Sunday, February 22, 2009

On the Severity of the Economic Condition

I have recently found numerous useful videos and links concerning the current economic crisis. I believe that the economic danger that the entire world is in cannot be overstated. If you want to know what I believe this, then this is where I recommend you begin:

First, I recommend a very clear visual explanation of the current crisis involving sub-prime mortgages: Part 1, Part 2. It is called "The Crisis of Credit, Visualized". This is about the easiest way to understand what is happening in the economy right now if you only have 10 minutes. I would like to point out that according to the explanation in this video, it appears that the bailout package is nothing more than the American people paying the loans that banks took out so they could leverage them into mortgages. In other words, we are paying for the risks that they took to make a little more money. How absurd, considering we received none of the benefit of the leveraged mortgages!

The next piece I would recommend is an explanation of the mechanism of the Fed. A good place to start is an interview with political and economic guru, G. Edward Griffin, who explains why the Fed and its large brethren banks are a scam.

Considering that the banks' practice of creating money out of nothing (selling us debt) is the cause of inflation, watching this interview (only the first 8 1/2 minutes) ought to invoke a note of horror as one realizes that the ultimate economic effect of this inflation is to reduce the amount of money the middle class has and increase the amount of money the top tier has.

If the preceding links do not convince you that something is fundamentally wrong with how our economy is working, then I urge you to at least listen to Gerald Celente, whose social, political and economic trend-casting has been astoundingly accurate.

So who should we turn to? Who has a solution? If only the government were run by persons like George Soros. Then perhaps we would have a few critical minds who have a clear vision of how problems need to be solved rather than avoided. Though perhaps Soros' infamy would preclude him in particular from being considered a leader; nevertheless, his understanding of how people function in large groups is impressive. I have already mentioned Peter Joseph and the Venus Project who have a very optimistic vision of how the world could be. Perhaps we just need the appropriate goal. George Soros, of course, is not nearly as optimistic, at least for the near future.

Something big is about to happen. It's time to have Plan B prepared, folks.

-Priam's Pride

Friday, February 20, 2009

How Student Loans Have Helped Make America Stupid

Out of youthful indifference, I attended an undergraduate school that no-one has ever heard of. Looking back on this choice, I sometimes wonder where I would be if I had put some effort into thinking out how I wanted to live my life and how I was going to survive after college. But this is not to say that I regret the choice, for to do so would be to deny that the school ultimately came to mean something to me, which it did. Nevertheless, indifference in my youth caused two things: (1) an absurd amount of student loan debt, due to the fact that I attended a private school; and (2) a degree with which I could do virtually nothing. Again, do not think that I discourage loving a subject so much as to want to study it without regard for the monetary outcome. Indeed, I myself would rather be a starving artist than than a thriving businessman. So it is not that I reject love of the arts, as this would be contradiction considering my own love for them. Rather, I reject that there is such a dichotomy as starving artists versus thriving businessmen. And yet it seems as though, today, I must become a businessman of some sort in order to survive.

I am now in my last semester of a Master of Arts program in philosophy at LSU. "Why are you there?" you might ask me. To this I would respond that I am here because my appetite was whetted in my undergraduate career and this was a chance to learn more about a subject in which I had already promised myself a future Ph.D. I am here because in order to get a decent job doing philosophy, one must come out of a top school. But what if I do not get into a top school, because admission rates are cutthroat? Sounds like I'm in trouble, aren't I? And this is all prior to the process of attempting to find a job in academia. It seems as if I simply must have high standards for myself from now on, so that I can scrape by. "At least," I will tell myself, "I am doing what I want to be doing."

But is being a professor what I want to be doing? Suppose that in the course of my career at LSU, I discovered that I needed no more direction in philosophy except for access to an excellent library and an occasional conversation with an expert. Suppose, that is, that I have matured enough academically to be competent to begin work on a dissertation. Suppose also that I have no particular love for teaching in the traditional classroom setting. And while we're imagining possible worlds, let us consider that even if I do land a professorship, I will be bogged down by bureaucratic policies which are designed to save the school money rather than advance human knowledge. It seems as if professors are required to teach classes that they often do not want to teach (for not everyone wants to be training novices -- it takes a certain kind of love), in addition to their requirement to jump through administrative and bureaucratic hoops. So let us imagine that the road to getting a Ph.D. is long, difficult and redundant (considering how many classes I will still have to take); and let us imagine that obtaining a professorship is extremely difficult; and finally let us imagine that when I am a professor, I will still have very little time for research, writing, and teaching those who want to hear what I have to say. Now let us cease imagining, for this picture is reality.

But if this possible world is the real world, then it seems as if I will not be doing what I want to do if I end up being a professor. So why on Earth would I put myself through all the hard work, all the lip-synching, all the form-filling that is involved in acquiring a professorship? What is the real reason that I am still pursuing a Ph.D.? It is because I was fooled, hoodwinked, I've been had. When I was a kid I was convinced that it was a good idea to take on tens of thousands of dollars in debt in the hopes of being able to pay that back. But this is not a lucrative investment. I have been sold a raw deal before I even knew what a deal was. The fact of the matter is that my investment is virtually guaranteed not to be able to pay for itself. The reason for this is that while I am in school, my interest compounds (because my parents were not quite poor enough to secure subsidized loans for me) and increases the capital; but, statistically speaking, I will almost certainly never get a job in philosophy that will allow me to pay back these loans in any reasonable or comfortable fashion. The most likely way for me to pay back my student loans (if I ever do) is through hard work at a job that I will probably hate.

So why am I still in school, then? The reason is simple. While I am in school, I do not have to pay back the student loans. So as long as I stay in school, the absurd dream of landing a perfect professorial job is still alive, and I need not pay for anything.

You might suggest to me that I enter a different field. And if I were to meet my former self, I certainly would have tried to give him some sense before willingly accepting all those loans. But the problem is that I have been groomed for a professorship -- it seems to be my doom. I am trained in virtually nothing else (nothing practical, anyway).

My best solution is this: (1) I will stay in school as long as I can; (2) while I am here I will seek reform; and (3) if reform is not possible, I will assist in revolution.

What the America is doing to its young intelligensia is criminal. We are crippled by debt incurred before we even know the consequences. We are soon to become the educated but homeless. Our parents owed it to us to secure us a good education which can be attained without personal debt, but this has not been done. We are the future and we are being downtrodden; it is as if America wants its leaders to be unintelligent and uncultured profiteers. It's no wonder that popular culture reduces to little more than advertisement and immediate unhealthy physical pleasure. The first generates profit and the second appeals to the palate of the ignorant. For example, most people do not know what good art is because they have been provided no experience of it. And you know, reader, what I mean. When you speak to the average American about music or movies, you are always disappointed at the overt ignorance and poor taste that the average American has. From Brittany Spears to The Fast and the Furious, from CSI to John Grisham novels. You are disappointed and I am too.

America has become stupid and ignorant. And now they do not even have a profit to show for their ignorance. We now have the opportunity to learn the lesson that our ignorance and stupidity cannot be allowed to persist any longer. We cannot let ourselves be fooled by banks who sell you money for more money. We cannot let ourselves be fooled by political parties who are more interested in combating each other than devising a sustainable political atmosphere. We must come out of our ignorance!

But are we already too stupid and ignorant to learn this lesson?

-Priam's Pride

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Why Are Peter Joseph and Alex Jones Opponents?

To anyone reading this who has not availed herself of the new political activist movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, I highly recommend you watch it. This is one of the most profound works of film I have ever seen. Be warned, there are some inaccuracies in the film, but on the whole it seems to accurately characterize the spirit of the times. In fact, parts of this post assume some familiarity with the film, so if you won't watch it for yourself, at least watch it for me.

I just watched the debate between Alex Jones (of The Alex Jones Show) and Peter Joseph (creator of Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist: Addendum) on Alex Jones' show in a four-part You Tube series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I have to say that there is an important event happening right now, which this debate outlines. These two men each represent a social movement which is attempting to build up support. Alex Jones' movement has sped up lately and Peter Joseph entered the scene with a bang. What is interesting about these two movements is that they are almost parallel in their criticism of the status quo.

Both have been accused of being conspiracy theorists, and therefore they live on the social margin. Alex Jones believes that the Bilderberg Group is a self-conscious tyrannical entity. This group is populated by the very most powerful persons in the world, and Alex Jones' movement believes that this group uses the corporate machine (most notably the American economy, which in turn affects to all other economies) to control and herd the less fortunate masses. Details about this can be found in Alex Jones' documentary Endgame.

Peter Joseph, on the other hand, believes that the conspiracy is more organic and less self-conscious. Peter Joseph may or may not believe that they Bilderberg Group is responsible for all tyrannical governmental and corporate acts, but he does believe that there is a de facto social stratum which has enslaved the rest of the population. For Peter Joseph, the Bilderberg Group is considered to be the most powerful of the elite stratum which does the enslaving, but that does not make it the only autonomous such group. Peter Joseph seems more inclined to think that the Bilderberg Group is simply a powerful symptom of the tendency to tyranny which the practice of using currency ushers in. For Peter Joseph, in the end the corporate elite end up ruling the world because they have all the money. They probably do not sit at a large round table to discuss how they can further enslave the world and commit other such evil deeds.

What is interesting about these two is that they are both highly critical of the received story of 9/11. Both believe that it was a set-up which was agreed upon by those who rule -- the difference is how they believe it was conceived. For both men, the point of the attack was to push legislature through the system via scare tactics. They might even agree on who ordered the attack. What they disagree about is this: for Alex Jones, the attack was a plot to enslave the world; for Peter Smith, the attack was a plot to increase profit which ultimately ends up enslaving the world.

But what does this difference amount to? It amounts to a great deal. Alex Jones believes that the men in charge are highly intelligent, but evil. For Alex Jones, the Bilderberg Group knows nothing that we do not know -- it's just that they have no qualms with destroying us. For Peter Joseph, the Bilderberg Group, or what he calls the "corporatocracy" is not self-consciously evil. For Peter Joseph, the corporatocracy are merely corrupt. This conclusion is a natural result of the claim that the ethical code of the corporatocracy is the maximization of profits, regardless of te consequences.

This difference highlights an issue on which these two movements butt heads. There are a few such issues which I wish to address in this post. The reason I want to address these issues is that these two movements have been trying to undermine each other lately, which is obviously folly. There is so much in common between them that the fact that they cannot have a rational debate makes them both look foolish. For both sides actively support rational debate and critical thought. Consider, for example, this post which collects much criticism of religious claims in Zeitgeist. One can also check ConspiracyScience for many good critical points about claims throughout Zeitgeist, (and, by association, Loose Change). What is particularly absurd about these sorts of critics is that many of the people who actively try to debunk claims made in Zeitgeist are Alex Jones supporters. ConspiracyScience even goes so far as to claim that Peter Joseph is a member of the NWO (hence he is evil). On the other hand, those who subscribe to the Zeitgeist Movement typically criticize Alex Jones followers as adopting too religious of a tone.

So why do these two sides not try to find some way to cooperate? Well, this is not too hard to figure out, though it seems as if many of the constituents of these movements, in fact, have not found out. Alex Jones and his followers tend to be religious types. Why? Because the claim is that the NWO is an evil empire of Illuminati Satan-worshippers. The only way to construe today's Tyranny (the Bilderberg Group, for Alex Jones) as both intelligent and Satan-worshipping is if one can construe them also as evil. In other words, only if one accepts that Satan exists in the first place can one actually bring oneself to believe that the most powerful people on Earth are Satan-worshippers. To an atheist or an agnostic, it is just foolhardy to believe such a thing. The most powerful people on Earth are probably also some of the most intelligent, so if one does not accept the existence of Satan, then it seems rather implausible that such an unpopular religion would dominate the elite. What is even more absurd about the claims that Alex Jones' followers make is that it seems as if anyone who is against Alex Jones is part of the NWO. Sounds like a cult to me -- or at least a self-fulfilling prophecy. And I won't even begin with the Biblical prophecies derived from the Book of Revelation or the prophecies attributed to Nostradamus. Frankly, the strangely hypocritical closed-mindedness of the followers of Alex Jones (and Alex Jones himself) will likely be the downfall of this movement. In any case, it seems as if Alex Jones has lost himself in his own bizarre dogmas, so at the end of the day we might have to dismiss him as an eccentric.

Peter Joseph, however, is also not free of blame. If anyone claims to be a friend of truth, it is Peter Joseph. Yet the first part of Zeitgeist is now famous for asserting a multitude of inaccuracies about the history of religion. In the movie, Joseph claims that the Christian religion essentially plagiarized most of its central features from other previously existing religions. The support he gives for this, though, is mostly found in non-scholarly New Age works with an anti-Christian lean, such as the infamous Acharya S. (whose views are nevertheless admirable). In any case, a rather poor scholarly showing in Zeitgeist has undermined Joseph's claim to be a harbinger of truth. Of course, we must ask the question whether Peter Joseph knowingly included misinformation. If he was simply a poor researcher, then he may be forgiven (for he is an artist by trade). However, if he is consciously distorting the facts, then his motives may be questioned.

So how do we decide which of these is true of Peter Joseph? Well the answer is not so clear. All one needs to do is watch an interview of Peter Joseph to see that he truly believes what he is saying. Based on the way he speaks, it is really quite difficult to believe that he is trying to distort the truth. He really believes that there are problems with the status quo, the popular religions, and dogmatic claims in general. Is he willing to sacrifice his integrity as an advocate of truth in order to attack what he conceives as the demons of the world? That's a question that Peter Joseph himself must answer (publicly, in my view). Nevertheless, his worldview is a generally healthy one, provided that a few aspects are modified. First, he must distinguish between religion and spirituality. Joseph is frequently accused of advocating a world religion, but what he really wants is a recognition that spirituality can be achieved without the need for religion at all. His opponents do not see the distinction, so they accuse him of being a religious figure. It is, therefore, a burden that Peter Joseph must bear to explain this distinction. Second, he must relinquish his ties to conspiracy theories like the 9/11 conspiracy theory he advocates in Zeitgeist. His message is powerful enough that he does not need a controversial conspiracy theory. His theory about the de facto conspiracy, a conspiracy which is not conscious of itself, is a much more plausible theory.

Given these modifications, I can accept Peter Joseph's (and the Venus Project's) vision as the most profoundly beneficial and progressive vision advanced thus far. Unfortunately, I don't think that the world is ready to accept such a vision. As much as I would love to begin building a world where there is no money and where machines can take care of the menial tasks that people are employed to do, I don't think it is yet possible to convince people to let go of money. We've buried ourselves too deeply in money to simply jump out of the grave; we must climb. Therefore, we ought simply to focus on wrestling control of the world from corporate hands. Perhaps when this happens, a Rawlsian vision of the world may be realized. And we will see what happens from there.

-Priam's Pride