economics

Lew Rockwell columnist, Gary North, published a piece today that explains exactly how colleges, Universities and the mainstream media eventually anointed Keynesian economics theory as the only "legitimate" economics theory to be studied, discussed and implemented as official government policy. Everything else is considered fringe, or irrational supporters of an "already proven to have failed" Gold standard money system.

In short, the so called "conspiracy theory" is true.

In the exact same way the Rockefeller Foundation funded the feminist movement through Womynz Study Programs, and the funding of Albert Kinsey's research and report that mainstreamed and normalized sexual deviancy, as well as funding Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, so too did this entity buy out the study of economics.

Gary North points out how:

Higher education in the United States was transformed by Rockefeller money, beginning in 1902: the General Education Board. The GEB made grants to colleges only if they hired Ph.D-holding graduates of a handful of universities, which alone granted the Ph.D. This way, the universities could indirectly take over the rest of the colleges, which were mostly church-related. The strategy worked.

Rockefeller's academic empire included the University of Chicago, which he founded. From the turn of the 20th century, the University of Chicago's department of economics repudiated the use of gold in monetary affairs.

From 1902, the Rockefeller foundation used it's immense wealth to essentially buy higher education in this country. From that point on, it only took 11 years for the Rockefeller-bought PhD economists to promote a paradigm that eventually led to the creation of the Central Banking Cartel, the Federal Reserve.

This is why, as North points out:

There has never been a college textbook in economics that called the FED a government-created cartel that exists for the sake of the largest banks. This outlook shapes the thinking of the students who get certified to teach. They are literally unable intellectually to apply the economic theory in the chapter on cartels to the Federal Reserve System, despite the fact that the theory in the cartel chapter fits seamlessly onto the facts of the FED. Support of central banking is basic to the entire curriculum in modern economics.

The Rockefeller Foundation did more than use grant funding in the early 20th century to influence the entire study of economics. The Federal Reserve Cartel itself has continued the practice as well. North explains:

For decades, the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors (government) and its 12 regional banks (privately owned) have spent tens of millions of dollars (created out of nothing) handing research jobs to academic economists. The FED has literally bought off the profession. This story was concealed for years by the FED and its bought-off defenders, but it has recently surfaced.

North then links to the following Huffington Post article, Priceless: How The Federal Reserve Bought The Economics

The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession, an investigation by the Huffington Post has found.

This dominance helps explain how, even after the Fed failed to foresee the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, the central bank has largely escaped criticism from academic economists. In the Fed's thrall, the economists missed it, too.

"The Fed has a lock on the economics world," says Joshua Rosner, a Wall Street analyst who correctly called the meltdown. "There is no room for other views, which I guess is why economists got it so wrong."

Of course, it must be pointed out here that the Rockefeller's were instrumental in the creation of the Federal Reserve...not just by buying out the economics academic establishment, but also through "supporting" politicians who pushed through the Federal Reserve Act in the first place. This connection is noted at Wikipedia (for which I will not link to, but only point out here that Wiki does represent the so-called mainstream, politically correct source of info, and they too note the Rockefeller/Fed connection). This connection is not just in the minds of what useful idiots and misinformation disseminater's would claim is nothing more than the fevered imagination of "conspiracy theorists." The key politician behind the Federal Reserve Act was Senator Nelson Aldrich, John D. Rockefeller's son-in-law. From the Wiki article on the Federal Reserve:

In early November 1910, Aldrich met with five well known members of the New York banking community to devise a central banking bill. Paul Warburg, an attendee of the meeting and long time advocate of central banking in the U.S., later wrote that Aldrich was "bewildered at all that he had absorbed abroad and he was faced with the difficult task of writing a highly technical bill while being harassed by the daily grind of his parliamentary duties".[25] After ten days of deliberation, the bill, which would later be referred to as the "Aldrich Plan", was agreed upon. It had several key components, including a central bank with a Washington-based headquarters and fifteen branches located throughout the U.S. in geographically strategic locations, and a uniform elastic currency based on gold and commercial paper. Aldrich believed a central banking system with no political involvement was best, but was convinced by Warburg that a plan with no public control was not politically feasible.[25] The compromise involved representation of the public sector on the Board of Directors.[26]

Aldrich's bill met much opposition from politicians. Critics were suspicious of a central bank, and charged Aldrich of being biased due to his close ties to wealthy bankers such as J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Aldrich's son-in-law.

The Federal Reserve is not just a banking cartel with the exclusive rights to create money out of nothing - fiat currency - it has also established a cartel in economics research and study in both higher education and in the media. This is how they control the narrative to maintain their hold on the ability to enslave We the Sheeple with the modern day system of Bankster-run Serfdom.

As Ron Paul continues to gain momentum with his End the Fed campaign, he's not just taking on the Federal Reserve system, he's taking on the entire establishment of academic and mainstream media economists and think establishment that should rightly be identified as Rockefeller Economics.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Fasted Exertion

A Successful Hawaiian Hog Hunt

Ferdinand just reviewed Frost's book, Freedom Twenty-Five: The 21st Century Man’s Guide to Life over at In Mala Fide. I'll have my own review as soon as I get the time to sit down and read the whole thing and render my own assessment of Frost's work. That being said, I found a quote Ferdinand cited interesting, since it's something I've been experimenting with lately - intermittent fasting.

As Frost wrote:

I eat 1-2 meals per day, and I’m almost never hungry. The conventional wisdom states that you should eat five meals a day, which is true if you’re eating a typical American diet and need to constantly snack to maintain your blood sugar. On a high-fat Paleo diet, your body gets used to using dietary and stored fats as its primary energy source, meaning you can go long periods without feeling tired, “hangry” (hungry + angry) or like your stomach is eating itself.

I now frequently go 18 hours without a meal, and by the 17th hour, I feel a vague sense of “Oh yeah, food would be nice right now, wouldn’t it?” But I could just as easily work out, play a game of hockey, or take a nap.

I've been on both ends of this. When I was overweight and following the conventional wisdom that preached avoiding red meat, saturated fat and eating as vegetarian as possible, I was eating 5-6 times a day, and I had wildly fluctuating energy levels, a continually expanding waistline, and late afternoon energy crashes, and a feeling of being befuddled and groggy that required a 30 minute nap just to try and function normally.

Before the weight loss, it was the steady energy levels and no longer having to take a daily nap that was the first major change I noticed once I gave up the SAD and began eating primal. The weight loss took a few months to notice.

But for the first several years, I basically would call my diet "low carb" rather than paleo. I cut out all carbs except for cruciferous veggies. No potatoes. No rice. I still ate 3 meals a day. When I went hiking or hunting, I'd make sure to carry a bunch of snack food (paleo-type stuff, of course - jerky, nuts, cheese, meats etc.).

Upon encountering the practice of Intermittent Fasting in the paleosphere, I didn't really pay much attention to it at first. I basically skipped over any post I came across regarding the topic. After all, I had stabilized my energy levels, lost a bunch of weight and never felt better, why should I fast?

But the longer I stuck to eating primal, the less I felt like eating 3 square meals. Without consciously doing it at first, I began to skip my lunch and start only eating breakfast and dinner. Being a (former) cubicle jockey in business to business sales, I used to pack a daily lunch to eat at my desk.

After several days of not eating my lunches, I started paying attention to the intermittent fasting blogging from the various paleosphere luminaries like Mark Sisson, Richard Nikoley, et al.

But it was J. Stanton's seminal post, Eat Like A Predator, Not Like Prey that finally gave clarity to the theory behind IF for me.

Most importantly, now that you’re no longer eating huge plates of sugar (‘carbohydrates’) and greasy seed oils, you’ll find that big, hearty meals don’t make you fall asleep. You’ll also find that it’s much easier to go without food now that your body is re-accustomed to burning fat.

Aha! This must be why I no longer had an appetite for lunch, given my daily breakfast of bacon, eggs, sausage, mushrooms etc. (fried in butter of course). I had now primarily become reliant on burning fat instead of carbs for my energy, and no longer needed to eat 3 square meals to keep my energy levels steady.

So I settled into a 2 meals a day routine for the past year. Than around August, Stanton posted another piece in which he wrote about hiking Mt. Whitney in a single day completely fasted.

Prior to this post, I had the idea that fasting while working at a desk all day was one thing...but taking on a rigorous physical activity while fasting?

So I thought I'd give it a try.

The next time I went hunting, I didn't eat my normal breakfast, and I didn't pack food.

The hunt lasted for about 8 hours, we caught a pig, and I had to pack it out with my partner...for the most part, carrying it uphill on our backs. Very intense exertion...with the only food in my belly coming from dinner the night before. When I was done, I was hungry, but not to the point of that shaky, sick feeling one gets when you are on the blood sugar roller coaster of a high-carb, SAD.

My experiences jibed with what Stanton related. So I weighed in with my own anecdotal commentary at his site to let him know I appreciated how his insight helped me gain my own:

I laugh at my younger self…when my boar hunting was defined solely as nothing more than a recreational pursuit to engage in with my friends. I did not understand what I was really experiencing by participating in the most primal act of being alive. The experience of fulfilling the naturally ordained role of the human as an omnivorous predator.

I used to pack my bag full of chips, nuts, candy, crackers, granola, energy bars, and gatorade, and have to continually snack while hunting Hawaii’s mountainous rain forests to keep my energy levels up to deal with the rigors of hunting boar with a pack of dogs in rugged terrain.

Now I hunt with only water in my pack. Like other predator species, I hunt hungry. To think an idea so simple — that a primal diet is optimal to engage in the most primal of pursuits — eluded me all those years as a young hunter. My former ignorance speaks to the level of propaganda and misinformation in our culture and its influence regarding our self-awareness of being a predator species.

I was acting like a hunter, but still eating like prey.

We live in a world socially engineered to indoctrinate the masses to make them ignorant of our species’ ecological niche as an omnivorous predator in the cycle of life.

Instead, we are inculcated into a mindset of being cattle in the great domesticated herds of “civilization.”

While hunting taught me the skills and knowledge to kill, clean and butcher prey, I did not embrace the logical conclusion of the hunt. I was squeamish about eating game when I had been raised on a lifetime of factory-farmed, manufactured feed products. I would only cut the most desired cut of meat from the pigs we caught (the tenderloin) and feed the rest to the dogs (they still get there share as their reward for catching it…but I take way more portions for my own family’s use now), and throw the offal and bones away. I used to use heavily flavored and sweetened sauces to try and mask the game flavor of the meat.

I was a squeamish hunter that did not truly relish the fruits of labor from the hunt.

Now, I harvest the liver and heart. I boil the bones to make stock. My only seasoning on the cuts of meat I harvest, is salt and pepper.

I relish the life sustaining harvest of the land.

As an omnivorous species, we all have a choice to make: eat like a predator, or eat like prey.

Now I prefer to eat my 2 meals a day - breakfast and dinner, but the point is, I don't feel like I have to. I'll frequently do things like yard work or repair projects first thing in the morning, hours before eating the first meal of the day.

As Frost pointed out, going paleo actually freed him up from constantly thinking about, planning and preparing numerous meals.

Predator species hunt, kill and gorge. It may be many hours or even days before they have another successful kill. If they required food to fuel them up for every single instance of physical exertion, most predator species would die of starvation, as one failed hunt would quickly lead to the lack of energy to successfully try to hunt again later.

Is "paleo" a "fad diet" as many detractors continually say? Last I checked, a "fad" diet CAN'T be adhered to for 5 years and counting like I've experienced.

A fad diet is typically nothing more than changing the type of foods you graze on or how often you graze. You may temporarily lose weight, but as long as you do not eat in accordance with your physiological design, you will always experience health problems.

Similar to the cows put into feedlots that require massive doses of antibiotics so that they do not sicken and die while being fattened on feed they were not designed to eat...eating foods you were not evolved or designed to is a recipe for ill health, and premature death.

Eat like a predator and find out for yourself.

Happy hunting.