Jim Sinclair with James Turk on GOLD

Federal Reserve, GOLD, Government, inflation No Responses »

Aug 112011

Jim Sinclair with James Turk on GOLD

James Turk, Director of The GoldMoney Foundation, talks to Jim Sinclair, host of www.jsmineset.com/, about his successful gold price predictions, US debt problems, how to ride the trend and the second phase of the gold bull. It’s a gear change from arithmetic to exponential growth as public perceptions about the safety of the US dollar changes. The debt ceiling debate is a wake up call for people all over the world. The video was recorded on August 5 2011 at the GATA conference in London.

Jim Sinclair interviewed by James Turk

Runtime: 10:10
Keywords: Jim Sinclair gold price mr gold James Turk GATA USA debt crisis dollar buy gold video
Views: 101,717

KB GOLD opportunity

KB GOLD is the only company that markets GOLD in grams at the market value for grams of GOLD. The Company has been in business for 17 years. They own 2 GOLD Mines, where they get the GOLD out of the earth. They own the GOLD refinery, where they extract the GOLD. They own the GOLD mint where they can produce more than 50,000 plastic cards with gram sized .9999 GOLD ingots, marked with a Kinebar hologram, are embedded in the card.

KB offers the GOLD at the market value for grams of GOLD and when we connect others to the company, YOU receive up to 5% commission when those people buy gold. We Know people are buying GOLD because the price is going UP! UP! UP!

In the Last 18 Months the company has Shipped over 2 TONS of GOLD using this innovative direct to consumer distribution method.

I will help you build this business. PUT ME TO WORK FOR YOU! Call me and I will help you with your follow up with those people you have showed the card to. They want to get involved. If you have not shown anyone the Cards I will help you make calls. This is so EASY it is ridiculous

The People you know NEED KB GOLD. Your friends and relatives are going to be wiped out when the dollar revaluation (depression 2.0) hits.

Its FREE, it is easy, its .9999 GOLD, there is nothing to explain, They don’t even need to buy any. PUT ME TO WORK FOR YOU!

Thomas Mario Costanzo
601-434-1725
http://republicusa.myisystem.com

James Turk: I’m James Turk. I’m a director of the GoldMoney Foundation. I’m here with one of the legends of Wall Street, Jim Sinclair. Jim, it’s really pleasure to speak with you.

Jim Sinclair: It’s my pleasure to be with you.

James: Thank you. I’d listened to your brilliant presentation here at the GATA conference in London. I’d like to talk to you about it a little bit. I want to focus in on this $1,764 number. How did you come to this $1,764 number on gold?

Jim: The angels that I’ve published, the numbers that I’ve suggested and to a large degree been successful with, actually come from a formula that Jesse Livermore used. And he actually used it for new issues, but it applies to gold. It was published in 1923 in The Wall Street Journal, and it’s called the square of the numbers.

James: OK. Now the significant thing in my mind is that when this $1,764 number is breached to the upside you were saying that gold could go exponential. Can you explain some of your thinking behind that?

Jim: Well, we’ve been through two phases in gold in my opinion. In other words the first phase was rather arithmetic. It had a nice angle of appreciation, but not a great angle. When we cross the $524.90, I suggested to people that possibly trading wasn’t the best idea. That real money is made by holding a position that’s right and holding it for the duration of that period of correctness.

James: Riding the trend.

Jim: Just riding that whole trend without the need for leverage.

James: Yeah, I agree with you.

Jim: Without the need for catching every interim top. $1,764 has the same implications as $524.90 had. It’s mathematical. But what it would indicate would be that the trend had changed now from arithmetic with certain periods of a geometric rise into a period of time where exponential rises are possible. $1,764 is the loss of confidence. $1,764 is the king has no clothes. $1,764 is the transparency of the depths of our problems and the duration of our problems.

James: Well, you hit the nail on the head not only explaining why gold is going up, but something to me that’s very important. You know, the sentiment indicators. For something to go exponential, there has to be a change in psychology of various participants around the world. So you’re implying that sentiment is going to change negatively for national currencies and positively toward gold in such a way that it will just keep running.

Jim: Lack of management. Something on its own. Situations developing without any plans on how to handle them, but rather just reacting to circumstances as they come.

James: Yeah.

Jim: The absolute embarrassment of the compromise that allowed the debt ceiling to rise in the US. Anyone who had any part in that arrangement should be embarrassed. It’s becoming clear to the world that we react to circumstances in North America, in the US, without any plan whatsoever for what they might be.

James: Yeah. Understand completely. So policy makers are, they don’t have the political will to do the right thing. They don’t have the political will to turn around and get back on the right road and stop this train wreck that looks like it’s going to happen?

Jim: This is a slow train wreck. It’s going to go on, in my opinion, right through 2015. This train wreck is circumstances creating decisions reactively. This train wreck is an out of control economic circumstance. This train wreck is exactly the same as if you and I spent everything we had, borrowed on our credit cards and lost our job on a national basis. Credit is gone wild and it’s coming home to roast.

James: But, you know, this is something different. You know, I’ve gone to countries like Argentina in 1991 to study the problems with the currency and hyperinflation. But, you know, we’re talking about the world’s reserve currency here.

Jim: Yes.

James: So what you’re suggesting is this is going to have a profound impact, not just in the United States, but everywhere?

Jim: For exactly that reason. The reserve currency, the currency upon which other central banks have taken comfort, that reserve currency is broke. That reserve currency has debt that can’t be controlled. That reserve currency is going to transmit its problems throughout the Western world.

James: You know, you probably remember from the 1970s when John Connally was President Nixon’s secretary and we were having one of the many crises, probably 1973, with regard to the dollar. And Connally said, “Well, the dollar is our currency but it’s your problem,” speaking to the rest of the world. Is that still the same attitude today?

Jim: That madness still continued, but I don’t think continues anymore.

James: Because?

Jim: I think that madness has been brought into the light of reality by the increase in the debt ceiling based on nothing whatsoever. On a very poor compromise. On doing nothing. On just making a piece of paper. Of just doing theatrics for TV.

James: Well, this is interesting because what you’re basically saying is the debt ceiling process, where they finally did increase it after all of this political posturing and whatnot. That was sort of a wakeup call? Not only in America, but also the rest of the world as to…

Jim: It was a total shock.

James: Yeah.

Jim: I don’t think any economic event in modern history has been as embarrassing as the so-called compromise, the so-called bill and the so-called lauding of that accomplishment. And the market the next day looking at it and defining it as totally fallacious.

James: Are you comfortable talking about the euro and what the implications of the dollar are going to be on the euro?

Jim: It’s not just simply the dollar on the euro or the euro on the dollar. That’s day to day trading. Our problem is not a problem of just the US dollar. It’s in the entire Western world.

James: Fiat currency?

Jim: Fiat currency of the entire Western world. What we lose others gain.

James: Yeah.

Jim: There was a time when we had it all and there was a time when we gave all of that back.

James: Yeah.

Jim: It’s not simply what is Greece going to do today or tomorrow. It might be what is New York state going to do today and tomorrow.

James: Or Illinois or California.

Jim: And media, media has focused on the euro and our rating agencies are totally euro-phobic. While if they were to turn the mirror around and look the other way, they’d see the exact same thing. The trading that will take place between the euro and the dollar are purely mirror images reflecting whatever the flavor of the day is. It’s an entire Western world currency problem that is endemic because of the dollar, which transmitted the problems of debt not simply from the US, but to the world.

And they all went nuts on the derivatives. And they’ve created this pseudo money going around the world. Which before the Bank of International Settlements changed their measure was quadrillion. Not trillion. And that specter is still in cyberspace, waiting for any opportunity to surface again.

James: Yeah. So they’ve all been bitten by the fiat currency disease and, you know, we can’t just talk about the dollar…

Jim: Greed.

James: We’ve really got to talk about everything.

Jim: Greed.

James: That’s human nature, right?

Jim: But human nature to the extreme. Who needs enemies when we have the financial leadership we have?

James: Yeah. Understand completely. So if gold goes exponential against the US dollar when it clears $1,764, by implication it’s going to go exponential against the British pound, the euro and pretty much everything else?

Jim: And every single currency to the differential of how that currency trades against others. But in all currencies.

James: Unless the central bank in that particular country wakes up and adopts sound money policies?

Jim: But how can you now? How can you adopt sound money policies when the adoption of those policies will open Pandora’s Box of this enormous amount of derivatives still floating around the world? Will open a Pandora’s Box of the lack of balance sheet integrity in the US banking system. When you’re allowed to value your asset at anything you think it’s worth, how can that be balance sheet integrity?

James: Yeah.

Jim: All of this, we’re coming to a point now where all of this is just waiting to explode from underneath the contraction that’s taking place around the world in the second dip, or the double dip that we’re having in this recession. Or maybe the beginning of a depression.

James: I see.

Jim: What comes out in the next few weeks from the central bank will be a great determinant of whether 1,764 is breached.

James: One thing you also said in your presentation is that one of the best ways right now is to own physical gold. And you continue to own it, because it’s still relatively good value?

Jim: The ultimate protection for yourself is to own and be your own central bank.

James: Yes.

Jim: And being your own central bank would be the first step of owning gold, rather than the reserve currency, dollars.

James: You’ve taken the words right out of my mouth. I couldn’t have said it better.

Jim: Well, that is ultimate.

James: Yeah, I agree. Any parting comments that you’d like to share with the viewers? This is going to be seen by thousands of people, you know, all around the world.

Jim: Well, we’re on the, we are right on the cusp of what I believe is going to be a very difficult and serious situation. I can’t conceive of how the balance sheets of the international banks, which they’ve developed themselves through their ability to value their assets at whatever they pleased to value it at, can remain camouflaged. With the contraction now public in world business.

I would expect to see central banks move to further liquidity. I’d expect to see currencies move to further worth-less, rather than worth more. And those that have protected themselves now, I think will benefit from that protection. But I think it’s at a point where it’s almost too late.

James: Yeah. It will benefit and help them get through the valley and be in a much better position when we finally work our way through this problem that we’re facing.

Jim: Exactly.

James: Yeah. Jim, thank you very much. This has been a real pleasure and I appreciate your sharing your thoughts.

Jim: It’s my pleasure to speak with you.

James: Thank you.

KB GOLD opportunity

KB GOLD is the only company that markets GOLD in grams at the market value for grams of GOLD. The Company has been in business for 17 years. They own 2 GOLD Mines, where they get the GOLD out of the earth. They own the GOLD refinery, where they extract the GOLD. They own the GOLD mint where they can produce more than 50,000 plastic cards with gram sized GOLD ingots, marked with a hologram, are embedded in the card.

KB offers the GOLD at the market value for grams of GOLD and when we connect others to the company, YOU receive up to 5% commission when those people buy gold. We Know people are buying GOLD because the price is going UP! UP! UP!

In the Last 18 Months the company has Shipped over 2 TONS of GOLD using this innovative direct to consumer distribution method.

The People you know NEED KB GOLD. Your friends and relatives are going to be wiped out when the dollar revaluation (depression 2.0) hits.

Its FREE, it is easy, its .9999 GOLD, there is nothing to explain, They don’t even need to buy any. PUT ME TO WORK FOR YOU!

Thomas Mario Costanzo
601-434-1725
http://republicusa.myisystem.com

Dylan Ratigan’s Mad as Hell Moment

Bank, BORG, Bureaucracy, Cartels, Federal Reserve, Government, hierarchy, inflation, Slavery, Taxation, unethical No Responses »

Aug 092011

4 Trillion or 70 Trillion

Dylan: What are you talking about $4 trillion?
Karen: $4 trillion, I’m saying…
Dylan: We owe $70 trillion. a $4 trillion solution, which is basically just a way for the Democrats to avoid dealing with this until 2017. I’m not here to talk about plans to deal with this till 2017. I’m saying we’ve got a real problem, and I’m tired of Republicans and Democrats who either want – Republicans who want to burn the place to the ground and Democrats, with all due respect, who want to offer a plan that gets it through the end of their second term of their presidency, and then screws me and my kids when it’s over!

And until we do that, we have to deal with the extraction that is at foot, it is the reason the financial markets are behaving the way they’re behaving, it is a mathematical fact! This is not some opinion; this is a mathematical fact. Tens of trillions of dollars are being extracted from the United States of America. Democrats aren’t doing it, Republicans are not doing it, an entire integrated system, financial system, trading system, taxing system, that was created by both parties over a period of two decades is at work on our entire country right now. And we’re sitting here arguing about whether we should do the $4 trillion plan that kicks the can down the road for the President for 2017, or burn the place to the ground, both of which are reckless, irresponsible, and stupid. And the fact of the matter is until we actually, and I’m sorry to lose my temper, but I tell you what, I’ve been coming on TV for three years doing this, and the fact of the matter is that there’s a refusal on both the Democratic and the Republican side of the aisle to acknowledge the mathematical problem, which is that the United States of America is being extracted. It’s being extracted through banking, it’s being extracted through trade, and it’s being extracted through taxation, and there’s not a single politician that has stepped forward, Susan, (Dylan Ron Paul has been talking about this for decades) to deal with this.

Susan: Yeah, but there’s only one right now, the leader of the free world, whether you like it or not, the President of the United States is arguably one of the most powerful individuals we have out there, and he’s our President.

Karen: But, Susan, what you’re saying is exactly the point that Dylan is making. It’s not about one guy; it’s about all of them.

Susan: No, I actually disagree. I think Dylan – it is about one guy.

Dylan: I agree with her. It is about one guy.

Karen: What would you like him to do? What do you want him to do?

Your Congress is BOUGHT

Dylan: I would like him to go to the people of the United States of America and say, “People of the United States of America, your Congress is bought, your Congress is incapable of making legislation on healthcare, banking, trade, or taxes because if they do it, they will lose their political funding and they won’t do it. But I’m the President of the United States, and I won’t have a country that is run by a bought Congress. So I’m not going to work with a bought Congress and try to be Mr. Big Guy, ‘I’m working with a bought Congress’, I’m going to abandon the bought Congress like Teddy Roosevelt did, and I’m going to go to the people of the United States and I’m going to say, ‘You’ve got a bought Congress,” and until we get rid of the bought Congress, which is Jimmy Williams constant point, which is get the money out of politics, and until a President says that’s the problem and says he’s going to fix it, there is no policy that I can possibly see no matter how brilliant your idea may be or your idea or my idea or her idea or your idea at home, is that idea will not happen as long as there’s a capacity to basically fire a politician who disagrees with me by taking funding away from him. Is that a fair assessment?

Jimmy: Money in politics is the root of all political evil. It is corruption at its worst. And until we step up and kick that out of the park, it’s going to be the same system all the way.

Dylan: And only the President can do that.

Jimmy: No, no, no, Congress has to do it, too. Congress has to do it, too.

Dylan: But I’ll tell you what, how bad does it have to get? How much money has to be extracted? How many things have to be heard?

Karen: [cross-talking 07:59] tax. Okay, physically, what do you do?

Dylan: You go and give a speech to…

Karen: Right now.

Dylan: Yeah, right now. You say…

Karen: And then what happens tomorrow?

Dylan: Tomorrow, what happens is you begin the process of actually investing in solving the problems, so I come out and I say, “How?” I create an infrastructure bank with 2% blending immediately. There’s – once I explain to people the problem, once I explain to you that you have cancer, once you understand how screwed up your trade, tax, and banking policies are, believe me, you will have no issue when I incorporate an infrastructure bank that I fund with repatriated offshore money that I bring in and then use to create 2% direct lending to every business in America because when you realize that the banking system is fully corrupt and defrauding us, and I come out and say that, which is what I want my President to do, then at that exact moment I say, “You know what, we’ve got a screwed up situation here, people. You all know it, and now I’m going to admit it.” And as a result, not only have I admitted it, but we’re going to begin the process of solving it like grown ups. They did in World War II, they did it after the Civil War, they did it in Latin America with the Brady Bond; we are not seeing it happen now.

The panel stays a little more emotional than I anticipated getting at work this afternoon, but what am I going to do? The middle-class attempting to fight back in Wisconsin…what today’s big recall election in Wisconsin tells us about the mood in America; Ed Shultz joins us. And then Wisconsin, the jumping off point for our latest blog on DylanRatigan.com, as Wisconsin is a state where two-thirds of corporations pay zilch in taxes, while teachers and cops pick up the slack. That doesn’t sound like fun. Check that out on DylanRatigan.com after the show. Remember, you can always weigh in on Twitter or at DylanRatigan on Facebook.

Hierarchy is an ethically acceptable organizational structure

Add comments

COMFORTING LIE #7

Hierarchy is an ethically acceptable organizational structure.

To understand what this means and why it is fallacious we must examine the definitions of “hierarchy” and “bureaucracy”.

The vast majority of organizations in the world today utilize the well-known pyramid-shaped communication structure that we call a hierarchy. Typically the top of the structure is a board of directors headed by a chairperson who is the ultimate authority in all matters that concern the organization. The chairperson of the board is usually a major shareholder if the organization is a corporation, and the board members as a group often collectively own a controlling interest in the corporation.

The board of directors recruits, selects, and hires a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who is often given the title, “President”, and who may or may not be a member of the board. The board of directors determine the overall policies that are implemented by the CEO, but do not get visibly involved in the day-to-day decisions that are delegated to the CEO. This chore is delegated to the CEO. One reason for this arrangement is the fact that it insulates the board members, for the most part, from liability if the company does something later judged to be illegal. Although there have been exceptions, the buck usually stops with the CEO if the company is found guilty of a serious crime. For less serious crimes the buck will stop at some lower level of the organization. Whoever is blamed publicly for the problem becomes the “patsy”, who is fired for cause and leaves the company in disgrace. This fate almost never befalls anyone above the level of CEO.

So from the outset we see that the company is structured in such a way that the ultimate decision makers, who in fact give the CEO his orders, are not held accountable for the organization’s misdeeds. This internal culture is perpetuated within the organization through sequential recruitment and the trickle-down delegation of authority.

We have no problem with sequential recruitment; in fact it is a very useful and generally ethical tool, employed in the formation of an organization. It is a rare organization in which a new person is hired without the approval of the individual who will supervise the new employee or member. Why critics of multilevel marketing and other network organizations take umbrage with sequential recruitment is a mystery we have yet to solve.

The potentially problematic aspect of hierarchies is the vesting of authority and its sequential delegation from the top down. While this is a very effective means of power-brokerage, it leaves much to be desired when it comes to ethics. Let’s go back to our example of the typical corporate structure. The CEO hires some Vice Presidents who hire some managers who hire some supervisors who in turn hire the creative talent whose efforts will ultimately determine the financial success or failure of the enterprise as a whole. Make no mistake; the prosperity and well-being of any organization is always derived from the creativity of its participants; and in hierarchic organizations the most creative people are often among the lowest paid persons with the least authority. Only the secretaries, clerks, janitors, and support staff fall lower in the organization. Even the sales people are better paid and more highly regarded than the creative thinkers who make the enterprise viable.

Now let’s look within such an organization, where we find someone called Chuck working for someone called Barbara who reports to someone called Adam. Within the constraints set by higher levels of management, Adam tells Barbara what work to do, where and when to do it, what to wear on the job, what hours to work, how much vacation is permitted, and how much time Barbara may spend each day for lunch, potty breaks and so forth. By determining Barbara’s pay-rate Adam also determines <>Barbara’s off-the job lifestyle, including what kind of car Barbara can drive, what kind of house Barbara can afford, what kind of vacations Barbara can take, what kind of schools Barbara’s children can attend, etc. In return for these blessings, Barbara does all the same things for Chuck.

Clearly, Adam’s relationship with Barbara is very similar to Barbara’s relationship with Chuck. It is this standardized relationship, repeated with minor variations throughout the organization that is referred to as the “culture” of the organization in the field of organizational development.

An important feature of this culture is the fact that Chuck’s opportunities for advancement within the organization are generally somewhat limited. In most cases, for Chuck to advance to Barbara’s level, Barbara must vacate his position by dying, retiring, quitting, being fired, or being promoted into Adam’s position. As in other things, this chain of opportunity usually ends with the CEO, who is generally hired from outside the organization rather than selected by promotion from within. The opportunities for Chuck are further limited by the fact that at each level there are fewer positions than there are at each of the levels below.

Now superimpose on this culture the fact that the board of directors has structured the organization in such a way as to minimize its members’ personal accountability and liability. This part of the culture is also reproduced at each level. Lacking substantial opportunities for personal advancement, it becomes the primary objective of participants at each level to avoid the disfavor of those at higher levels, along with the penalties and punishments that those at higher levels can inflict.

Most of the time the result of these circumstances is that Barbara is currying favor with Adam by taking credit for Chuck’s achievements and by blaming Chuck for any failures on Barbara’s part. In this way the “patsy” dynamic is promulgated and perpetuated from the board on down. The upshot is that Barbara is in a very real way, in competition with both Adam and Chuck. This creates highly destructive interpersonal dynamics throughout the organization.
The most harmful aspect of the typical hierarchic culture is its effect on communication between levels. In many organizations it is forbidden, under the most severe penalties, for Chuck to even talk to Adam unless Barbara has carefully scripted the conversation in advance. These strictures, and others of similar effect, essentially destroy the corrective feedback on which the success of the organization depends.

It is this systematic elimination, destruction, or avoidance of corrective feedback that we label and refer to as bureaucracy. In the absence of bureaucracy Chuck could go to Barbara, or even to Adam, and say, “Look! We seem to be doing something wrong, something unethical, maybe even illegal”, and be rewarded for delivering this valuable feedback to those with the authority to correct the situation.

But in a bureaucracy such a message will label Chuck as a “trouble-maker” or a “whistle-blower” and Chuck will be promptly fired for “insubordination” or “acting outside the chain of command”. Others within the organization will be careful not to repeat Chuck’s error; and the veil of bureaucratic secrecy will become ever more opaque.

Insimilar fashion Chuck could, in a non-bureaucratic organization, turn to Barbara for help in becoming more competent on the job. But in a bureaucracy such an admission of weakness on Chuck’s part is tantamount to failure; so C cannot get needed corrective feedback from Barbara, the person who stands to gain the most from Chuck’s success. It is for this reason, largely, that participants in a bureaucracy eventually rise to their “level of incompetence”. What a situation! What a mess! It is easy to see how participation in a bureaucracy can convince one that life is a zero sum game,the Zero Sum Fallacy or that unethical means can achieve ethical ends, the Unethical Means Fallacy. After all, these fallacies appear congruent with the perceived success of higher level personnel in a bureaucratic environment. From these facts we draw the conclusion, by the application of simple logic, that bureaucracy is unethical and that hierarchies that do not scrupulously guard against it are inevitably likely to succumb to its evil effects.

Return to The 12 Comforting Lies

Government is here to help you

Add comments

COMFORTING LIES #5 & #6

Government leaders are honest, wise, and caring.

Government generally acts in the best interests of the public.

The evidence that refutes the validity of these myths is so vast that it is amazing that anyone still believes them. Most of us have met reptiles more honest, wise, and caring than the political leaders we know. Yet millions of people are still comforted by this lie, so we need to address it here.

Oscar Ameringer said many years ago, “Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other”. Another commentator, economist Frederick Bastiat, explained that government is the mechanism by which everyone tries to spend everyone else’s money. Let’s begin our analysis of these and similar assertions by examining some obvious facts.

a) It is an unending source of humor in this country to point out in various ways that politicians almost never keep the promises that they make to the public when they campaign for election to public office. Mark Twain was famous for such humor, as were Joe E. Brown and Groucho Marx. Night-time talk show hosts on television often joke about this widely recognized fact. Yet the lying politicians are never held accountable for their lies. They spend billions of dollars on surveys and polls to find out what the public wants to hear. Then they tell us the comforting lies that we want to hear in order to receive our votes.

They know that they are lying and have no intention of keeping their promises to the public, but there are no penalties for engaging in this practice; so they continue undaunted and unscathed.

b) For generations our government leaders have claimed that they possess the uncommon wisdom necessary to solve the serious problems that our society faces. In their (seeming) attempts to do so they have passed thousands of laws and promulgated scores of thousands of regulations. In attempting to enforce these laws and regulations they have spent trillions of taxpayers’ dollars.

What is more, in passing their laws and attempting to enforce them they have violated almost every provision of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Worse still, they have violated, and continue to violate, every one of the ten Ethical Principles defined in this book. Yet, in the final analysis, government has failed to solve even one societal problem. They don’t even claim to have succeeded. Not one politician has gone on record to say, “Look! This problem is finally solved.”

In fact the major problems have escalated dramatically over recent decades. War, violence, terrorism, poverty, hunger, drug addiction, street crime, corporate corruption – you name it – all have gotten worse and worse as the years have passed. Today the likelihood that humanity will annihilate itself with weapons of mass destruction is greater than it has ever been in the past. It isn’t even controversial to state that government has utterly failed to solve any major societal problem. The only controversy to discuss is, “Why has government failed to attain any of its stated objectives to help the people by solving our problems?”

There are several equally applicable answers to this question.

a) Government leaders are neither honest, wise, nor caring.

b) Government actions consistently employ unethical means in their efforts to solve problems for the public. The most obvious example is the use of taxation to raise money to succor the poor (albeit the rich are succored in this way more than the poor). The end result of this practice is that almost without exception the outcome is the opposite of that which was supposedly intended…and the public suffers more instead of less. And the final, and most important answer to the question is:

c) Helping people by solving societal problems has never been the true objective of government.

To explain this statement we must consider the fact that government as we know it today was invented in the country of Sumer (now southern Iraq) some eight thousand years ago. That government was an outgrowth of tribal society and primitive kingdoms that had previously existed in the region. At that time government was comprised of those individuals who had amassed enough wealth to buy weaponry and to pay and/or coerce strong young men to wield them.

Up until that time these individuals engaged in costly, and often bloody, competition with one another. This state of almost constant warfare sapped their resources and threatened the security of both their assets and their power to rule their individual domains. In this “might makes right” environment they were also frequently attacked by lesser members among their ranks who envied their wealth and power and sought to take over rulership for their own benefit.

To alleviate this problem, the leaders of these disparate and competing groups decided to form a shared monopoly of their power over their constituent subjects. To accomplish this (unethical) end they invented the hierarchic mechanism that we call “government”. The method was simple. All power over others was vested in the leaders who acted as power brokers by delegating authority to their more-favored subjects in return for their cooperation and help in keeping lesser subjects under control and collecting material resources (taxes) from those who had still less power in this hierarchic scheme.

Such a shared monopoly, whether it be a monopoly of political power, money, oil, electricity, or any other industry, is called a cartel in modern times. So what are the true objectives of a cartel? There are only two:

a) To maximize the profits and power of the members of the cartel, and

b) To stabilize and enhance the position of the cartel’s members in the marketplace that they monopolize.

With these objectives in mind, let’s now ask the question, “Has government succeeded or failed to meet its (true) objectives?” Has government maximized the profits of its members? And the answer is, “Yes. It certainly has done so”. In this country fully one half of the wealth generated by the taxpaying public is turned over to the government to spend as it sees fit. In some other countries, more “socialized” countries, this figure runs as high as 75% or even more. When taxation was first instituted in this country it only usurped about 1% of the nation’s wealth. So we see that government has been very successful in steadily increasing its profits at the expense of the public.

Has government been successful in stabilizing and enhancing its members’ positions in the power-brokerage business? Again the answer is “Yes. Indeed it has.” Today all countries are run by power-brokering governments that operate on similar principles in order to achieve similar goals. So the trend that began in Sumer eight thousand years ago continues today.

The European Union, currently seeking ratification of its constitution, is an attempt to join the government cartels of Europe into a super-cartel with the power of all its individual government cartels flowing into the hands of a much smaller group of govern-ment leaders.

The United Nations is a similar effort on the part of a much larger group of governments to create a cartel that could eventually take control of the entire world. If permitted to succeed, the UN will eventually constitute an empire whose rulers control the day-to-day lives of every man, woman, and child on the planet. You may ask, “Could such a thing actually happen?” And the answer is, “Yes. It is already happening.” UN plans exist for a world military organization, a world bank, a world court, a world charity, and so forth. Portions of these organizations are already up and running today.

So the upshot of this awareness is that, while government has failed to meet its publicly stated objectives, it has, in fact, been very successful in achieving its true objectives of maximizing its profits and stabilizing its members” positions in the power-brokerage market. This observation and those preceding prove conclusively the falsehood of the fifth and sixth “Comforting Lies”.

Return to The 12 Comforting Lies

About the Authors

Add comments

About Bob Podolsky

The main things you need to know about me are these:

My life is primarily driven by curiosity. At the age of five I got hold of my parents’ alarm clock and took it apart because I wanted to see how it worked. (Oooops!) My folks weren’t happy about this, but my father, a famous physicist (Boris Podolsky), understood my urge to know how the world works and encouraged me in this ever after.
My father Boris, also taught me, at an early age, the basic principles of science and the scientific method which exist only to distinguish true information from false information so I became a devotee of truth, and remain so to this day.
My career experience is not particularly distinguished. I spent ten years doing mathematical physics and systems analysis in industry and government. Then I spent twenty-five years doing psychotherapy in private practice.
In 1984 I became friends with the late John David Garcia, who got me interested in the subject of ethics, and since then I have written five books and a number of articles about ethics, law, and government and their impact on our lives. In this my systems analysis background stood me in good stead. It turns out our societal institutions are pretty easy to analyze once you get past the lies that they tell.
In 1995 I got interested in the Internet and building websites to do online marketing. At that time the Internet had not yet evolved to the point where it provided the tools needed to do this effectively so my efforts came to naught but I learned a lot about how the Internet works and taught myself enough HTML and database programming to build websites and to recognize true information about the Internet when I read it.

Boris Podolsky

My father was Boris Podolsky, the physicist who achieved considerable notice for the work he did with Albert Einstein in 1935 for his work on the EPR Paradox. But Einstein didn’t like the idea that the momentum of a particle, if it’s position was known, was completely unknowable–random. He wasn’t the only one who didn’t like the theory. In 1935 he got together with two other like-minded physicists, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, and wrote a famous paper entitled Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? We now refer to it as simply the EPR Paradox

Of Boris, Einstein once said, “Podolsky goes directly to the heart of the problem”. Boris was also a brilliant teacher. So I was very early-on introduced to the scientific method, logic, and the operational point of view, the philosophical cornerstones of science.

As a student I followed in my father’s footsteps by studying math and physics in high school, Williams College, the University of Cincinnati, Xavier University, the University of Hawaii (where I received a National Science Foundation Fellowship for research in quantum electrodynamics), and Harvard. I have a Master’s degree in theoretical physics,

Overlapping my formal education, and subsequently, I worked in industry (Avco, GE, Bendix) and in the Civil Service (USAF Avionics Lab and Coast Guard HQ) performing mathematical modeling of complex physical systems, such as atomic reactors, guided missiles, electron microscope lenses, external combustion engines, and the like.

After ten years of this work, I tired of the “Dilbert” lifestyle and its bureaucratic environment; so I got trained in various methods and techniques of psychotherapy and operated a private practice in this field for some twenty-five years. During this period, some of my clients were business-people; so I studied business systems and entrepreneurship and did some consulting in this field.

John David Garcia

In 1984 I met John David Garcia, the brilliant author of “Creative Transformation” and remained friends with him until his death in 2001. Under John David’s tutelage I came to understand and value the field of ethics that I had scorned as a young man. I have since seen it as the most important field that anyone can master; because, through the lens of ethics, one can make vastly better decisions than one can by any other means.

By 1992 I had begun writing articles, and subsequently books, about ethics, law, and government. My research in the intervening years showed me unequivocally that the institutions that we usually look to, to solve societal problems, were actually the cause of all the major problems that our species faces. After the work I had done analyzing physical systems, the analysis of societal systems turned out to be a very simple matter. The three big offenders in this respect turn out to be Big Business (especially Big Banking Business), Organized Religion, and Government. Borrowing an idea from Star Trek, I have coined the phrase B.O.R.G when referencing these three institutions collectively. To date I’ve written five books about the B.O.R.G. problem and what can be done about it. Two of these (self-published) books are in print, and two more are ready for publication at any time.

I am the Founding member of Titania, a non hierarchical society dedicated to peace, love and truth; through ethics and creativity. I look forward to you feedback! info $at# titanians )dot< org or contact us by phone at 561-542-5800

Conference on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Xavier University Physics Department 1962

QM Xavier University Physics Conference Podolsky Rosen Dirac

Top Row:Jack Rivers, Harold Glaser, Eugen Merzbacher, John B. Hart, Jack A. Soules, Eugene Guth, Abner Shimony, Robert Podolsky, Austin Towle
Middle row: Willian Band, Gideon Carmi, Solomon L Schwebel, Dieter Brill, O.von Roos, Michael M. Yanasee, S.J.
Bottom Row: Eugene P. Wigner, Nathan Rosen, Paul A. M. Dirac, Boris Podolsky, Yakir Aharonov, Wendell H. Furry
Not Pictured : Fredrick G. Werner and Kaiser S. Kunz

ABOUT THOMAS COSTANZO

Wow, what a long strange Trip it’s been! Many of my friends know me as Morpheus. I use this handle, tongue in cheek, as my experience with co-incidences we are living in some kind of science fiction movie, and I might as well play my part, to the best of my ability!

Most of my life has been fueled by the big question mark known as ‘why’. Back in 2004, my life took a gigantic right turn, moving from Anthem, Arizona to Boca Raton, Florida were I met Robert (Bob) Podolsky at a Libertarian meeting near West Palm Beach. I knew right away Bob had some of the answers I was looking for. Bob started talking about Creativity and Ethics and how they were linked. He shared with me that hierarchies was where the problems came from. Being sort of a Libertarian, even though I have the privileged of never voting, I knew that the Government was bad, almost Evil. The Federal Reserve was Evil, and being a recovering Roman Catholic, I had a feeling Organized Religion was a snow job.

Bob let me know these entities were not separate, they were just parts of the same Organization, a cartel really. To be more precise they are parasites operating as part of the Power Brokerage Cartel we call as the B.O.R.G. The B.O.R.G. is an acronym coined by Bob, which stands for Banks and Big Business, Organized Religion, and Government. These are the institutions that most people think of to SOLVE problems, Actually they create the problems first and then they Manage these created problems, for a small fee of course! Many of the concepts Bob was explaining to me made more sense than anything else I had ever heard, especially since Bob had a solution to the Hierarchical problems

The trouble with these BORG’s created problems is they have to continue to Grow, and the small fee gets larger. When some upstart decides they do not like being part of a social contract they have never volunteered into and can never get out of them. They get tired of being a SLAVE, those people who get the B.O.R.G. mad at them, generally will have their lives destroyed, end up in prison, or Dead. Remember the American President who attempted to get out of Vietnam and go around the Federal reserve and print silver certificates, his initials were JFK. Those that hold power when, who when they cross the B.O.R.G. will have war waged on them or be cut off (embargoed) for not participating in their game.

After understanding what the source of ALL the problems in the world were caused by this hierarchical group of Psychopaths known as the BORG, Bob also let me know that there is actually a solution to the BIG PROBLEM. To correct this imbalance, individuals are needed to create competing, non hierarchical groups know as Octologues, which is a group of 8 people, 4 men and 4 women that work unanimously to direct energy in any ethical way they see what they fit. Its simple really: in an octologue members must agree or the group can not make a decision. The simple beauty here is that the system encourages feedback. Hierarchical structures is there to avoid, eliminate and destroy any feedback and where as the non hierarchical Octologue feedback is fostered and encouraged.

From here, it is part of my Destiny to bring Titania to the world. A Gaiawyrd. I have every reason to believe it is the solution to humanity’s BIG PROBLEM. Unless it is implemented, NOW, the great science experiment known as the Human race will end. Period!

Creativity and Ethics