reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @loanly_hipster
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
Essay 21 THE MIDDLE CLASS There was once a time when people could aspire for a better future for their children than the one they had. People were in control of their own human capital and could use it to raise their station in life. https://t.co/YIEttxNJnm
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the 1950s, the middle class in the United States experienced a significant rise, allowing families to afford a comfortable life and more. It was a time of optimism and hope, with a strong dollar and a booming economy. While there were still issues of poverty and segregation, the government was working towards solutions. Fast forward to today, and much has changed. Families now need two incomes to make ends meet, college is more expensive, and the dollar has lost its buying power. People are disheartened and lack hope for the future. The government is seen as creating conflicts and the American dream is fading. The middle class has been greatly affected, with limited autonomy and a loss of opportunities. However, there is still hope for a better future if we embrace democracy and elect representatives who prioritize a strong middle class.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The 1950s saw a rise in a unique social station in history. The Middle Class was a term first coined in 1913 by a British economist to describe a group of people who had extraordinary control over their human capital, their ideas, health, work, skills, education, and know how, but were still under the dominion of the upper class. They were a group that had emerged from the Industrial Revolution who had found a way to leverage their skills and labor to become a wealthy enough segment of society to afford a comfortable life, and have satisfaction in their family, work, and community. The 19 fifties in the United States saw an incredible rise of this population. The American family was able to afford the basics of living, housing, transportation and food, but they were also able to stretch for things like vacations, a cabin in the mountains, higher education and entertainment.
The middle class was an aspirational and achievable goal for the better portion of 30 years in America. If you worked hard, spent wisely, and did the things that would help you better your position, you could rise out of the working class and into a very comfortable way of living. The ultra wealthy may never have been something achievable by everyone, but living a good life in this middle position was on the horizon for anyone with the slightest of ambition. Life in the fifties and sixties was marked by a working parent, a stay at home mom, a modest 3 bedroom house, a family car, lots of children, and a localized economy. The average middle class household was able to afford all of this on an average yearly income of just under $5,000.
The dollar was strong. The war was over, and the United States was the leading producer of goods for the world. Places like Detroit and Los Angeles as were booming towns with exceptional wealth and robustness. There was an air of optimism and hope that by doing the best you could with the money you made, you could actually provide a life better for your children than the one you had inherited. The builder generation that came home from the World War wanted a peaceful life in a world led by the moral leadership of the United States, and so they created it in America.
Certainly there are generalizations about the America remembered in hindsight that are exclusionary of the stories that were boiling up under the surface. Poverty and segregation were a part of the American fabric of society, but it was also a time when politicians and representatives were finding their way, albeit slowly to the solutions that were advocated for by the leaders of those disenfranchised groups of people. Government was willing to use its influence and mechanisms to move society forward towards a more sustainable outcome for all people. Presidents and legislatures alike understood that the only way to preserve law and order was to listen to the less fortunate and the minorities and attempt to act upon their needs. Perhaps their solutions were not the benefits they had hoped for, but they still believed that in some democratic fashion, the ills of a society could be worked on and bettered for the people of a country.
And even with the struggles and unfairness of the era, the reality for more people than none was that aspiring for a better life was achievable. There was a place in society for a middle earner, and it was the life that they had dreamed of while they suffered in the foxholes and fields of Europe. Fast forward 70 years and much has changed in our country. Families need 2 people working to make ends meet. The average household needs more than $105,000 to afford the median priced home in the United States.
People are limiting the number of children they are having, not simply because of access at birth control, but as an economic decision. College is more expensive than ever, with tuitions and debts from those endeavors consistently in the 6 figures. Our dollar has lost over 90% of its buying power. The United States imports nearly all of its goods from elsewhere, and people are more sick and more discouraged than in 2 generations. People have less hope for the future and their kids, the horizon is filled with the troubles that government once endeavored to address.
The Federal Government is good at nothing but creating conflicts and wars around the world, and the people who once had a place to aspire to are tired of striving only to be kicked by the next round of inflation, authoritarian management of their living, and divisions about how to solve the issues. A once proud people are beleaguered, worn out, and disinterested in striving for a better lot in life. The American home is a shadow of its once former greatness. The youth of the country are faced with a landscape that has unaffordable homes, less than rewarding wages or jobs available, more pressures to show a romanticized versions of their lives online, the threat of conscription into fighting wars in far off lands that just continue to exacerbate the exhaustion the world has with us as a nation, and an empowered authoritarian state that manages every aspect to live. Freedom is an allusion to youth, and the places that previous generations could point to that demonstrated the successes that were available are gone.
Evidence that has disappeared, and now only supports the cynical case made by the youth. One look, with some honesty, reveals that the America that the builders came back and built for their children is fading fast. Our dollar has been decimated by a military corporate state apparatus that has put the United States trillions in debt to a phony currency institution or foreign governments. That means that so much has to be done to keep the masses in check, so that no one realizes in any short time frame what has happened. Because the dollar is so hollowed out, we have to rely on importing our goods from far off lands that utilize labor who is underpaid, treated poorly, and used by the state to keep their own economy enemy propped up.
Certainly, we can buy cheaper goods by doing this, but it is supporting a crony system of bad governments who are all in a terrible game of chicken, to decide who will be the 1st to call out the United States for her terrible fiscal choices. That dollar also leads to terrible food. The entire system in the United States now relies upon processed, industrialized methods to deliver food to our people that has little or no nutritional value, but also is likely a poison filled product covered in toxic chemicals that has made us more sick, overweight, and miserable. Our health care system has been corrupted by a fascist economic methodology that solves its own price issues with government monies to fund the insurance companies that created the issue in the first place. Our education system is now the full scale model of a machine.
It creates automatons, capable of regurgitation, but nothing else. It is more expensive and administratively burdened than ever, with worsening results by the day. The entire system is a top down factory, designed to create replicas as of the same controllable human over and over and over again. Our economy is based upon consumption, so the only growing sector of that is the delivery driver. The wealth and power of the tech companies that were all built with the extraction of private data or government contracts for services, has led to a world dominated by Amazon.
That has been the ruination of local businesses all across the country. Convenience has replaced community. The dark edge of collusional competition places the priority on profit alone and the centralization of service in the hands of too few. Few can compete with Amazon now, and once they are gone, the idea of quality of any kind or a level of service will be a distant memory. The reality of our 21st century life is that all the human capital that defines the middle class has been assaulted.
We have no autonomy over our ideas, health, work skills, or education. We have become a class of serfs, where the most powerful people lay waste to who are future with top down control and authoritarian brutality. I want to have hope for America. It was available in the past and the instincts of liberty are still an ignitable fuel that once awakened could usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity that our children could flourish in. We need to remember that when troubles in the past arose, there were great people who rose to meet the moment.
Providence has honored us with this responsibility and we can choose to embrace it for the sake of America and her future. Democracy has solved issues time and time again for people, and the political process is the best and most efficient way to communicate the needs of the masses. We can elect representatives who fundamentally understand that a healthy world includes a robust middle class, and not just the ultra wealthy and a subservient poor.
reSee.it AI Summary
Title: The Perpetual War: Reflections on America's Transformation
In the past two decades, the United States has found itself entrenched in a perpetual state of war. Our once cherished ideals of autonomy and freedom have been overshadowed by the permanent presence of surveillance institutions. We have unwittingly become the very oppressors we once rebelled against. No longer a beacon of liberty, we now embody a dehumanizing web of authority, exerting control over everything in our path. Our government, once a distant king, has been replaced by a multitude of domestic tyrants. We have become a meddlesome bully, so confident in our actions and intoxicated by our power that people worldwide rise up in rebellion against us. It's time to question our role as the supposed "good guys."
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
Essay 14 WHAT IF WE’RE THE BAD GUYS Favorite section so far: Since 2001 the United States has been in perpetual war. The surveillance institutions are permanent barnacles upon the hull of our being. We look nothing like the land that people flocked to for autonomy and freedom. We have become the very thing that we started our journey in revolt of. We are the dehumanizing web of authority - making claim to everything that moves in the name of control. We have replaced one king 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants in our backyard bureaucracies. We have become a meddling bully - so self assured of our actions, and so self aggrandized by our total power that we are the ones that the people around the world rise up in rebellion against.
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
Essay number 2 WAR The American Empire survives on wars that will never be won. Both at home and abroad. These video essays are my thoughts on living as a free mind in a centralizing world. https://t.co/rW9JosT668
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker reflects on the Vietnam War and how politicians and the media framed the US as the good guy fighting for peace and democracy. They discuss how the same people from that era reappeared in Washington advocating for more war and centralized power. The speaker mentions the 9/11 attacks and the changing enemies, as well as the cost of war on both a financial and personal level. They criticize the political class for dividing the country and blame citizens for not being vigilant enough. The speaker calls for an end to the abuse of power and the need for principled leaders who listen to the people. They emphasize the importance of unity and the restoration of lost freedoms.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was born just a few months after the fall of Saigon in 1975. Vietnam was always regarded in my lifetime as the war that was embarrassing and unspeakable. The list of characters who were involved from LBJ to Nixon and Robert McNamara to General Westmoreland are legendary Washingtonians that have since been exposed as knowing in full depth the reality of their decisions and its incongruence with the lies they were publicly espousing each night on the evening news. History has described this as an unnecessary war were filled with fog and deceit. Protesters and politicians made careers out of their opposition to this debacle in Southeast Asia.
So as my life unfolded it became evident that politicians never wanted to overtly find themselves back in the position that those nineteen sixty's guys did. War was frowned upon and both the politician and the press found a way to frame Uncle Sam as the good guy, fighting nobly for peace and Democracy around the globe, all while doing it with some restraint. I was in high school when the Berlin Wall fell And Saddam invaded Kuwait. America seemed like the worldwide hero that was there to protect the little guy. At least that was the illusion that we were being sold.
Slowly and with great craft, this list of has been people from the Vietnam era were silently finding themselves back in the fold in Washington, presenting a new vision of peace through strength and justifying all the expenditures and war they could muster, done all in the name of preventative global maintenance. Defense secretaries, secretaries of state, military leaders, all seemed to be reappearing like a bad cancer in the government, And they were all advocating for more war, more defense spending, more intervention abroad, and more importantly, more power centralized in their hands. These neocon ideas were first attracted to the right. I remember being a young man and wanting to love the United States. I conflated military involvement as patriotic, the military were the gold standard and so if they needed something we should give it to them.
Of course, there were stories of $1,000 toilet seats and wasteful lost billions, but that was a small price to pay for a safe world. Then 1 September morning I woke up to planes smashing into buildings, and the illusion of safety was shattered with the glass that fell a 100 stories from the sky. There were burnt passports on the ground next to jet fuel melted steel, but we had our bad guys. Now there was a chance to justify the obliteration entire countries and people in the name of regime change. No one in America, certainly not the average citizen ever had designs of another 20 year war.
But strangely, we watched as the enemy changed names from Bin Laden and the Taliban to ISIS to ISIL back to ISIS and then to Saddam for his encore call. And all the while the machine got more expensive, the powers at the top got happier and the time got embarrassingly longer. We were told this war life was the way to a free and beautiful future, spreading democracy at the point of a gun. A Republican president on to an aircraft carrier and pronounced victory. Then there was a highly enlightened and sophisticated Democrat president with a perfect crease in his slacks, who let us know during the election that he had a grand plan to stop the wars.
And yet, when it was all over, we left ruins of rubble in a far off land the same way we left Saigon, blazing out with Children falling from airplane wheels, and 1,000,000,000 of dollars of equipment sitting on the tarmac for the taking. A strange thing has happened on the way to building this empire. The people of this country have had a great price extracted from them by the leading class. The cost has come not just in the 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars that never had in our government accounts, spent on wars we never should have found ourselves in, but it has decimated the lives of military men and women that were lost or forever scarred. It has come in the form of inflation that results from an out of control government that ruins the social fabric and the home by spending money Not on its people, but on foreign entanglements to pad the bottom lines of their donors.
It makes people feel like their work is worthless and their days are tenuous, so that any breakdown of a car or a furnace or the latest grocery bill means the choice between rent or medicine or education for a child. And all the while, they kept us pointing at each other. They made us believe that it was the divisions in the democracy that were the problem. It was the damn Gratz, or the rascally Republicans. And depending on what talking head or newspaper we preferred, we could join up with our favorite sports team and bash our fellow Americans simply because they wore a different colored political jersey.
In the cloakrooms and At rooms of Washington, the elite laughed. War was now supported by both parties and the cigar smoking sinister swamp creatures could march their most controversial talking head out to the television or the social media feed, and asked them to point fingers and scream at their drinking buddies across the aisle in some sort of grand theater of the strange. Nothing in this Washington created America was real, except for the beleaguered American citizen. Watching all of this unfold as I've lived, I realize that the political class has figured out how to fight their own pseudo Vietnam style war with its own people. Politics in the modern era requires that all parties stay permanently conquering political landscapes.
Just as it was in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq, Ground would be won, then days later abandoned. Lives and destruction were left in the wake, but someone could renounce our victory and our attention spans would enable us to move on from the reality and forget that it ever happened. Much of this is on us as citizens. There is a vigilance and education that a republic requires and most of us simply haven't wanted to put in the energy. We've comfortably lived, hoping our only duty was to vote and then hope that they would do the work for us.
I have a great deal of regret about many moments of my own lack of participation in it. We should have seen that oft repeated pattern by those in power. We should have heeded Eisenhower or Kennedy's warning about the military industrial complex and the secret societies that were being crafted right under our noses. The powerful kept us busy working for food and ever diminishingly valued dollars and they gained the positions, money and status they craved. We let the empire be overrun by the money mongers, and the powerful, and they told us we should blame each other for it.
So now we stand here, pockets empty and our anger and division ever higher. The names in Washington are the same ones that were there when I first started voting 30 years ago. No one ever leaves. If they are replaced for convenience and expediency, they are strategically supplanted by a more horrific sycophant. The wars go on, the money keeps getting spent, the surveillance of our lives and our actions and our speech is heightened.
There is no reservation by the criminals at the top to send the IRS after the small business person, and look the other way from the billionaires and well connected. They will clamp down on ideas by the average American and silence any dissent to their ethics and actions. This all needs to end, but it must end with the alliance of the disaffected, the alliance of the American people, The alliance of everyone who wants to end the abuse. The cautionary tale from history however is that it cannot simply be overthrown and replaced by a darker force. Instead, it must be replaced with something stable and right, revisiting and insisting on natural laws of humanity.
There are candidates for president and congress who advocate for this path, but they are being silenced and laughed at, and the circus act of the other candidates that the power brokers love is vehemently promoted because it keeps the agitation up amongst us, the citizen. Make no mistake, this isn't advocating for some indifferently weak middle ground. America needs people who have principles that align with the idea of natural rights. We need people who can assess things with wisdom and lead a populace to a reasonable compromise. Each wing of the base has advocated that being is the only path forward and that has left us in a very bad place.
The results are in and we are destroying the future for our children and Loved ones, at the insistence that we are the wisest and most correct. There are good voices who listen to others, Robert Kennedy junior, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and other people who have been in leadership over the years who know what's being done to the good people of this country. They are the ones who know where they stand, and what they stand for, that is best for the people. Those voices are the ones we should be actively advocating for. Democracy is the best of the worst solutions for self government, But if we're going to do this, we need to find the best people we can who can advocate from the position of first principles.
But also, And this is the part we are most lacking as a society. We have to join in with those leaders and listen to our neighbors. We have to do that even when they put up a sign we disagree with, or wear a hat we don't like. Loving our neighbors as ourselves requires that we stand up for their right to be wrong, and my right to change my mind or persuade them to change theirs. We have to quit fighting for hills with no names and stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow citizens.
The results will have impacts for generations. We as Americans are endowed with the right to restore the freedoms that we have lost from the corporate conglomerate enterprise that we call the government.
reSee.it AI Summary
The founders knew representation was vital for a fair government. Today, with 1 representative per 820,000 people, our voices are diminished. Let's expand the House to restore the people's voice and fix the mess in Washington.
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
Essay 12 UNDER REPRESENTED The founders understood a fundamental maxim about good government…the people must be represented or the most extreme and unscrupulous people will dominate the system. They thought that it should be 1 representative to every 30,000 people. Today that number is 1 to 820,000 people. Is it a wonder that Washington is a mess and our voices feel more diminished than ever? Perhaps it’s time to expand the House to give the people their voices back.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The decision to cap the number of representatives in Congress at 435 has had a significant impact on the American Republic. Originally, the Constitution stated that there should be one representative for every 30,000 people, but this rule was later changed. Currently, each representative in the House represents around 820,000 people, which means that many cities and regions are not adequately represented. This has led to issues such as gerrymandering and an imbalance of power between the branches of government. It is time to consider increasing the size of the House of Representatives to ensure better representation for the American people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of the most unknown and yet impactful things that has ever happened in the American Republic was the decision to cap the number of representatives at the federal level in Congress. In 1929, the house passed a rule that is known as the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This established a permanent 435 seats meets in the house of representatives that would be apportioned according to population, but never expanded beyond the 435 seats. The seemingly small change of the rules based upon the founders' assumptions of the citizen changed what had been intended to be the people's direct voice legislature to a powerful institution protected by the size and scale of a district. The constitution in article 2 states It's the number of representatives shall not exceed 1 for every 30,000 people.
At the time of the founding, this was understood to mean that generally, for every 30,000 people, there There'd be 1 representative assigned to that group in a district. That district was to be shaped around geography and commonality of the people. The theory It was that the people who lived in the hills of Virginia were going to have different interests than the people of Williamsburg, and that those different interests should be represented by a person who lived in that district, and that it should not be such a large number of people that the voices of the public would be diminished. The founders believed that Every time the population grew, the house of representatives should grow at a one to approximately 30,000 persons ratio. This way Portionment was generally maintained up to the 1900.
All through this time in the country, the house fluctuated around population size, but kept districts somewhere between the 3,000 and 60000 person mark depending on the census. Every 10 years, the house grew based upon the last census, and it followed the founding tradition of growing with the population. The phrase in article 2 of the constitution was construed to mean that a district cannot be smaller than 30,000 people. But in practicality, it might fluctuate to be larger based upon population in between a census and if the geographic similarities allowed for contact with more people in a smaller geographic to carry out, a city, for instance. This small nuance that tolerated a temporary fluctuation in population and underrepresentation for a time would later be used to justify the limitations on representatives and the capping of the total number of seats in Congress.
The founders believed that representation was the only way to live in a peaceful union amongst the states. Many of the most heated arguments at the time of the ratification of the constitution centered around the House of Representatives, and specifically the size and apportionment of representatives. Those advocating for the constitution in the Federalist Papers made a great effort at assuring the public that being represented at the national level was a centerpiece of this new government ordination. Their assumption as former British subjects was that all good government was centered around the ability of the masses to redress their grievances, not with a far off king or parliament, but with a legislative body built from the people most representational of the varied interests of their state, county, or region. Federalist paper 56 that was speculatively written by Hamilton says it is a sound and important principle that the representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents.
But this principle can extend no farther than to those circumstances and interests to which the authority and care of the representative relate, An ignorance of a variety of minute and particular objects, which do not lie within the compass of legislation, is consistent with every attribute necessary to a due performance of the legislative trust. In determining the extent of information required in the exercise of a particular authority, Recourse then must be had to the objects within the purview of that authority. In other words, the legislature should be made up of people's most connected with the details of their constituents. The idea of holding the legislature to a size commensurate with the interests of the people and geographically reachable within the mode of transportation dictated the size of the house until 1911. The year after the 1910 Census saw a great deal of infighting and strife over how districts were to be apportioned.
This fight led to a stagnation and ultimately to the capping of the limits of the size of the house to today's 435 members. It is to be noted that the Population in 1929, when the act was passed and the house was capped, was just over a 100,000,000 people. That representation was still far lower than the founders would have thought reasonable. One representative for every 280,000 people. Nine At times, what the authors of the constitution argued was a number of representative could be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents.
The infighting over the 1910 census was how much the house should increase and how those districts should be awarded. The congress was selfishly already seeing the initial benefits of a smaller house with larger populations and districts and what that meant for them personally in terms of power and money. A movement emerged to enlarge the population of representatives per representative instead of adding additional seats. Those congresses from 1911 to 1929 slow rolled their growth and saw districts expand to levels unthinkable for the framers of the country, who saw intimate representation as the key to a robust political landscape. Fast forward to 2023, and we find that the numbers have fallen apart.
With the current population of the United States, each seat in the house represents 820,000 people, meaning that every city equal to or smaller than San Francisco is the same or smaller sized population sample per representative. Practically speaking, that is one representative for the populations of places like Denver, Seattle, Nashville, Las Vegas, Boston, and others. Even the largest city in the United States, New York City, would only have 10 representatives total for their current population of 8,000,000 people. That leaves a great deal to be desired when it comes to being represented by the legislature, and is a far cry from those early arguments about the right sized district. In hindsight, it's interesting to consider that one of the 1st major fights over the constitution during ratification was if the number of people being represented should be 20,000 or 30,000 per seat in the house.
George Washington was the largest proponent of the smaller number. Sadly for us, it was an assumption that no one with the same mind would ever let representational districts get too large or too populated, And so no clause was put in to the direct limitation of district sizes. The founders believed that future generations would demand proportionate representation because of the internal All competitions between the states inherent to the federalism of the document. The people would not tolerate being underrepresented. The Magna Carta, the basis for all modern democracies with ties to the British Empire, calls for the creation of a representative system in section 14, and had always been a point of British pride, and is demanded upon in any new development of government based on democratic ideals.
Anyone from the founding era would be aghast that the current government believes that 830,000 people could be represented by 1 person. That would sound comical and contradictory to them. No person could in theory or in practice represent that size of population. As congress got more detached from its constituents, several things began to influence it. With the size limitation, Gerrymandering became much more accepted and critical.
State legislatures saw the game develop in front of them. And to get the most from their Washington cohorts in the government trough, It behooved them to make the districts as stable as possible. Certainly, there were boisterous battles over each state district at any given time for the theater and the placation of the people, but the course was set in a trajectory for gain and power. Secondly, money becomes a very significant part of politics the fewer representatives there are proportionate to the population. If you are a corporation or a lobbyist, winning over a few critical seats with campaign donations, cushy vacations, or enticing promises of wealth so that you can be exempt from the rules being passed, or use those same rules to squash your competition.
The price is low, easy to pay, and the buyout is laser focused. Lastly, it has placed an imbalance in the branches of government. Instead of the natural powers resting in the legislature, it It elevates the presidency and the oligarchy of the Supreme Court. The president becomes very significant in the system because their agenda sets the path for a weakened body of representation. The people transposed this legislative authority onto the president and strangely believe that the election of this 1 person is more akin to representation then their own representative from their district.
The court becomes more significant because the Congress cannot debate and work on issues, and those issues have to be settled in lawsuits instead. So the 9 seats at the court raise in stature and importance, and the key issues of how life is actually lived all end up in a hearing decided upon by powerful unelected judges with no representational accountability. So what has this left the American people with? Anger and frustration. The founders understood that there would be a race to the extreme edges of polarization if the people were ever to lose their proverbial voice by the representation being undermined.
When a people are underrepresented in a democracy, the results boil over and it takes more radicalized voices to have the people's voices heard at the table. The shouting gets louder and more aggressive, and the democracy becomes unstable. Certainly, we deserve more than 1 representative per 800,000 people. If I just ask the question to myself about that ratio, I have to honestly answer that my voice is diminished. I am one amongst many, and the likelihood is that my representative will listen to their donors, not the people they're supposed to represent.
Perhaps it's time to consider a larger house of representatives. The Technology is certainly advanced enough to accommodate a larger body. The limitation cannot be as elementary of a problem as the size of a building. The limitations are likely much more nefarious. The powerful like the system.
It's controllable and lucrative, and gives the people in the machine the best chance at sustaining their status and income. The crony capitalists know that if the representatives are limited, their job becomes easier and cheaper. After all, paying off 218 representatives on any given piece of legislature is much easier than having to do it if there were 5,000 people of interest acting on behalf of the people. Once again, we find ourselves begging for the scraps of what was once good government. This is our way of life that has been hijacked by powerful players and those with the most money.
Their influence has always been a part of the democratic form of government, but it can be diminished if we demand better of those we send there. There's no sacredness to 435 people. It was a number based upon a population long ago dead. We have to pay attention and insist upon the changes if we are ever to restore a semblance of what we call a republic.
reSee.it AI Summary
In this crisis, war looms and leaders falter. But there's hope: humanity can choose peace. Rwanda's example shows the way. Thanks to @AllieVoix for the inspiration. #PathwayToPeace
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
Essay 13 A PATHWAY OUT We are in a major moment of crisis. The black clouds of war are ominously approaching. Leadership is lacking and the powerful are pressing us to conflict. There is a path out - war is a problem made by humanity, and humans have the capacity to step away. Rwanda has a model and we’d be wise to learn from it. Special thanks to @AllieVoix for the inspirational story
Video Transcript AI Summary
The world is caught in a cycle of preventable conflict and tribalism. People isolate themselves, only listening to those who agree with them, and view any disagreement as a personal attack. This irrational behavior leads to wars and destruction, with the powerful benefiting while the victims suffer. We need to step back from this impulse and realize that peace is our natural state. War used to be driven by kings and countries, but now it serves the interests of corporations. We must decouple ourselves from tribes and work towards reconciliation and forgiveness, as shown by the example of Rwanda. We need to examine our own attitudes towards peace and understand that it is possible. Peace is a gradual process that requires the cooperation of many nations. It is not about everyone loving each other, but living together in tolerance and resolving disputes peacefully. Enmity between nations and individuals can change over time.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If anything has come of watching the world march over the cliff of self destruction these last few weeks, it is the fact that most of what is happening is completely preventable. There is this strange compulsion towards conflict and tribalism that is difficult to comprehend. People seem strangely addicted to siloing themselves off from others and moving towards an isolated existence, where they can listen only to the people they want to and find disagreements about anything said as an attack on themselves personally. Is anyone really so deeply invested in any one political candidate or governmental state that they cannot listen to any form of dissent without circling the wagons and tossing arrows of attack from behind their keyboards. It feels wholly irrational.
The story seems to be the same every time. Person a says from what seems like a place of deep conviction that they think that what is happening in a far off place a should be addressed by the governments of team a. Team b then rebukes this thinking and says that what is happening in far off place a should be addressed by the governments of team b in order to be fair and just. The battle boils down to character assassinations and accusations, all from a place that elevates the most powerful in society to a status of perpetual war and destruction. A new issue And the same characters race to their keyboards or to their media and try the whole damn cycle again.
The results are nothing that the people want. And wars get started and progress all without any sense for the loss of the people who are actually the victims of the gross tragedy. The truth about humanity is that people are always in conflict. It comes from the place of free will. We have the capacity We need to think, reason, and observe, and because of those blessings, we are also able to exercise our darkness and cause destruction, heartache, and brutality.
We will always have conflict, but if we took a moment to step back from the impulse, we might find that our resting heart rate is best acclimated to peace. War used to be a place where the powerful could utilize their citizenry on their behalf, manipulated by religion or national pride to conquer new territory for the extraction of wealth and gain. It had been an embedded part of the human psyche since brother killed brother for their father's share. And it all happened at their front doors. The 20th century saw the same motives for war, but this time it wasn't for a king or even a country.
It was for the growth and wealth of a smelted state corporate partnership that made everyone in its influence wealthy. It came at the expense of the people, But it could be done on the sidelines, in far off lands where nameless victims could be bombed from high above, and the citizens of the West could saunter off to Disneyland or Marseille For their detached vacation, it was a cozy, profitable arrangement that placed the impoverished of the world at the tip of a spear completely out of their control. People are then agitated by their governments, and told that the tribal life is the only way to live, and instead of working towards solutions that Stop the violence. The people become unwitting accomplices in the exacerbation of their own demise. Media parades out the propaganda necessary to sustain In the system, an industrial complex, and the wars get closer and more polarizing, it comes to a place where logic is eviscerated, and from the Sane minds and mouths can come incongruent thoughts.
Death and destruction in Ukraine is wrong. It must be stopped. Death and destruction in Gaza is okay. We must support it. We must support Ukraine or you are a Russian agent in the Trump campaign.
You must support Palestine or you are a Zionist. You must support Israel or you are a Nazi. When do we get to say, as citizens of our country, that we do not support war? When do we get to say that our involvement as a nation isn't necessary? Are we obligated to perpetual alliances even when they are unnecessary and problematic?
War is atrocious, And it leaves a wake of destruction for the people on the ground. And now the tide is turning. It won't matter who has the biggest weapons. The people of this planet have been abused by their power brokers. They know it.
They feel it, and they see it now even at their own door. The line between the good guys and the bad guys is blurry, even erased, and there isn't a clear moral authority that should be trusted. So how do we get out of this mess intact and not on a short rodeo ride on a mushroom cloud? I think we have to work towards decoupling ourselves from tribes. The world has actually shown us a path out.
It comes from the African continent, where there is an example of how reconciliation and forgiveness can be the way to step back from the precipice of death and destruction and the doom loop of hatred. In 1994, the Rwandan Civil War turned a hundred families and friends slaughtered by the majority tribe in Rwanda. It was an atrocity that garnered international attention and UN intervention. It A country and a people in utter despair and ruin. It was a bleak moment for the people and one that seemed destined for a future of conflict and fear.
Many He fled to Zaire and wars continued into the 21st century because of the horror that this tribal conflict created. Slowly over time, a group of dedicated peacemakers started the hard work of reconciliation between the people. These were tribes with different thoughts, religions, and interests, but people started to recognize that the frenzy that had been created by the government was wrong and needed rectifying. There was an international criminal set up in Tanzania, where the most egregious of offenders from the governments and military were tried and prosecuted for their crimes. Justice for the most culpable was served and conversations for those caught up in the frenzy started to happen amongst their fellow citizens.
Underneath the civil justice was a people to people reconciliation that was starting to change the attitudes of the civilians towards one another. People who had been caught up in the killing frenzy were confronted with their own guilt and began to reach out to their victims, and an attempt was made at placing forgiveness and sorrow as the top priority amongst themselves. People on both sides of this devastation were Station, we're moving towards the natural resting place of humanity and attempting to settle into the status of peace. It isn't easy to forgive or reconcile, especially when the ones you loved have been harmed or destroyed, but it is a state of the human heart that should be moved towards if we are to ever escape this escalating journey towards self destruction. We must be peacemakers and not decide that all the silos we find ourselves in are the ones to live in.
Are we really that convinced that our way of thinking is beyond self examination? Are we really beyond understanding that the governments of this world have a vested interest in seeing us in conflict? Is there a need on our own level to know that murder of Ukrainians, Russians, Israelis, or Palestinians is something that is just simply wrong? Can we honestly see the divine image in a fellow human and still insists that it is beyond reconciliation. Stepping to the table in humility is our only hope away from this era of death.
We would be wise to listen to a former president who knew war, had seen its destruction, and had hope for a better world. John f Kennedy spoke at the American University at the peak of a similar time, when war with the Soviets was presented as the inevitable conclusion of our differences. Listen in his own words as he describes what could be when we choose the path of peace instead of escalation.
Speaker 1: I realized the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war, And frequently, the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears, but we have no more urgent task. Some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law or world disarmament, And that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude As individuals and as a nation, for our attitude is as essential as theirs.
And every graduate of this school, Every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace should begin by looking inward, by examining his own attitude towards the possibilities of peace, towards the Soviet Union, Towards the course of the Cold War and towards freedom and peace here at home, first examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal, but that is a dangerous The fetus believed it leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, That we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are man made.
Therefore, they can be solved by man, and man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute infinite concept Of universal peace and goodwill of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams, But we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus Instead, on a more practical, more attainable piece based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, But on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreement, which which are in the interest of all concern. There is no single simple key to this peace. No brand or magic formula To be adopted by 1 or 2 powers, genuine peace must be the product of many nations. The sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static.
Changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process, a way of solving problems. With such a peace, There will still be quarrels and conflicting interests as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor. It requires only that they live together In mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement, and history teaches us that That enmity between nations and between individuals do not last forever.
However, fixed our likes And dislikes may seem the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
Here’s all of my essays in one place. If you have interest in seeing them without sifting through all of my other ramblings, @rumblevideo has a great way to see them all: https://rumble.com/c/c-5017681
Essays and Ruminations
Browse the most recent videos from channel "Essays and Ruminations" uploaded to Rumble.com
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
In the era of false choices, the duopoly thrives by dividing people to maintain their power. Recent events in Israel have highlighted how they manipulate supporters of various figures, like Robert Kennedy Jr., Donald Trump, and Ron DeSantis, along with other American citizens. By creating divisions, they divert attention from the real issues and exploit our differences. We must recognize this manipulation, as it will ultimately harm our children's lives.
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
Essay 11 THE ERA OF FALSE CHOICES The duopoly is a distraction factory- choosing to divide people so that they remain in power. Since the conflict started this week in Israel, look at what they’ve done to @RobertKennedyJr supporters, @realDonaldTrump supporters @RonDeSantis supporters and the rest of the American citizens. They push out a shiny object of division and force people to react in unmeasured ways so that the focus shifts from the powerful, back to the infighting related to our differences. We’re being played, and it will come at the expense of the lives of our children.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The current conflict in Israel and Palestine raises the question of why there always has to be an immediate answer. War is devastating, with no winners and civilians paying the price. Governments rarely face consequences proportional to the destruction caused. The need for immediate and dogmatic responses leaves no room for moderation or observation. The interests driving global conflicts are often not those of the people, but rather the governments and military-industrial complex. Wars are fueled by a money-hungry culture, with profits increasing as lives are destroyed. We must question if these conflicts are truly ours to decide. The powerful manipulate narratives to convince the masses of their choices, even to their own detriment. We must seek a third way that exposes the real enemy: the amalgamation of money, government, and corporations. We should not sacrifice our children for profit or allow ourselves to be divided into simplistic sides.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If the current conflict in Israel and Palestine has had any impact on my thinking, it has come in the form of answering a difficult question. Why does there always have to be an answer? War is horrific. It is always without a winner, and always at the expense of the civilian. No government ever truly suffers the consequences of their decisions proportionate to the destruction of the average citizen.
Lives are always lost because decisions are made by the masters of war behind desks. The saddest part of our current world is the need to make sure that Everything that happens on a geopolitical level has an immediate answer. One choice must have a response, and it must always be unequivocal. There is no room for moderation, thought, or observation. Every action must have an immediate denouncement or blessing by the leaders of our world.
But did anyone ask the people of Israel or Palestine if they wanted our answers? Does Russia or Ukraine owe allegiance to our way of thinking in the United States? Certainly, there are political movements that require our addressing and thinking in relationship to our interests, but they do not always have to be immediate and dogmatic. The real fact of the matter in most of the cases is that the governments of the individual countries are not acting on behalf of their citizens, but instead upon the cancerous tentacles of the military industrial complex that spread its disease laden arms around the shores from which it was created, into every corner of the world we know. For every average life If destroyed, a company's stock increases commensurately.
This isn't a normal endeavor any longer. Wars are not started simply because of disputes or disagreements, or territory. They are results now of a money hungry culture that knows the gravy is in the next funding round from Washington, all because of a manufactured threat to our interests. Take 2 steps back and a moment for analysis and decide if the interests of the global conflicts are really ours to decide. Certainly, humanity is being harmed, destroyed, and killed in every instance.
Something so horrific that the impulse to do something is overwhelming. But from a patient and thoughtful place of thinking, we have to Realize that the interests motivating the slaughter are the people's governments, not their internal conflicts. In every instance, the civilians are at the mercy of the powerful. Things are being done without their consent, or vote, or political mechanism for change. No war is ever consented upon by any longer.
War is decided in the dark chasms of the unknown, then foisted upon the people without any chance to pull back from the brink. Media and culture and the organs of government grind out the narrative and convince the masses that their choices are best for themselves, even to their own detriment. This is not the way forward to a peaceful world. Humanity chooses peace when offered the opportunity, but the powerful know that peace is the enemy of perpetual position. Boots on the ground mean stability behind the desk, or the lectern, or the funding.
Sadly, we have no say in changing this trajectory. Every time a war arises, we must choose sides, say the powerful. We have to decide what interests are in it for us, and why we must send 1,000,000,000 overseas to people we have little connection to. It was once described to me that we fight little wars with money in arms so that we don't have to fight larger wars with our own children's arms. But the sad reality is that nothing about that statement is true.
We send our children to die for a country that bears little resemblance to the one that rose up on liberty's forbearance. With each passing moment, of our own country wonder out loud, a little louder each time, are we the bad guys? What if our Industrial complex is the one causing the issues that perpetuate the discord. And worse yet, what if that system is doing it for their own self reward? I am not willing to send my children across the ocean to a far off land to die for the Ukrainian government, the Israeli government, and particularly not the United States government who confiscates my earnings, my time, and my offspring pretending to keep the peace through that theft.
I'm not naive enough to think that conflict is unavoidable. I am wise enough to know that it does not need to be government induced. Pay attention to what is being done to us. Every time the government picks a fight, there's always only 2 sides available for us to participate in. You have to hate Trump and love Biden.
You are unvaccinated or vaccinated. You are for violent protests or you are a racist. You are for Ukraine, or you stand with Russia. You are for Israel, or you are for Palestine. No room is ever left for the question, what does this mean for me, for my children, for the United States?
There has to be a third way, something that takes us out of our silos and asks us to look for the real enemy, the amalgamation of money, government and corporations. I don't want my sons to die for a profit. I don't want your children to suffer for the next stock increase. I want the chance to say who are not by or for the people any longer.
reSee.it AI Summary
In our education system, we often prioritize conformity over critical thinking. Conversations with @rebelEducator made me reconsider the importance of the traditional subjects. Now, my focus is on nurturing curious, rebellious children who challenge the world.
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
Essay 7 EDUCATION We live in a system that trains people to be good for an industrial system, not to be thinkers. This essay comes out of several interactions about homeschooling and curriculum with @rebelEducator I used to think the seven sacred subjects were the keys to raising great children. But my thoughts have changed- I’m more interested in raising curious, rebellious kids who will question the world.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The education system in Western Civilization was designed to create workers for industry, focusing on conditioning children to be better employees. This approach led to a monotonous public that lacked critical thinking skills and instead regurgitated information. Education should aim to enlighten people and promote freedom, but when thinking is suppressed, tyranny and oppression prevail. The systematic approach to education limits our ability to think creatively and solve new problems. Western culture was built on challenging old norms, as seen in the American Revolution. However, today's education system discourages questioning and conformity is encouraged. To change this, we need to differentiate between training and education, engage in longer conversations, and prioritize critical thinking.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Education in Western Civilization has to be examined. For the better part of the 20th century, the schooling system was intended to create workers for industry. Everything about it, from the style, the methodology, even the length of time was designed to condition children so they would be better employees for employers. Along the way, what ultimately became of the students was a very monotonous public, who were monolithic in their approach to solving problems, and who ultimately found the path of least resistance, not in critical thinking, but instead in a capacity to regurgitate information. The goal became synthesis of information for production, not observation, reaction, and problem solving.
Thomas Jefferson said of education, enlighten the people generally and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. Sadly, the converse is also true. If you devolve their thinking, tyranny and oppression become the hallmark of a people. If the objective of education is production, then it's training, not thinking. Training is something that all governments in the course of history have tried to reach for.
If the people are manageable, the culture becomes controllable. This systematic approach to creating a productive Society has limited our abilities as a people to create and think about new ideas. We have required more time and years in the school system with worsening results. Time in a rote system of education is not an indicator of capability. Instead, it is a marker of tolerance of inanity and capacity to endure the intolerable, excellent for workers, destructive of a liberty minded people.
Great thinking keeps people free. It takes contrarian thought to open the eyes of the citizen and solve new and oppressive problems. Without the capacity to recognize the pitfalls on the horizon, and having the skill set that skepticism, manipulation by the powerful is easily achieved. Western culture was founded on the breaking down of centuries old maxims. The Revolution in the United States was not simply about taxation or the lack of representation, It was the dismantling of the concept that the king was divinely appointed.
The first lines of the declaration call out something that was fundamentally against everything the world had ever known. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain un alienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This wasn't about fighting against just the economic oppression of far off leader. They were calling out a reordering of the world. King and subject were created equal, and they all had access at the rights endowed by nature's God.
This revelation and revolutionary idea came from enlightened thought, a chain of concept from person to person who challenged the normalcy of the world and asked hard, skeptical questions about how the presented order had always operated. In our era, The powerful have done everything they can to diminish any shine on that beautiful pursuit of thought. We train our children to obey, to conform, to behave. We don't ask of them to challenge the world or what they see on YouTube or the media. We want them to fit in and have a socially normal existence.
That keeps the powerful in charge. It keeps the people compliant and complacent, working for the scraps from the rulers' tables. The key to changing this is asking the difference between training and education. It requires longer form conversations in our classroom, our media and our politics. We need to teach our children that shouting soundbites is nothing more than a religious exercise.
Should we be surprised that our national discourse is infantile when our education System only trains for the simplistic approach to solving problems? Where are the thinkers that ask the questions about our processes? When will we wonder if training in rote of the 7 sacred subjects are leading us towards more liberty and freedom of mind, or less? Personally, we made a choice as a family to escape this industrial system and see if our children could start to thrive on curiosity, beauty, and examination. It has not been perfect, but it is much more normal within the confines of history to teach your children as a family unit.
It is only in the last 100 years that sending your child off to a Glorified day care experience on a little yellow bus has been accepted as the norm. What we discovered in our process was that the inadequate thoughts of ourselves were self imposed and culturally induced. We also learned that everything we needed to teach and educate Children is available to us without the mandate of some ivory tower expert. It takes work and discipline to educate children in this way. It also takes a tremendous sacrifice of time and treasure to be sure that we are building thinkers.
The jury is still out if the path we took is the right one, but having 18 years with our children in the home and with our influence has left us in a place where they are still willing to have deep conversations with us about out life and challenges and philosophical wonderment about how the world works. Certainly, they will not be designed for daily industrial work, but they will think about the presuppositions of our leaders, and help be a small impetus that hopefully transforms our society from a managed and weak people back to a liberty loving, free thinking culture. Our politics will yield different results if we learn how to embrace this love of education and not regurgitation. If we spend our time in long form discussions and nuance, we will begin to realize that the first principles of natural law are significant and move us as a civilization towards solutions. This training way of thinking that we have engaged in keeps us barking at our adversaries thinking that our short, snapped bits of recirculated information will persuade them.
The reality of that approach is that nothing happens except that the powerful forces of government grow and the wealthy continue to consolidate their money and assets, squeezing out the poor and middle class. The politicians and well connected win these little battles and pretend that great waves have been accomplished. All the while, our tensions grow and our struggles become vividly palpable. We can do better, but it starts with us being willing to recognize that our education and the education of the next generation involves a depth of sacrifice that has been unseen in America in generations.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a healthy democracy, suppressing speech leads to loss. Governments wielding power and brutality through an orthodox ideology control people, causing wars, tragedies, and oppression. Robust ideas are crucial to prevent this dangerous hegemony. #Democracy #IdeasMatter
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
Essay 10 ORTHODOXY OF THOUGHT If speech is suppressed the loss is a healthy democracy. Wars, tragedies, oppression all happen at the hands of government; unrestrained by robust ideas. Hegemony of thought is a form of religion. The danger comes when governments use this orthodoxy, power and brutality to control people.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Authority can be dangerous when those in power equate criticism with subversion. It's a delicate balance, as some earn authority through capability while others use it to oppress. Unfortunately, we live in a society surrendered to authority, where government at all levels holds power over the average citizen. Expertise and education were once seen as important for a healthy society, but they have also bred arrogance and created a class separate from the average American. This concentration of power has led to monolithic thinking and a lack of skepticism. We must break free from this orthodoxy and embrace diverse voices to advance as a society.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism and find criticism subversive. Henry Steel Comager. Authority is a precarious thing. People who earn it are generally respected for their capabilities.
And people who take it are often totalitarians who use it to oppress others and maintain their stature and power. The unique aspect is that the separation between the 2 can fade or blur quickly, placing people in a compromised spot before they know it. We live in an era surrendered to authority. Anywhere one looks, the talons of this captivity are prevalent. City, county, state, and federal governments All have unmanageable administrative apparatuses, pulling the levers and shutting the doors on the average citizen.
Everything takes submission to this machine. Nothing can be done, created, changed or started without the blessing of this unelected behemoth. It lurks like a Jabberwocky in the caves of our society, beckoning us, its prey, to enter its clutches for the kill. We have trusted for so long that expertise and lettered knowledge were the keys to a healthy society. An educated people, after all, were supposed to be the bulwarks of liberty.
But the coronation of the experts bred an arrogance that added status and superiority to a group of people and created a class separated out from the ranks of the average American. All experts are just concentrationists. Sometimes that concentration provides expertise when subjects are complex and the focused intellect provides helpful answers. Unfortunately, the fixation on higher Their education in the 20th century also created an incubator that propagated and elevated monolithic thinking. The enlightenment way and thought had always helped people pursue skepticism as a base alloy for advancing thought.
Perhaps it was developing thoughts about earth or nature or God, but in every instance, the intent behind the thinking was to create a robust standing up the topic. Somewhere along the way, we came to the conclusion as a society that all ideas are to be distilled down to an acceptable, digestible, politically motivated orthodoxy. So what has this new theology brought us? I'm afraid this choice will leave nothing that has elevated America. The fabric that has left this robust people and liberty oriented aesthetic will not stand the test of time surrendered to this hegemony.
America will likely exist, but it will do so as Socrates less Greece exists today, a hollow shell of her once former self that only recalls in tribute the once global altering society. Discourse is the key to a growing and progressing people. We must recognize that humanity has a right to be heard regardless of their thinking because of the divine imprint that bestows each schleife with the inalienable capacity for thought. Are we so certain that today's ideas are the final say in how the world or government or the environment or economics work. Good ideas are not quarantined to the elite.
The more voices that speak the more distilled the ideas become. The best ideas prevail and humanity advances. Orthodoxy of thought is dangerous to a republic. It constricts the free flow of democracy and like a cancer, metastasizes into a consolidated tumor of power. We must do better to break the homogeneity of elite thinking, so that we aren't buried under the expertise of stagnant cognition and brutal power.
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
Essay number 8 The Consequences of Lockdown When governments acted in reactionary fashion, they not only destroyed people, but they ruined their money. Here’s a brief explanation of how bad money policy harms the poor and middle class fat in excess of the well connected.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The fear of the pandemic led to government control and manipulation. Governments used fear to advance their agendas, consolidating power and wealth into the hands of the elite. They printed money without accountability, devaluing our currency and making everyday essentials unaffordable. Housing prices skyrocketed due to the flood of money in the system, benefiting the wealthy while the poor and middle class suffered. This system is falsely called capitalism, but it's actually a form of socialism for the wealthy and brutal capitalism for the rest. Without dismantling this cronyism and centralized control, we will continue to be enslaved by the powerful. We need a decentralized system that allows for free trade and individual value. Otherwise, we are destined for poverty and subsistence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The fear of things can be forgivable. Most of us have instincts to flee towards protection when we encounter something that seems terrifying. It's a human reaction that is natural and understandable. So when the pandemic began in March of 2020, it was completely within the boundaries of human behavior to fear what might be coming. Media and government were all saying that this had the potential to destroy entire civilizations and that if we didn't act in the most dramatic of fashions, we or someone we loved would likely fall victim to this dastardly virus.
Most people are willing to be reasonable. That actually is a hallmark of a world that has been oriented to liberty since the enlightenment. Wars are not desired by most civilized people, only their governments. Countries and their people have a bent towards being understanding and compassionate. So even when government distrust was at an all time high prior to COVID, people saw it as their responsibility to be kind and caring of the vulnerable, and they soldiered on into isolation, hoping that they would have more understanding and data about what this loosed virus was capable of.
Governments around the world spoke of a short term phase that would be over before we knew it, and it would give health care workers the chance to deal with the onslaught that was inevitably around the corner. But soon we found out that this virus wasn't everything that we had been sold on. Its impact was real and people did die from it, but the piles of bodies that they had promised never materialized. In logic, there is something called a causal fallacy, where equivalent ideas are compared that have nothing to do with one another. COVID showed government's capacity at this trait than anything we had seen in modern history.
The argument stated that people didn't die because we did actions that had no scientific proof or connection to reality. So we would wear masks in our cars driving alone or walk through a restaurant to a table then sit down and take our masks off because everyone knows that Viruses only hang out above booth level. Millions were convinced to take an experimental shot masquerading as a vaccine that has untold damage and side effects upon the populace. The irrationality that was presented as the right way of behavior was silly and comical under normal circumstances. But because there had been an appeal to authority, normal circumstances.
But because there had been an appeal to authority, which is another logical fallacy, people complied without question and altered their entire orientation to behaviors. For some, that tendency towards those actions still linger on, and with the slightest hint by media be it that the smart people will all dutifully comply with the next new mandates or masking, they find their old stash of masks and march out into the public to virtue signal their wisdom. All of this manipulation has had tremendous consequence on our world. Governments used this baseline fear in people to advance agendas that were only dreamed of by most totalitarian regimes from history. The fear of death and sickness was leveraged in such a fashion that they were able to consolidate businesses and property and monies and concentrated into the most powerful corporate interests.
They could change the way elections were done. They could print money and siphon it into the system via Wall Street and closed down the shops on Main Street without any due process or adherence to constitutionally required compensation. We were forced into an imminent domain world where governments acted on behalf of their major donors to squash their competition and make sure that had all the funding they needed to profit excessively, and they did it all without ever firing a shot. The programs that they provided in PPP or ERC were free money to the well connected and wealthy. They place small business in a moral hazard.
Take the money because if we shut you down further, you'll be responsible for your employees. Small business was forced into a shotgun wedding to either comply with this graft or face ruination. Ultimately, that money was unaccounted for and was significantly more than any one world can sustain. Printing money has always been consequential to communities. From the smallest forms of government to the large globalist amalgamations we find ourselves in today, When government prints money, in whatever form they wish to disguise it in, the consequence is a hidden tax upon the poor and middle class.
The difference this time around is that the money isn't physical. We don't see it in front of our eyes any longer, in the form of bills. So much of this is done in the ledgers of computers that no one actually sees the degradation that is happening to the money. In the past, when you had to take gunnysacks of money to buy bread, You were aware of the crime that had been committed. In our system today, you only see the numbers in an account.
And we glance past banks with 1,000,000,000 of dollars on their balance sheets, because it isn't tangible. The true reality of the money supply is completely unknown. Our fractional reserve lending system allows for banks to generate their own money in lending to the tune of 90% or more on every transaction. This is hard to Understand, and when it's laid out, it feels like a crime. In example, a bank can take your hard earned wages, let's call it $1,000, and can lend out that money to someone else to the tune of 90% or $900.
But your ledger still has all the money in it, But 900 new dollars were created out of thin air. That person takes their $900 and buys something with it. The vendor who charged them for it puts it in their bank, showing their ledger as $900. That bank can then lend about 90% of that or $810. So now there's $2,710 in existence all off that initial $1,000 deposit, just in 2 transactions.
Repeat this until the money is Gone, and there are tens of 1,000 of dollars in existence, all off of a $1,000 deposit. It's completely legal and encouraged, but it also means that the actual known dollars in our system is totally unobtainable. We could never ascertain how much our money His worth, because there's no inventory of the supply, other than the debt, that we are allowed to see. So back to COVID. What is unimaginable at This point is that nearly $8,000,000,000,000 was flooded into the system to help protect the American economy by the federal government, and countless other trillions around the world by their governments to protect their systems.
That money is all lendable in the same fractional manner as our previous Example, and soon enough, your currency is less valuable than the toilet paper that everyone raced out to buy at the start of the pandemic. Without any accountability or physical awareness of how much money is in the system, we just feel poorer. Milk and gas and eggs are suddenly unaffordable for the average person. Wages are always lagging in this system, so it squeezes people until they break. Houses become out of reach for the average person working because the dirty secret is that the home did not become more valuable.
It's that your money became more worthless. Housing is the only real indicator in this cloudy system of what is actually going on. So is it any surprise that the largest corporations on Wall Street made a direct play at ownership of these assets? Housing prices should not grow to nearly double in a 2 year period. That is exactly what happened from 2019 to 2021.
It happened because the zone was flooded with 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars, and leveraging was cheap. One could take those 1,000,000 that were obtained as a corporation, to help their employees buy assets instead. And it could all be done on the cheap with leveraged money from the bank that they had created out of thin air They're on their ledgers. So millions turn into billions of assets that companies could pay any price for, because tomorrow it would be worth more. The banksters know the game and they understood that the printing of so called money was devaluing the currency.
The wise dump their earnings and government graft into assets, so that it would at least hold par with what their income was actually worth. It feels rigged to the average American. It is falsely called capitalism, when in actuality, it is what Robert Kennedy junior describes as to cushy socialism for the wealthy and well connected, and a brutal capitalism for the poor and middle class. When it all crashes, which it will. They will send in regulators to make an example of a few poor schmucks that are on the outs with the Washington elites or the billionaires winner, and the government house will get their cut to help maintain the crooked rules.
Without a dismantling of the cronyism and fascist economic system of the free market will continue to be at the mercy of the money supply and the ones who control it. If the powerful can control the supply of money, they can control us, the people. We will be subjected to a subtle slavery for meager wages that never allow for innovation and advancement. We need new thinking on this, and it must be less centralized than the current iteration. Americans don't realize that they live in an oligarchic system that is just as cruel and demoralizing as the communist states of history or the present.
People need to have the opportunity to trade freely and establish their own value of assets instead of it being handed over to the central planning experts. There is very little separation from the Soviet style system of monetary management and the Federal Reserve. A fancy name with alliteration of freedom and federalism Does not a free market make? This has to change, or we are destined for subsistence and poverty at the hands of a few.
reSee.it AI Summary
Rep. Thomas Massie criticizes the government's role in the pandemic, including the creation of the virus, vaccine funding, and mandates. A Twitter user suggests he should have spoken up earlier. Rep. Massie responds, implying the user wasn't paying attention. Another user blames the government for manipulating currency.
@RepThomasMassie - Thomas Massie
The virus was created by government. The vaccine was funded by government. Manufacturers are indemnified by government. Mandates were forced by government. Lies were spread by government. Truth was censored by government. I will vote for less government.
@FlmanGeorgiaboi - Country ₳** Kody
@RepThomasMassie Would have been a lot cooler if you posted this three or four years ago
@RepThomasMassie - Thomas Massie
@FlmanGeorgiaboi Would have been a lot cooler if you were paying attention 3 or 4 years ago:
@loanly_hipster - Aaron Everitt
@RepThomasMassie @AmericanGi37401 @FlmanGeorgiaboi They ruined our money all to make sure we stayed in our places: