Friday, May 19, 2017

Forgiving The Free-Range Debt-Slave Plantation Scam (The Tax/Debt/Money/Inflation Scam)

Although the news pretty much never covers this subject at all, it covers its symptoms constantly. Much of the whole world is set up as a free-range debt-slave plantation; it's basically the biggest scam going. Since this is a big, complex subject, you'll have to watch the hour and forty five minute video presentation at the end of this post (made in 2010) to get up-to-speed on the debt-slave plantation scam. The guy who made the video, Damon Vrabel, was vocal about exposing this whole scam several years ago. But after spending a few years at it, he gave up due to seeing no hope for snapping the populace out of its left vs. right stupor. So he disappeared from the web to forgive it all on his own. I came to the same conclusion as Damon Vrabel after being interested in this subject for a number of years. I wrote a book about the subject in 2008, Dissolving Dollars.

The basic formula of the free-range debt-slave system is that all money in the system is issued as debt plus interest. To pay the interest on the debt requires evermore debt. If all debt in the system were paid off one day, all money would cease to exist since it was borrowed into existence. Since governments are the only entities that never pay off debt and instead only grow it, national debts represent the base money supply of the system. This all sets up a pyramid scheme where real wealth created by the many on the bottom is siphoned off by those higher in the pyramid who are able to issue debt and collect interest on it. Money doesn't have to exist as debt but it makes for a great scam when it is.

In the U.S., the establishment Democrat and Republican parties both exist to keep the debt-slave plantation running. And each party has its own sleight of hand to keep the slaves focused on symptoms of the scam rather than the scam itself. The left portrays things like corporations, big business, and profit as the problem while the right portrays things like socialism and big government as the problem. That sleight of hand keeps the left and right fighting each other in a zombie stupor over symptoms of the scam instead of joining teams to tackle the scam itself. And so it is all a back and forth treating symptoms to keep the cause safely hidden. In the end, the battle between left and right is simply a battle between who pays more and who pays less to keep the scam going and sustainable; socialism (big government) works just as well as capitalism (big business) to keep the scam going. As long as at least half the slaves are sufficiently content at any given time, the system is safe.

Take a look at this pyramid. This summarizes the whole system. See how the incessant fighting between the left and the right just serves variations of the same one scam?

Although true forgiveness isn't an intellectual thing, it is often helpful to be knowledgeable about what you are forgiving. Without knowledge, you're likely to project guilt onto symptoms rather than causes. And so you'll try to fix the symptoms instead of the causes. No amount of forgiving solves anything if the solution requires letting go of the guilt that keeps you ignorant of the cause. The ultimate cause is mind of course. And since the world is a derivative of mind the problems of the world born of being unaware of worldly causes just represent the denial of accepting mind as the ultimate cause. When you know the cause of a problem you know the solution and so it is no longer a problem to be solved just resolved.

So, the whole point of urging everyone to sit down and really soak in the content of the video at the end of this post is so you can stop projecting guilt on symptoms and instead get to causes. Because it is easier to forgive a cause than chasing countless symptoms as separate things to forgive. Once you are cognizant enough to see the worldly cause, you can more easily bring it back to the ultimate cause: mind.

You should find it interesting how often Trump is mentioned in this 2010 video presentation. Even though Trump as a personality is the perfect face upon which to project the guilt of the system, his rhetoric is often a challenge to key aspects of the debt-slave plantation. The Democrats, Republican establishment (Neocons), and establishment media loath Trump. For as long as Trump lasts as president, how critically he is portrayed will be a barometer measuring how much he is caving in to the elite power structure (deep state) or instead threatening to disrupt it. The highest point in the media for Trump so far was when he bombed Syria, which pleased the power elite. And interestingly, the whole attempt to vilify Trump due to his friendliness with Russia is perfectly transparent when you understand the system. At the 1:03:00 mark of this presentation, it talks about how the different countries fit into the whole debt scam and how Russia is the big outlier that has tried to remain separate from the global scam. Also worth noting is that at the 1:21:00 mark, Bitcoin would be mentioned if the presentation were made today. Bitcoin and crypto-currencies are a non-political attempt at a solution for destroying the debt-slave plantation. And when the video mentions Hamilton versus Jefferson, especially at around the 1:30:00 mark, think about the recent weird popularity of the musical Hamilton contrasted with the recent constant vilification of Jefferson. It's embarrassing to see how manipulated people are by their left/right identifications into being puppets of the system. Left vs. right is a trick, the real option is between bigger more centralized control or smaller more decentralized freedom. The more centralized the control, the more force and the easier it is to maintain the debt-slave plantation scam.

Lots of news becomes a lot easier to forgive if you have the background explained in this video under your belt. So, stuff I cover in the future will refer back to this. To me, I forgive all this fairly easily by realizing that the system as a whole exploits people's egos. Even most people high in the pyramid don't really understand the structure. The structure is relatively automatic due to how well it caters to and exploits people's egos. So I see no difference between the lowly dupes that blindly sustain the system and those who run the system. Because the same ego dynamic is working on all levels. Yes, the system could change if people woke up but I'm personally not going to bang my head against the wall trying to wake people up. As long as force is acceptable to people in society, especially in the form of government, some people are going to exploit that force to set up scams.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Forgiving Debate: Ad Hominem = You Lose!

As the first post on Forgiving the News, I want to talk about the subject of debate. Because news often leads to debate and the debate is often where the forgiveness opportunity shows itself.

As I say on page 164 of The Universe Is a Dream, debating on the internet is usually a waste of time. I usually only engage in it when I'm trying to formulate a position and thus refine an argument. Being good at forgiveness beats being good at debate. But debate is nonetheless a very useful thing. And in fact, proper debate and forgiveness actually go hand in hand. The only problem is that few people have the discipline for proper debate. 

Debate is a kind of logic competition through which one can strengthen an argument or at least discover its indefensible weaknesses. But for debate to be useful you have to be debating with people who are knowledgeable and don't slip into logical fallacies. Although there are about a dozen major logical fallacies that corrupt debate (which I list at the end of this post), ad hominem is the most problematic and pertinent to forgiveness. Therefore, ad hominem is the focus of this post. Ad hominem is when a debate turns into an attack directed against a person rather than the position the person is maintaining. Rule number one in a debate, especially an internet debate, is to end it when ad hominem starts. When ad hominem starts, it is no longer about logic and finding truth but about projecting guilt. He who resorts to ad hominem first loses the argument by default.

Ad hominem is like the equivalent of trying to build a building and basing the structural integrity of the building on painting its component parts red because red seems like a strong color lol. Ad hominem works to make it seem like an argument is taking place but it's actually an emotional appeal and not logic. I have no qualms challenging positions and beliefs when I'm willing to logically debate my position. But I know not to attack people personally, only their arguments. Because even if a person's position has some sort of flaw due to a personality trait or mental defect, the position can nonetheless be ripped apart without resorting to ad hominem. That's rule one in proper debate and also how you can debate while simultaneously practicing forgiveness (not project).

Political debate is usually almost totally ad hominem. Ad hominem manipulates people's emotions and it works because most people are way more emotional than logical. It's almost impossible for political debate to not be mostly about emotion, because politics is about who gets to control the guns (force) of government and where to aim those guns (force). If logic were running the show, everyone would point out how stupid it is that anyone at all should control the guns and be aiming those guns at anyone... other than at the kinds of jerks that aim guns and coerce people. That's how I think and that's why I'm a political atheist. So, to me most political debates are the same regardless of the political affiliation of those attempting to debate. The debate is basically: my team should control the guns and where they are aimed because my team is good and the other teams is bad. It is just mindless emotional projection and all about persuasion rather than logic.

I expect ad hominem in politics, but even science resorts to ad hominem. If you know something to be true scientifically, you are guaranteed to win any debate that doesn't resort to logical fallacy. But when the science isn't as sound as it pretends to be, ad hominem often results. For instance, science has a long history of using ad hominem on people who point to quantum mechanics to argue against physical realism.

Another example of an area where science often resorts to ad hominem is anthropogenic global warming. In case you haven't heard, the science on anthropogenic global warming is settled, it's real, it's a big problem, and those who think differently should be at the "Hague with all the other war criminals." With such a strong position, you'd think science could mop the floor in a debate with any dissenting scientist or anyone else. Well, the reality is that science currently can't, but it can politicize the science and resort to ad hominem (and other logic fallacies) to shut up dissent. The most common ad hominem is that warming dissenters are just in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. And the most common ad hominem rebuttal is that most regular scientists are in the pockets of governments and institutions that would benefit in both money and power from offering solutions to a climate scare. Yet, regardless of ulterior motives, if science knew the truth it would be able to crush any dissent in legitimate debate. But science only pretends to have that ability by discouraging and eliminating dissent through various forms of ostracization. As a result, the most vocal climate skeptic scientists are usually older and or retired scientists with less to lose: dissenters like Dr. Judith Curry and the now late Dr. William M. Gray. Such people are very smart, informed people, yet they find ample room for doubt in the supposedly settled science of anthropogenic global warming.

As a non-climate scientist, most cases put forth by scientists for and against anthropogenic global warming seem legit to me when presented on their own in isolation. In isolation, I'm blind to what each side of the argument is omitting to build the illusion of certainty. And in isolation, each side often builds straw men to dismiss their opponents. Straw man arguments are another way to cheat at debate whereby you illustrate your opponent's position in a way that makes it easily defeated. 

After spending time with the arguments from both sides of the climate change issue, I know neither side has anything near a rock solid position. That means I can't honestly take sides. All I know is CO2 has risen, there has been some warming, human activity could in theory be driving it, and it could in theory end up catastrophic. Therefore, my position on global warming is that, in case humans raising CO2 is a major climate driver, we should replace fossil fuels as an energy source. But that means having a real replacement for fossil fuels. A government gun aimed at people to stop CO2 is not a replacement for fossil fuels, yet that's all the scientists tend to have to offer as a solution. If the government gun solution is all there is, then that's as good as no solution, because government gun solutions are by their nature scam solutions, otherwise they wouldn't require government force. But enough about that subject. I'll eventually write a post on forgiving climate change since that's a recurring news item.

The point is that legitimate debate is a useful thing, like exercise or healthy food. But since people's egos and therefore emotions are often so tied to their beliefs, their beliefs are too often more emotion than logic. Consequently, debate usually ends quickly in one side or the other slipping into ad hominem as legitimate, logical argument is exhausted.

If you have a friend or relative that often calls your beliefs out to start debates, whether in person or somewhere like Facebook posts, and that friend is cognizant enough not to slip into ad hominem or other logic fallacies, that's a good friend. You should be able to mop the floor with your dissenting friend if your beliefs are more legit than your friend's. If you can't defend your beliefs, you should keep your beliefs to yourself until you formulate your beliefs in a way that you can communicate and defend them. If your friend can't debate without resorting to ad hominem, teach your friend about debate. And let your friend know that the debate is over and a winner is crowned as soon as either person resorts to ad hominem. And if you yourself are usually the ad hominem debater, then you know better now by reading this and so it's time to stop cheating!

Another thing to keep in mind is don't be a parrot; know the reason and evidence for why you believe what you do. Parrots can't debate because their knowledge and certainty is phony and just based on confidence in an outside source. Don't get mad at someone else for exposing you as a mere parrot. I don't care if you're expounding a political belief or a belief in A Course in Miracles, know what you are talking about before you start mouthing off. Otherwise, some smart ass like me might just be in a mood for some debate exercise lol.

I'll admit that I'm a Socratic gadfly that likes to test people's beliefs. In doing so I'm able to challenge my own beliefs and make my positions stronger. The only thing smart about me is that I know I'm an idiot, but I live on planet of the idiots and so I don't feel bad about it when it becomes obvious lol. And since I know I'm an idiot I know to always be open to good counter arguments to my beliefs in case I need to modify them.

What you discover by debating is that truth brings people together and delusion separates people. The tighter you hold onto a delusion or the more you leave yourself vulnerable to the delusions of others the more you are only going to be safe in a bubble. Truth is uniting because it is consistent and it is consistent because the ultimate truth is necessarily oneness. For that reason, another important aspect of debate is common language; that often means explicitly establishing common definitions for terms used in a debate.

Debate to learn, not to win. Because if you debate to learn you always win, even if you lose, or even if the debate gets you de-friended by a deluded bubble friend lol. Incidentally, de-friending is like the ultimate Facebook ad hominem, a close second is deleting someone else's comments. Even if you have a friend that always resorts to ad hominem, all you have to do is respond: ad hominem, I win. And if the friend keeps going with the ad hominem, then censorship is excusable.

But anyway, appreciating debate is important to forgiving the news. Because much of what needs forgiven in the news is the result of opposing views about what the news reports. Those opposing views facilitate projection and therefore forgiveness lessons. And those views are usually wrapped in many levels of logical fallacy, including ad hominem. By understanding the mechanics of rational debate, you can become more immune to projection. Therefore, you'll more easily remember to forgive instead of project guilt.

In closing, I leave you with the twelve commandments of rational debate. Always follow the first commandment and enforce it. But you can cheat with the rest to test out your opponent. However, once you are called out you have to stop using that tactic. And you must accept that there is a limit to certain arguments. For example, arguing that the universe is a dream or virtual or that the world is going to be destroyed by CO2 has limits. Once you reach those limits you have to concede that you've gone as far as you can without cheating.


The 12 Commandments of Rational Debate and (Logical Fallacies) 
  1. Thou shall not attack the person’s character, only the argument itself. (“Ad hominem”)
  2. Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s arguments in order to make them easier to attack. (“Straw Man Fallacy”)
  3. Thou shall not use small samples to represent the whole. (“Hasty Generalization”)
  4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (“Begging the Question”)
  5. Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (“Post Hoc/False Cause”)
  6. Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (“False Dichotomy”)
  7. Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (“Ad Ignorantiam”)
  8. Thou shall not lay burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (“Burden of Proof Reversal”)
  9. Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that,” when “it” has no logical connection. (“Non sequitur”)
  10. Thou shall not claim that because a premises is popular, therefore, it must be true. (“Bandwagon Fallacy”)
  11. Thou shall not appeal to an outside party to claim support. (“Appeal to Authority”)
  12. Thou shall not claim moral authority. (“Moral high ground fallacy”)