Category Archives: Philosophy

Fools’ Gold, by Robert Gore

When the slaves revolt, they will seek the blood of their masters.

In 2013, a century after the establishment of the Federal Reserve, I published The Golden Pinnacle. The novel’s hero is Daniel Durand, a Wall Street banker. Chapter 27, “Fools’ Gold,” features Daniel’s testimony in 1913 before a House of Representatives subcommittee against legislation under consideration that would establish the Federal Reserve. Eleanor is Daniel’s wife and Tom and Alexander are two of his four sons. As the current banking crisis unfolds, I won’t have much to say that will add in any meaningful way to what I said in “Fools’ Gold”. Why repeat myself? Perhaps I’ll just keep linking back to this post. Please share in whole or in part with attribution and a link back to this post.

From “Fools’ Gold”

Daniel sat at a table in a committee hearing room of the House of Representatives. The drafts crisscrossing the room carried the winter cold of February. There were few spectators in the gallery. Daniel glanced at Eleanor, who sat with Tom and Alexander, but she was staring in a different direction. Although she had wished him well, she had seemed preoccupied when they met briefly in the hall outside the hearing room.

Members of the subcommittee of the House Committee on Banking and Currency strolled to their seats, signs denoting the representative, at an elevated, semicircular panel at the front of the room. They chatted with each other. Nine representatives sat down. The chair for Representative Bulkley of Ohio remained empty. The chairman of the subcommittee, Representative Carter Glass, from Virginia, banged his gavel.

“The hearing in consideration of House Bill 7837, for the establishment of a federal reserve bank and the furnishing of an elastic currency, shall now come to order. The subcommittee will hear the testimony of Mr. Daniel Durand, from the firm of Durand & Woodbury, of New York.” Chairman Glass’s accent had an unmistakable Virginia lilt that reminded Daniel of Aldus Kincaid, his attorney for the court of inquiry. A dapper gentleman in his mid-fifties, Glass had prominent ears and a nose that filled a larger proportion of his face than the average nose filled of the average face.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee,” Daniel said. “This legislation is still in its early stages and the details of the reserve system are the subjects of dispute. However, before everyone is enmeshed in them, it’s time to consider not just the purported benefits but also the real dangers of central banking and government-created money, or an elastic currency, if you will, and to ask if this supposed innovation is in the best interests of our country.” He glanced at his notes.

“A persistent misnomer is the term ‘bank deposit,’ which is not a deposit at all. If I take an item to a warehouse and pay a fee to deposit it for safekeeping, when I exercise my contractual rights and claim it, the owner of the warehouse must give it back to me. The owner can’t lend it out, use it to secure a loan, or give it to another depositor to satisfy his claim. On the other hand, when I put my money in a bank, the banker can lend or invest it, use those loans and investments as collateral to borrow money, or use my funds to pay creditors or other depositors. I haven’t deposited my money in the same sense that I deposited the item at the warehouse.

“My deposit is actually a loan and I’m an unsecured creditor of the bank. Much of the instability of the present system stems from a fiction. The respectable bank is housed in a neoclassical fortress and prominently displays a sturdy vault, to convince the depositor his money is safe. In fact, almost all his money leaves the bank in search of a return higher than the interest the bank pays him. Only a small portion is held in reserve to meet depositor withdrawals, although all depositors are told they can withdraw their money on demand.

“The bank has made a promise that it can’t always keep. Business and financial cycles are as immutable as human nature. When famine follows feast and fear replaces greed, the demand for money inevitably increases. The banker faces his worst nightmare—a run on the bank. Banks with sufficient reserves or borrowing power survive. Those without them go bankrupt.”

Daniel looked up at the representatives. Only a couple appeared interested.

Continue reading

The Wisdom of Bruce Lee, by Paul Rosenberg

The karate master and movie star was a storehouse of wisdom. From Paul Rosenberg at freemansperspective.com:

People remember Bruce Lee as a fighter or as a movie star. But as it happens, he was also a thoughtful man. Bruce had his gaps and flaws, of course, but he also left behind a lot of useful thoughts. And since so few people know about these ideas, I’ll cover them here. (I never knew Bruce, who died while I was a teenager, but a friend of mine did, and a friend of another friend knew him very well.)

Bruce forged most of his ideas while developing and testing martial arts. In other words, his ideas came from direct application to the real world; they faced hard, objective standards. If he stuck to some old technique, merely because of its pedigree, he was likely to be hurt. That’s a must-learn environment, and it refines ideas in a hurry.

The truth is that many people, especially in our time, seek to escape objective standards: they don’t want to get slapped, and especially not to be shown wrong. But there’s a huge problem with people evading pain in that way: They simultaneously escape learning, and ultimately fail to develop wisdom.

And so it’s no real surprise that people who consistently face-off against objective standards (not just fighters, but people like engineers), tend to see the world more clearly that those who escape them.

Continue reading

On This “Need” Business, by Eric Peters

What collectivists need the most is your money. Who collects under collectivism? From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Collectivists often say there is a “need” for something – and that coercion (i.e., government) must provide it.

As in the “need” for  . . . insert here.

What’s interesting about this, beyond the often unnoticed fact that collectivism is really a kind of deformed individualism in that every “collective” is necessarily run by individuals (Stalin, for instance) who coerce the collective, is what’s admitted to by collectivists – without irony or understanding. That being if there is, in fact, a need for something, there is incentive (money to be made, profit) to provide it, arising from from the willingness of those who feel the need for that something to pay for it.

Put another way: If there is no incentive to provide it – because people aren’t willing to pay for it – it is persuasive evidence people aren’t especially interested in it.

In other words, people – as individuals – don’t really need it.

What coercive collectivists really mean is that they, the collectivists, want whatever it is.

Continue reading

The Brain Standard, Part Two, by Robert Gore

Three steps forward, two steps back; so humanity advances.

Part One

Ideas are the foundation of the brain standard, one of which is that only individuals have rights. This cuts through the collectivist dreck that passes for thought among most of the world’s so-called intellectuals. The variations of collectivism all disguise nothing more than brute force hiding behind propaganda. Their inevitable failures stem from their essential flaw: those that control the collective claim rights that negate those of the individual.

There are grounds for hope. From the ruins of impending collapse there will be some who reject collectivism and are committed to rebuilding on a foundation of individual rights. How they will protect those rights and whatever territories they stake out are what theoretical physicists sometimes call “engineering problems.” One advantage they’ll have, though, as the brain standard constituency—they’ll be smarter than their adversaries. Attention, imagination, and intelligence will be keenly focused on building from the ruins and protecting what they’ve built.

Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine someone invents a cheap, portable device that defends its bearer and his or her property from all violence from all sources, but has no offensive capability. The device is so cheap that virtually everyone can buy it, and charities are set up to donate it to those who can’t. The device is universally available and creates a world without violence.

How would such a world function? People would have to produce to survive, but absent mutual agreement no one would have an enforceable claim on anyone else’s production. There would be no coercive transfers of money or property. Disputes would be settled by negotiation and mediation. A body of civil law similar to English common law would develop. Surely such a society would figure out a way to deal with nonviolent crime.

The negation of violence would eliminate government’s nominal rationale: protecting citizens from violence. In the absence of government (and its violence), individuals and society as a whole would be free to advance as far as their capabilities will take them.

This extreme hypothetical offers a stark contrast with the absence of anything resembling freedom anywhere in the world today. Government and collectivism are top-down codependents based on violence and coercion. Their current manifestations are replaying the dreary and what should be the common knowledge lesson of history: they inevitably fail, often after a great deal of bloodshed.

******

SLL has a unique take on the world. Some like its perspective, some don’t. If you like it, or if you don’t but take a perverse joy in funding your intellectual adversaries, please consider offering compensation for the time and effort put into SLL. Most of our readers are value-for-value people. If that describes you, please recognize SLL’s value. The payment links are on the right or click the button below. Thank you.

******

In the current jockeying among collectivist governments for the things over which they jockey, Russia’s and China’s are doing a better job than the U.S.’s. The former are the co-leaders of the Eurasian alliance and represent substantial politic and economic power. The latter is bankrupt, embroiled in yet another war it won’t win, and stands accused of sabotaging its most important European ally’s oil pipelines. At home, the U.S. government and its fellow travelers are in thrall to brain-dead ideologies that hasten the country’s disintegration.

Continue reading

US Ambassador To China: “We’re The Leader” Of The Indo-Pacific, by Caitlin Johnstone

There are probably a few Asians that don’t cotton to the U.S. ambassador’s claim. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

A recent US Chamber of Commerce InSTEP program hosted three empire managers to talk about Washington’s top three enemies, with the US ambassador to China Nicholas Burns discussing the PRC, the odious Victoria Nuland discussing Russia, and the US ambassador to Israel Tom Nides talking about Iran.

Toward the end of the hour-long discussion, Burns made the very interesting comment that Beijing must accept that the United States is “the leader” in the region and isn’t going anywhere.

“From my perspective sitting here in China looking out at the Indo-Pacific, our American position is stronger than it was five or ten years ago,” Burns said, citing the strength of US alliances, its private sector and its research institutions and big tech companies.

“And I do think that the Chinese now understand that the United States is staying in this region — we’re the leader in this region in many ways,” Burns added emphatically.

Continue reading

Have the Ancient Gods Returned? By Dr. Naomi Wolf

Why all the Satanic symbols and rituals the last few years? From Dr. Naomi Wolf at naomiwolf.substack.com:

Is a Seemingly Far-Fetched Premise, Unfolding After All?

These days, to my surprise, people want to talk to me about evil.

In a Substack essay last year, and in my book The Bodies of Others, I raised a question about existential, metaphysical darkness.

I concluded that I had looked at the events of the past two and a half years using all of my classical education, my critical thinking skills, my knowledge of Western and global history and politics; and that, using these tools, I could not explain the years 2020-present.

Indeed I could not explain them in ordinary material, political or historical terms at all.

This is not how human history ordinarily operates.

I could not explain the way the Western world simply switched, from being based at least overtly on values of human rights and decency, to values of death, exclusion and hatred, overnight, en masse — without resorting to reference to some metaphysical evil that goes above and beyond fallible, blundering human agency.

When ordinary would-be-tyrants try to take over societies, there is always some flaw, some human impulse undoing the headlong rush toward a negative goal. There are always factions, or rogue lieutenants, in ordinary human history; there is always a miscalculation, or a blunder, or a security breach; or differences of opinion at the top. Mussolini’s power was impaired in his entry to the Second World War by being forced to share the role of military commander with King Victor Immanuel [https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/fascist-king-victor-emmanuel-iii-italy]; Hitler miscalculated his ability to master the Russian weather — right down to overlooking how badly his soldiers’ stylish but flimsy uniforms would stand up to extreme cold. [https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/hitlers-winter-blunder/]. Before he could mount a counter-revolution against Stalinism, Leon Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico City in his bath. [https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/leon-trotsky-assassinated-mexico]

Continue reading

Gnostic Parasitism in the Post-Modern Simulacrum, by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

Once they’ve got you renouncing your own perceptions of reality, they’ve got you. From Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform:

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.

– Arendt, Hannah. (1951). “The Origins of Totalitarianism”, Part 3, Ch. 13

My last article, “The Abolition of Man Amid the Consequences of Reality”, was posted on January 31, 2023 and referenced the book “The Abolition of Man” by C.S. Lewis as a lens to view the current status of Clownworld.

On the same day, a video entitled “The Negation of the Real” was posted on another website and with the following introduction:

If you want to impose a totalitarian system, you have a problem on your hands: reality. The real is in your way and will eventually veto your project. Far sooner, people who can perceive reality will step in and prevent you from taking society over a cliff. Therefore, the only way to install a totalitarian system is to negate the real in the minds of those over whom you would rule. This is accomplished by creating an interpretive frame that deliberately causes people to misunderstand reality, sometimes called a “second reality” or “pseudoreality,” or even a “hyperreality,” which loses all contact with reality through its images and constructions.

The original video was posted 4 days earlier and is the first of a series from a December 2022 conference entitled “Mere Simulacrity” which is a transmogrification of “Mere Christianity”, another book written by  C.S. Lewis.

The entire video series is posted at SovereignNations.com and contains tabs at the bottom of each article that connects to each video in order.

For those who have the time, the video series is highly recommended.  And, for those who can’t spare the 10+ hours to view the entire set, it is the intention of this article… at the very least… for now… to summarize this first 2-hour video only. I believe it contains key insights as to how the Matrix of Clownworld was constructed.

Continue reading

fundamental humans rights (unless we decide to use them for leverage), by el gato malo

When the government recognizes your “right” to something from the government, they violate someone else’s right to their own income to provide it, and they can take it away when they want, regardless of your supposed right. From el gato malo at boriquagato.com:

a tour of towering hypocrisy

it’s a funny thing about the authoritarian left: they speak in grand platitudes about fundamental human rights to all manner of things from speech to healthcare to education. they proclaim “my body my choice” and “human dignity” as foundational tenets.

and yet the minute they want something, this all goes out the window. what was moments before the axis mundi of moral society is now a point of leverage to arm twist you into submission to their demands as object lesson # 33,971 is applied on that most structural of power symmetries:

a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take everything you have.

what 5 minutes ago was the very intrinsic essence of your allegedly inalienable entitlement as a human is now theirs to withhold until you comply.

how many more lessons are you going to need before you wake up and smell the soy-child demagogue?

Image

the people pushing these intrusions are deeply fascist and totalitarian. they have dreams of dictatorship.

note that this request for pervasive “papers please” (absent the please) is not “offered” nor sold as desirable.

it is simply demanded.

Continue reading→

The Abolition of Man Amid the Consequences of Reality, by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

Reality always wins. From Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform.com:

Woke ideology is doomed to fail because its foundational premises are not grounded in reality. Or, more specifically, “wokeness” is rooted in human emotionalism as opposed to truth.  Such applied moral irrationality has also been identified as relativism or subjectivism.

In truth, the Woke Religion is merely one leg of the three-legged stool upon which the central planners behind The Great Reset are currently enthroning themselves.  The other two legs underpinning the proposed New World Order are economic and political. Although all three legs of world control are manifesting by means of relativism, or subjectivism, these manifestations are not occurring through random chance.  On the contrary, Hegelian / Marxist Luciferian dialectics are being strategically applied toward the consolidation of global power: solve et coagula vis-à-vis ordo ab chao.  Dissolution and coagulation are occurring now so that chaos concludes in the form of controlled order.

The negation of truth allows the Luciferian puppet-masters, and their puppets, to do as thou wilt – and by means of modern technology, they are operating beyond the construct of moral realism that has previously constrained, and ultimately conquered, various tyrants throughout history.  Hence, the Religion of Wokeness has been conjured to psychologically manipulate humanity into accepting the new economic and political system that is now manifesting through medical tyranny, war, and the Climate Agenda.

A Government by Experts, by Andrew Napolitano

Experts aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution. From Andrew Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

I have often thought that after Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson was our worst president. By worst is meant least faithful to the Constitution and most destructive of personal liberty.

With the exception of Lincoln’s dictatorship — during which the federal government used violence to crush the states’ natural right to secede from a compact they had voluntarily joined, and instead brought about the systematic murder of 750,000 persons — America from its founding to the early part of the 20th century more or less enjoyed the James Madison model for the federal government.

Under this model, the federal government could only legislate, regulate, spend and govern in the 16 discrete areas of human behavior that the Constitution delegated to it. All other areas of human behavior were left free to individual choices or governance by the states.

From and after Wilson’s presidency, the Madisonian model was replaced by the Wilsonian one. Under this model, the feds could legislate, regulate, spend and govern in any areas of human behavior for which there was a national political will, except for those areas that are expressly prohibited to them by the Constitution.

Continue reading→