(I don’t know whay everybody can get spellcheck but me. It reveals my ignornace something terrible.)

Worse, they print the money into existence and then lend it out to us at interest (knowing that it can’t be totally repaid).

JFK tried to break away from this inherently unstable (and evil) system by having the Treasury issue silver certificates, redeemable in the precious metal. It did not end well for him.

The artificial value we attach to money is not really the problem, imo. It’s the parasitic class that skims off the top and uses the ill-gotton gain to control the world. The system we have would probably work pretty well, if we had an unassailable rule of law to enforce the rules on everyone.

There are no padlocks on a grocery cart — why, because when you are shopping for food, there is abundance all around you. If someone steals a loaf of bread out of your cart, there is a whole shelf full of bread to obtain another. The elites are hiding all the bread in the back of the store and trying to convince us the shelves are empty. We simply have to change the way we think about wealth. It really is a creation of the human imagination, and as such should be unlimited.

Describes my friends to a tee. There was one econ blogger, though, Eric deCarbonnel, who was a little TOO good at connecting dots. He wrote a piece about Bernie Madoff that translates all too well to the world beyond finance. It hit me like a sledgehammer between the eyes.

Ponzi schemes, he said, involve 2 levels of deception. At the top, of course, is the Ponzi itself. But no one is gonna invest in a pyramid scheme, which necessitates the next level of deception–an intermediate ring of people who are duped into believing they are insiders pulling one over on the rest of the world.

In Madoff’s case, this intermediate ring of “insiders” consisted of the many investors who believed, falsely, that Uncle Bernie was getting fantastic returns based on insider trading. It was the perfect sales pitch, as Madoff had been the head of NASDAQ at one time.

To see how well this translates to much of what the media sells, imagine a PBS Frontline episode about Madoff (before he confessed). PBS would present 2 sides that argue about whether Bernie is trading on inside information. Being cynical, you might side with the people saying the trades were all illegal. The entire show would be a Trojan Horse to sink one idea into your head: that Madoff was making trades; that’s the whole premise of the show: trades-trades-trades. There were no trades.

That’s pretty much what you get when you hear arguments about whether or not the sellers of AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities knew they were selling dogshit: sales-sales-sales. The viewer is never told that in many if not most MBS “sales,” the paperwork never reached the buyers; there were NO SALES at all.

Back to deCarbonnel. To him, much of the alternative media and its concepts–Alex Jones and the NWO, for example–are in that orbit of deluded “insiders.” What they are all doing, he said, is steering everyone away from the truth at the very center of it all, which is that the whole system is one massive Ponzi scheme, and when a sufficient number of people figure that out, the whole thing will collapse into dust all at once.

Scary thought.

P.S. deCarbonnel doesn’t post any more but his site is marketskeptics.com

P.P.S. The 2-level deception model works pretty well with 9/11, imo. The Sting there is planes-planes-planes.

I have the feeling that something else is planned to divert attention from this whole scenario. They may be crazy but they are not stupid. Alright, fine, they are stupid as well, but only because they are crazy. But they are making their own reality, like Karl Rove, and so they will act again, and those of us in the reality-based commuinity will try to make sense of what they do.

If the feds’ case is so good, I’ve countered, then why does it rely on (among other things) the carjack victim’s identification of Tsarnaev? And why do the feds feel the need to legally cheat by trampling Tsarnaev’s right to counsel (which he expressly asked for) to question him for 16 hours?

My amigos remain unpersuaded, but it’s great sport mocking every ludicrous development in Boston and watching them writhe like salted slugs. The Sharpie gunfighter confession might be a tipping point, I feel, in the case against Tsarnaev.

Everyone who battles MSM-world has undergone their “ah-ha” moment where the sheer ridiculousness of a story makes us question everything. For me it was seeing WTC7 videos. For many, Sandy Hook did it. And now there’s Boston.

What’s troublesome is how rapidly the MSM story quality is deteriorating. It’s as if producers are backstage, completely drunk, and just gambling with each other: “let’s see if they bite on THIS one!!! Ha ha ha ha!”

I mean really. A handwritten confession hiding out in a docked boat under seige? Pray tell what is next…