Peter, I would love to know why your public appearances have been so infrequent in recent years. I know you are always busy on projects, however the value of appearing on the well-subscribed shows/podcasts can be of enormous value to getting your work out there. For example, you were on Jimmy Dore about 5 years ago - Jimmy now has a much greater reach since then and I'm sure the door would be open to return? Similarly, you were on Joe Rogan many years ago - I appreciate that you are likely not a great fan of his but please think of the reach (and there are others of enormous size these days). Another related matter is debates; the only 'debate' that I can recall seeing you in was your encounter with that odious windbag pseudo-intellectual, Stefan Molyneux, and you destroyed him spectacularly. In addition to being entertaining, debates have great potential to convert the 'on the fence / oblivious' viewers and even some number of the opposing side's supporters. Rogan occasionally hosts such debates (e.g. vegan v carnivore-diet, Graham Hancock v Michael Shermer) and they have been enormously successful.
Your written work, podcasts and film work are excellent - I have consumed all of it, however not everybody is willing/able to do that. It seems tragic to me that you are not 'out there' to promote/debate your work. I understand that to do so would play into the personality culture that we live in but, to an extent, it is a necessary evil to achieve the notoriety that your work deserves. I would love to better understand your position on public appearances.
Thanks. If somebody asks me I will consider it. But I haven't done anything to put myself out there and I really don't care to. I went through that routine for a long while. I'm far more about promoting ideas than myself. What I find is the more you put yourself out there as an individual the more ideas become associated to you rather than the other way around. As a personal preference, I have no interest in talking to anybody. It's just not my personality. My focus now is system building not data relay and my logic is if a new economy can be structured right it will serve as its own advertisement and I don't need to be a talking head. As far as debate, they are usually pointless and people rarely change their mind. It's just spectacle. And as far as I'm concerned, frankly, the debate is over and anyone that doesn't understand this stuff yet will have to figure it out themselves the hard way - as the rest of us move on.
Yeah, it’s shit every way we look. And, what’s more, I see no indication of change away from these hierarchal class systems. But, I honestly am losing any hope for it to do so. This existence is a hellscape made manifest. I notice that you try to leave some room for government intervention as having some positive impact on business. I do not share your optimism, and I don’t think any such regulations are enforced in an meaningful manner. We know the EPA is a gutted and toothless agency, long underfunded. It’s how we ended up with the Deep Water Horizon incident. Anyways, I suppose we keep screaming into the void until the bottom falls out. We all have to do something.
Peter, I love your ability to go beyond labels and get to the underlying dynamics that drives social change. The current consumerist/market game is indeed a death spiral. And I don’t just mean people consuming stuff but all of us being consumed in the rat-race, including those who believe they run the game. In a setting where the lowest human traits are dominant – selfishness, domination, acquisitiveness – that is inevitable.
So we need a change in values, where instead of being compelled to “earn a living” we will simply live, thrive rather than survive. The opposite of “to consume” is “to create”, not just in terms of inventing new stuff or artistic expression but creating opportunities for the best human traits to flourish. You’ve been talking about it for decades, building upon the work of visionaries prior. What all of them lacked – including TVP and TZM – is a roadmap how to make the transition and put the ideas into practice.
There is such a roadmap, something called Creative Society, as an antithesis to a consumerist one. It addresses everything you wrote in the latter part of this essay, about moving away from consumerism, laid out in a structured way. The project has been underway for several years now. It is based on a pragmatic approach, and is entirely driven by volunteers, ordinary people from all walks of life. The goal is to unite the entire humanity and create conditions for active participation of everyone, instead of waiting for someone else to do it.
Visit the link below for more in-depth information, and spread the word if you agree.
I don't have to. A solid education does that. The problem is that the majority do not have a clue, so it's easy to seduce them with a fairytale. Zeitgeist was believed by many and did great damage.
Your answer speaks more about you than about me. I'm glad you mentioned Nostradamus. People who write about Nostradamus and other mysteries are often not interested in uncovering the truth, but rather in making a quick buck. They don't care that their junk muddles the discussion and misleads the gullible. You're among them, mixing lies and half-truths that the audience buys into. I strive to find the truth in prophecies and write about it. I would fare much better if I deliberately obscured and muddled things to make more money.
This guy's propositions, are a force to be reckoned with. The world at large just doesn´t know it yet. Overthrowing the whole economic model is not just another solution. It is the only viable one, in time. A real tragedy, is to continue on with this suicidal trajectory. (I am just replying as -since I am a foreigner- read ur comment as a negative remark, when it could just well be purely sarcastic, and I simply couldn't grasp it)
Nicely done Peter, there you are, as always, synthesizing the essential mechanisms that lead us to live inside this freak show, and presenting an alternative path that -if we are lucky- might help us to avoid total collapse.
I appreciate how this article so clearly and (in my opinion) inarguably shows why capitalism moves us towards fascism! It's so obvious, now that you say it. It's like, how does everybody not know this stuff?! (I know. I know. It's cognitive dissonance, ego, need to belong, fear of change, holding onto power, etc. Sigh.)
At this rate it's time for people to think carefully about where the word "conspiracy theory" comes from as well as how conspiracies have ever been made.
System-science is in that regard the only truly pro-active response to the conspiracy culture and misplaced group-antagonism we see around us.
So let's give those thinking about change the right reasons along with the adequate systemic tools to fight back against the system.
This article/essay it’s prime stuff. The world is in bondage enjoying its dominatrix, because is no time yet for ramming frenzy. I see the feud happening, barbarians attacking as well. Today I was trying to fix my mums sink to no success, now I look at this lil super advanced computer where I’m texting you, and I know things are seriously wrong.
Anyway, you and the structuralists are the nicest ppl that happened to this tiny dark side temple planet. At least there’s only life…
You are right, but it seems to me that this perspective focuses on only one side. What you described closely resembles the model of "sovereign democracy" that has developed here in Russia; however, even that did not prevent a slide into fascism. Fascism is the highest form of capitalism. Georgi Dimitrov once defined fascism as a radical dictatorship of financial-industrial capital, enforced through terrorist methods. Fascism is indeed the peak of capitalism. Liberalism and traditionalism (conservatism) are two sides of the same coin when it comes to fascism. Fascism uses liberalism to gain power and then shifts to traditionalism to maintain it. In Russia, we observe how, despite all the countermeasures enacted, the country is moving towards a dictatorship of national capital and fascism. So, I think we need to look at the issue more broadly.
There are different types of competing capitals — international and national. International capital aims to take control of specific regions through liberal ideas and then establish the fascism of international corporations, completely eliminating the state. On the other side, there is national capital, which uses traditionalism to maintain power, leading to national fascism. The issue is not in the methodology, but in the fact that, in both cases, financial-industrial capital holds power. The state, first and foremost, should prevent capital from taking power... yet this is extremely challenging, as capital has ample means of influence, bribery, and corruption.
The only solution I see is to have a system where liberal and conservative models cyclically replace each other within a democratic process. If we look at it from an evolutionary perspective, which is based on three pillars: heredity, variability, and selection, then democratic elections fulfill the role of heredity, liberalism the role of variability, and conservatism the role of selection. These systems should circulate within a capitalist society to allow for evolutionary social development, or we must build an economic system (the so-called base) on a different foundation, with the political superstructure adapting to it.
The real problem is that we don’t have alternative models. Even communist China essentially operates under a capitalist model. There, the idea is to reach communism through developed capitalism, but communism has its weak point: the natural human factor—why work hard if everyone will receive the same reward? So, it’s not that simple; there’s no single solution, and each approach has its pros and cons. I believe there’s no universal solution to the problem; it can only be addressed through a model that balances interests within a framework of justice.
Peter, watching the Zeitgeist series, and they are fascinating. Thank you
As I am now in the habit of doing, from some of the research I have done on claims made in various movies, documentaries, etc, I have randomly looked up certain facts, especially ones that seem to have a legal background and challenge our current legal system, statutes and regulations. In ZG.Addendum, you highlight a 'court case' of John Daly and a Minnesota foreclosure. Your premise and conclusion is that banks don't have the right to foreclose on a property, because they only borrowed the money, and don't really own it, either...kind of 'standing' argument we see an awful lot these days (which is also an argument for another time). Now, in principle I do agree with what you are saying, but this 'case' actually never really happened. It was a 'jury trial' in front of a Justice of the Peace, and shortly after this 'ruling', the 'case' was summarily overturned, and it is not even citable in legal arguments. Additionally, John Daly, an attorney, was subsequently disbarred, essentially for multiple counts of tax fraud. Whether I agree with what subsequently happened or what the Justice of the Peace wrote in his 'decision/opinion' is irrelevant. In the end, using this case in your documentary is misleading, and then makes one question many of the other statements and conclusions you make.
I really appreciate your work and writings, but...
Demarketization should be your primary focus. Trump is essentially irrelevant. He was already 'Ape in Chief' for four years... -And guess what? -Nothing substantially worse occurred!
The problem is that there is no such thing as "government" at this point (-esp. in the US). It is now, for all intents and purposes, a 100% *corporate-government*. And anything and everything the US corporate-state does is explicitly approved and in fact lobbied into existence by a series of for-profit corporations and business gamblers. The merger is complete. It's over.
So, -Donald Trump or Joe Biden, the result is virtually identical, despite their completely meaningless rhetoric that everyone should ignore, including you. It's all a puppet show, whilst the monetary game moves forward, completely unhindered.
Your assessment of Trump is incorrect as you do not understand how things have evolved in the power shift. Unless you're willing to fight back against all agents that move toward a pure market society, you are just wasting your breath. And I'm REALLY tired of listening to people try to explain to me that taking any common sense action is pointless. The "merger" is not complete. But once it is - you will know.
Fantastic read, you came back on my radar, last time was - Moving Forward. Will eat into your book, your podcas. We are all now recalibrating somehow, beyond the visible. We align with those we think like, maybe more things get done this time or a quickening kicks everthing forward. Really excited about Requiem and your ideas in kick starting more widely, worldly, wildfirely - the Parallel Economy. Personally fed up pushing daily stone up hill, want out, hope, like I came to you after so many years, that I parallel. Shine on all diamonds in the rough.
This was a really good article but I have a couple grievances.
1. it’s interesting that you told us to vote for democrats to save the planet yet you expressed no concern that the democrats are trying to send American soldiers to Ukraine to start ww3. I’m pretty sure a nuclear war will be bad for the environment but I’m not a “climate expert” so I’m not allowed to have an opinion on the matter. Shockingly, a handful of republicans are the only opposition to a US intervention against Russia. I believe they are acting out of self interest because they want their children to survive.
2. There would be no central banks under libertarianism and we would no longer be slaves of the private banks that own the shares of the central banks. Because of this there would not be an infinite growth paradigm where more loans need to be generated in perpetuity.
3.Monopoly is caused by the government not libertarianism. Monopolies are created through patents, subsidies, regulations that only large companies can afford to follow, and because large companies know how to avoid taxes while small companies have to pay a higher tax rate. Without government Monsanto would not have a monopoly on our food supply through patents. The FED would not have a monopoly on banking. Amazon would not have a monopoly on shipping and warehousing (they pay much less in taxes and got covid subsidies)
4. Libertarianism and anarchy are impossible in this era and nothing to be concerned about anyways. Business interests will ALWAYS seek ways to tax others and use it to benefit themselves. Yes some poor countries like Ethiopia may SEEM libertarian but they are actually under the control of banks and other private interests originating from affluent countries with large governments. And those governments and institutions will impose rules upon countries like Ethiopia as they see fit and if the country does not comply their leadership will be replaced violently.
5.Notice how in the US all the liberals are fleeing by the millions to red states? People are leaving the most beautiful region in the world (California) to live in an ugly flat desert (Texas). California, New York, Washington have all the politicians you’re saying we should vote for but those places are the most polluted least affordable, least safe places to live.
6. The fact is that efforts to protect the environment, have effective unions, eliminate poverty, etc. are all a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME unless central banks are abolished. We are SLAVES of the banks, in a debt that cannot be repaid and no laws will help whatsoever. Poverty, environmental decay, etc. are all part of the system as you have stated. Regulations and higher taxes only cost the poor more money with no benefit. They are literally spraying roundup on our food supply, we are drinking lead and breathing toxic waste. It could hardly be worse. We don’t need to worry about infrastructure they need us to be able to get to our jobs and the rich have to get around as well. No matter what regulation or how much is collected in taxes the government will do the bare minimum and launder the rest of the money into their donors pockets one way or another. Vote for the lowest tax rates and the least regulation, get rid of the broken welfare system and replace it with a universal basic income. Reject the legitimacy of the federal government and try to build locally sustainable communities in any way possible. Local governments can actually be beneficial but massive imperial/federal governments literally only exist to exploit you.
It's not only banks that are a problem, it's the whole "do this and you'll get that" way of living that's forced upon people to simply exist. Any kind of money, barter, or exchange type system will suffer problems that simply don't need to happen.
The message I got from this was that voting for something better may not be perfect, but it's just a turn in the right direction. It's not saying that every detail about a politician you should vote for is going to be positive.
Dear Peter: There's a tiny idea I had in mind, and something just occured to me, after reading and then translating into Spanish this and "Our Post-Truth Reality", as conscientiously as possible. Since I bumped into your material in 2008, I've been trying to spread it among my inner circle, which has so far rejected it in it's entirety, and discredited me for uphoding these ideas. I even started translating your book in 2019, but dropped that ambitious project after reaching page 38 of Chapter 2. Then pandemic struck, along w/ depression, etc. Now, with therapy, I found new strengths, hopes and belief that this is what people at large need to hear, somehow. Hence, I thought of sending these spanish-translated articles (in print) to a particular journalist/presenter of a show on a major TV news outlet here in Argentina, the only one that follows a political alignment against capitalist opression and elitist powers that be. In this particular times, with the advent of a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist government with Javier Milei at the top, and the devastating policies he's been implementing during his 1st semester in power, these ideas are more urgent than ever. People continue to be and feel lost, enraged, disoriented, obfuscated. Would it be OK with you if I did that?
Peter, I would love to know why your public appearances have been so infrequent in recent years. I know you are always busy on projects, however the value of appearing on the well-subscribed shows/podcasts can be of enormous value to getting your work out there. For example, you were on Jimmy Dore about 5 years ago - Jimmy now has a much greater reach since then and I'm sure the door would be open to return? Similarly, you were on Joe Rogan many years ago - I appreciate that you are likely not a great fan of his but please think of the reach (and there are others of enormous size these days). Another related matter is debates; the only 'debate' that I can recall seeing you in was your encounter with that odious windbag pseudo-intellectual, Stefan Molyneux, and you destroyed him spectacularly. In addition to being entertaining, debates have great potential to convert the 'on the fence / oblivious' viewers and even some number of the opposing side's supporters. Rogan occasionally hosts such debates (e.g. vegan v carnivore-diet, Graham Hancock v Michael Shermer) and they have been enormously successful.
Your written work, podcasts and film work are excellent - I have consumed all of it, however not everybody is willing/able to do that. It seems tragic to me that you are not 'out there' to promote/debate your work. I understand that to do so would play into the personality culture that we live in but, to an extent, it is a necessary evil to achieve the notoriety that your work deserves. I would love to better understand your position on public appearances.
Thanks. If somebody asks me I will consider it. But I haven't done anything to put myself out there and I really don't care to. I went through that routine for a long while. I'm far more about promoting ideas than myself. What I find is the more you put yourself out there as an individual the more ideas become associated to you rather than the other way around. As a personal preference, I have no interest in talking to anybody. It's just not my personality. My focus now is system building not data relay and my logic is if a new economy can be structured right it will serve as its own advertisement and I don't need to be a talking head. As far as debate, they are usually pointless and people rarely change their mind. It's just spectacle. And as far as I'm concerned, frankly, the debate is over and anyone that doesn't understand this stuff yet will have to figure it out themselves the hard way - as the rest of us move on.
Yeah, it’s shit every way we look. And, what’s more, I see no indication of change away from these hierarchal class systems. But, I honestly am losing any hope for it to do so. This existence is a hellscape made manifest. I notice that you try to leave some room for government intervention as having some positive impact on business. I do not share your optimism, and I don’t think any such regulations are enforced in an meaningful manner. We know the EPA is a gutted and toothless agency, long underfunded. It’s how we ended up with the Deep Water Horizon incident. Anyways, I suppose we keep screaming into the void until the bottom falls out. We all have to do something.
Peter, I love your ability to go beyond labels and get to the underlying dynamics that drives social change. The current consumerist/market game is indeed a death spiral. And I don’t just mean people consuming stuff but all of us being consumed in the rat-race, including those who believe they run the game. In a setting where the lowest human traits are dominant – selfishness, domination, acquisitiveness – that is inevitable.
So we need a change in values, where instead of being compelled to “earn a living” we will simply live, thrive rather than survive. The opposite of “to consume” is “to create”, not just in terms of inventing new stuff or artistic expression but creating opportunities for the best human traits to flourish. You’ve been talking about it for decades, building upon the work of visionaries prior. What all of them lacked – including TVP and TZM – is a roadmap how to make the transition and put the ideas into practice.
There is such a roadmap, something called Creative Society, as an antithesis to a consumerist one. It addresses everything you wrote in the latter part of this essay, about moving away from consumerism, laid out in a structured way. The project has been underway for several years now. It is based on a pragmatic approach, and is entirely driven by volunteers, ordinary people from all walks of life. The goal is to unite the entire humanity and create conditions for active participation of everyone, instead of waiting for someone else to do it.
Visit the link below for more in-depth information, and spread the word if you agree.
Kind regards,
Ilija
https://creativesociety.com/about-the-project
My brain shrank after reading this.
You're the author of Zeitgeist thingies? You've done a lot of damage out there, friend. A lot of people believed you, which is a tragedy.
Zeitgeist thingies? Nice, you totally refuted him.
I don't have to. A solid education does that. The problem is that the majority do not have a clue, so it's easy to seduce them with a fairytale. Zeitgeist was believed by many and did great damage.
Says the guy writing about "Nostradamus prophecies" on his Substack? Go back to your little world, weirdo. You have no idea about mine.
Your answer speaks more about you than about me. I'm glad you mentioned Nostradamus. People who write about Nostradamus and other mysteries are often not interested in uncovering the truth, but rather in making a quick buck. They don't care that their junk muddles the discussion and misleads the gullible. You're among them, mixing lies and half-truths that the audience buys into. I strive to find the truth in prophecies and write about it. I would fare much better if I deliberately obscured and muddled things to make more money.
This guy's propositions, are a force to be reckoned with. The world at large just doesn´t know it yet. Overthrowing the whole economic model is not just another solution. It is the only viable one, in time. A real tragedy, is to continue on with this suicidal trajectory. (I am just replying as -since I am a foreigner- read ur comment as a negative remark, when it could just well be purely sarcastic, and I simply couldn't grasp it)
Nicely done Peter, there you are, as always, synthesizing the essential mechanisms that lead us to live inside this freak show, and presenting an alternative path that -if we are lucky- might help us to avoid total collapse.
I appreciate how this article so clearly and (in my opinion) inarguably shows why capitalism moves us towards fascism! It's so obvious, now that you say it. It's like, how does everybody not know this stuff?! (I know. I know. It's cognitive dissonance, ego, need to belong, fear of change, holding onto power, etc. Sigh.)
At this rate it's time for people to think carefully about where the word "conspiracy theory" comes from as well as how conspiracies have ever been made.
System-science is in that regard the only truly pro-active response to the conspiracy culture and misplaced group-antagonism we see around us.
So let's give those thinking about change the right reasons along with the adequate systemic tools to fight back against the system.
This article/essay it’s prime stuff. The world is in bondage enjoying its dominatrix, because is no time yet for ramming frenzy. I see the feud happening, barbarians attacking as well. Today I was trying to fix my mums sink to no success, now I look at this lil super advanced computer where I’m texting you, and I know things are seriously wrong.
Anyway, you and the structuralists are the nicest ppl that happened to this tiny dark side temple planet. At least there’s only life…
Cheers and hugs.
Dear Peter,
You are right, but it seems to me that this perspective focuses on only one side. What you described closely resembles the model of "sovereign democracy" that has developed here in Russia; however, even that did not prevent a slide into fascism. Fascism is the highest form of capitalism. Georgi Dimitrov once defined fascism as a radical dictatorship of financial-industrial capital, enforced through terrorist methods. Fascism is indeed the peak of capitalism. Liberalism and traditionalism (conservatism) are two sides of the same coin when it comes to fascism. Fascism uses liberalism to gain power and then shifts to traditionalism to maintain it. In Russia, we observe how, despite all the countermeasures enacted, the country is moving towards a dictatorship of national capital and fascism. So, I think we need to look at the issue more broadly.
There are different types of competing capitals — international and national. International capital aims to take control of specific regions through liberal ideas and then establish the fascism of international corporations, completely eliminating the state. On the other side, there is national capital, which uses traditionalism to maintain power, leading to national fascism. The issue is not in the methodology, but in the fact that, in both cases, financial-industrial capital holds power. The state, first and foremost, should prevent capital from taking power... yet this is extremely challenging, as capital has ample means of influence, bribery, and corruption.
The only solution I see is to have a system where liberal and conservative models cyclically replace each other within a democratic process. If we look at it from an evolutionary perspective, which is based on three pillars: heredity, variability, and selection, then democratic elections fulfill the role of heredity, liberalism the role of variability, and conservatism the role of selection. These systems should circulate within a capitalist society to allow for evolutionary social development, or we must build an economic system (the so-called base) on a different foundation, with the political superstructure adapting to it.
The real problem is that we don’t have alternative models. Even communist China essentially operates under a capitalist model. There, the idea is to reach communism through developed capitalism, but communism has its weak point: the natural human factor—why work hard if everyone will receive the same reward? So, it’s not that simple; there’s no single solution, and each approach has its pros and cons. I believe there’s no universal solution to the problem; it can only be addressed through a model that balances interests within a framework of justice.
Peter, watching the Zeitgeist series, and they are fascinating. Thank you
As I am now in the habit of doing, from some of the research I have done on claims made in various movies, documentaries, etc, I have randomly looked up certain facts, especially ones that seem to have a legal background and challenge our current legal system, statutes and regulations. In ZG.Addendum, you highlight a 'court case' of John Daly and a Minnesota foreclosure. Your premise and conclusion is that banks don't have the right to foreclose on a property, because they only borrowed the money, and don't really own it, either...kind of 'standing' argument we see an awful lot these days (which is also an argument for another time). Now, in principle I do agree with what you are saying, but this 'case' actually never really happened. It was a 'jury trial' in front of a Justice of the Peace, and shortly after this 'ruling', the 'case' was summarily overturned, and it is not even citable in legal arguments. Additionally, John Daly, an attorney, was subsequently disbarred, essentially for multiple counts of tax fraud. Whether I agree with what subsequently happened or what the Justice of the Peace wrote in his 'decision/opinion' is irrelevant. In the end, using this case in your documentary is misleading, and then makes one question many of the other statements and conclusions you make.
I really appreciate your work and writings, but...
Demarketization should be your primary focus. Trump is essentially irrelevant. He was already 'Ape in Chief' for four years... -And guess what? -Nothing substantially worse occurred!
The problem is that there is no such thing as "government" at this point (-esp. in the US). It is now, for all intents and purposes, a 100% *corporate-government*. And anything and everything the US corporate-state does is explicitly approved and in fact lobbied into existence by a series of for-profit corporations and business gamblers. The merger is complete. It's over.
So, -Donald Trump or Joe Biden, the result is virtually identical, despite their completely meaningless rhetoric that everyone should ignore, including you. It's all a puppet show, whilst the monetary game moves forward, completely unhindered.
Your assessment of Trump is incorrect as you do not understand how things have evolved in the power shift. Unless you're willing to fight back against all agents that move toward a pure market society, you are just wasting your breath. And I'm REALLY tired of listening to people try to explain to me that taking any common sense action is pointless. The "merger" is not complete. But once it is - you will know.
Fantastic read, you came back on my radar, last time was - Moving Forward. Will eat into your book, your podcas. We are all now recalibrating somehow, beyond the visible. We align with those we think like, maybe more things get done this time or a quickening kicks everthing forward. Really excited about Requiem and your ideas in kick starting more widely, worldly, wildfirely - the Parallel Economy. Personally fed up pushing daily stone up hill, want out, hope, like I came to you after so many years, that I parallel. Shine on all diamonds in the rough.
This was a really good article but I have a couple grievances.
1. it’s interesting that you told us to vote for democrats to save the planet yet you expressed no concern that the democrats are trying to send American soldiers to Ukraine to start ww3. I’m pretty sure a nuclear war will be bad for the environment but I’m not a “climate expert” so I’m not allowed to have an opinion on the matter. Shockingly, a handful of republicans are the only opposition to a US intervention against Russia. I believe they are acting out of self interest because they want their children to survive.
2. There would be no central banks under libertarianism and we would no longer be slaves of the private banks that own the shares of the central banks. Because of this there would not be an infinite growth paradigm where more loans need to be generated in perpetuity.
3.Monopoly is caused by the government not libertarianism. Monopolies are created through patents, subsidies, regulations that only large companies can afford to follow, and because large companies know how to avoid taxes while small companies have to pay a higher tax rate. Without government Monsanto would not have a monopoly on our food supply through patents. The FED would not have a monopoly on banking. Amazon would not have a monopoly on shipping and warehousing (they pay much less in taxes and got covid subsidies)
4. Libertarianism and anarchy are impossible in this era and nothing to be concerned about anyways. Business interests will ALWAYS seek ways to tax others and use it to benefit themselves. Yes some poor countries like Ethiopia may SEEM libertarian but they are actually under the control of banks and other private interests originating from affluent countries with large governments. And those governments and institutions will impose rules upon countries like Ethiopia as they see fit and if the country does not comply their leadership will be replaced violently.
5.Notice how in the US all the liberals are fleeing by the millions to red states? People are leaving the most beautiful region in the world (California) to live in an ugly flat desert (Texas). California, New York, Washington have all the politicians you’re saying we should vote for but those places are the most polluted least affordable, least safe places to live.
6. The fact is that efforts to protect the environment, have effective unions, eliminate poverty, etc. are all a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME unless central banks are abolished. We are SLAVES of the banks, in a debt that cannot be repaid and no laws will help whatsoever. Poverty, environmental decay, etc. are all part of the system as you have stated. Regulations and higher taxes only cost the poor more money with no benefit. They are literally spraying roundup on our food supply, we are drinking lead and breathing toxic waste. It could hardly be worse. We don’t need to worry about infrastructure they need us to be able to get to our jobs and the rich have to get around as well. No matter what regulation or how much is collected in taxes the government will do the bare minimum and launder the rest of the money into their donors pockets one way or another. Vote for the lowest tax rates and the least regulation, get rid of the broken welfare system and replace it with a universal basic income. Reject the legitimacy of the federal government and try to build locally sustainable communities in any way possible. Local governments can actually be beneficial but massive imperial/federal governments literally only exist to exploit you.
It's not only banks that are a problem, it's the whole "do this and you'll get that" way of living that's forced upon people to simply exist. Any kind of money, barter, or exchange type system will suffer problems that simply don't need to happen.
The message I got from this was that voting for something better may not be perfect, but it's just a turn in the right direction. It's not saying that every detail about a politician you should vote for is going to be positive.
Dear Peter: There's a tiny idea I had in mind, and something just occured to me, after reading and then translating into Spanish this and "Our Post-Truth Reality", as conscientiously as possible. Since I bumped into your material in 2008, I've been trying to spread it among my inner circle, which has so far rejected it in it's entirety, and discredited me for uphoding these ideas. I even started translating your book in 2019, but dropped that ambitious project after reaching page 38 of Chapter 2. Then pandemic struck, along w/ depression, etc. Now, with therapy, I found new strengths, hopes and belief that this is what people at large need to hear, somehow. Hence, I thought of sending these spanish-translated articles (in print) to a particular journalist/presenter of a show on a major TV news outlet here in Argentina, the only one that follows a political alignment against capitalist opression and elitist powers that be. In this particular times, with the advent of a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist government with Javier Milei at the top, and the devastating policies he's been implementing during his 1st semester in power, these ideas are more urgent than ever. People continue to be and feel lost, enraged, disoriented, obfuscated. Would it be OK with you if I did that?