Written by Jeff Nielson Friday, 17 January 2014 13:37
Regular readers are familiar with my characterization and observations concerning the Corporate media propaganda machine. This oligopoly disseminates its “news” as a single, monolithic herd. This, by itself, is conclusive proof that we are dealing with propaganda (and brainwashing), as any legitimate “free press” always exhibits considerable diversity of opinion.
However, one important facet of this brainwashing/conditioning requires no deceptions or distortions of any kind in order to achieve the desired effect: apathy and confusion. As an inevitable consequence of “inflation” (i.e. the relentless/excessive money-printing of the One Bank); the numbers we use in discussing the parameters of all our economies are increasing, and at an exponential rate.
This phenomenon of arithmetic is known as “creeping zeros”. But what is important for this discussion is not the arithmetic, but the inevitable psychological ramifications of creeping zeros. Specifically, as the numbers increase in size at an exponential rate; our understanding of these numbers decreases – proportionately.
The implication of this is hopefully obvious to most readers: the bigger the crimes of the One Bank, and the faster it piles one mega-crime atop another, the faster we lose the capacity to understand the magnitude of these crimes. When it commits crimes involving numbers which are literally beyond human comprehension, it becomes logically impossible to truly understand these mega-crimes, themselves.
It is necessary to inject some hard numbers here to facilitate understanding. The largest number which we puny humans can fully understand is (roughly) one million. It requires no academic credentials to make such an assertion, because the basis for this conclusion is tautological in nature.
Generally speaking (and as simple, common sense), we can only “understand” what we are capable of perceiving with our senses. You cannot explain “colour” to someone who has been blind all of their lives. You cannot explain “music” to someone who has been deaf all of their lives. They lack the sensory capacity to genuinely understand such concepts.
Similarly; while we can be told what an “atom” is, we cannot truly grasp the nature of these particles – save for the very few who can observe them (somewhat) via the aid of an electron microscope. This lack of comprehension also applies to phenomena in the universe which are too large for our comprehension.
It is accepted universally that the universe itself is beyond our intellectual grasp. When we look into the night sky; our (unaided) vision extends only out into a small portion of a single galaxy. And even boosted to the greatest extent which our technology allows; we still know our vision our encompasses a microscopic portion of infinity.
The question here then becomes: what is the demarcation point of our comprehension; at what point do numbers themselves become too large for us to understand? The answer to that question is “one million.”
For city-dwellers who have access to elevated viewpoints; we can see one million – the populations of our own cities. We can’t actually “see” the one million (puny) inhabitants themselves, but we can see their dwellings, from which it is a very small extrapolation of logic to comprehend the number of inhabitants. Anything beyond one million is too large for us to truly understand, because it is totally beyond our sensory capacity.
We can have a very crude understanding of one billion, as it is the concept of quantum immediately above the largest number we genuinely understand (and the numerical representation of the entire, human population). But once we reach “trillions”; such numbers become totally outside of any/all mathematical comprehension of virtually our entire species.
The natural question which would occur in the minds of many readers is: what makes me competent to engage in an analysis of this nature – as an authority – when I am also a puny human, capable of fully understanding no number larger than a million?
Written by Jeff Nielson Monday, 13 January 2014 15:36
It is both ironic and pathetic that as our corrupt, Western governments drown in their own self-created insolvency, these weasel-politicians spend more time talking about “fiscal responsibility” than at any other time in modern history. However, as with most of what our politicians talk about; they have little-to-no understanding of this subject themselves.
A simple hypothetical example will bear this out. Suppose we have a Corporation in serious financial difficulty. It’s spending is roughly flat (in real dollars), but its revenues (also in real dollars) have collapsed. Despite this “revenue crisis”; the Corporation completely ignores revenue-generation, and obsesses entirely about slashing spending.
It performs this cost-cutting primarily through laying-off its own employees (and/or slashing their wages and benefits), which reduces its own revenues even further. What is the one thing which we know for certain about this Corporation? It will go bankrupt in the near future.
This hypothetical corporation is, of course, an identical representation of our own, corrupt/incompetent governments. While we suffer through the greatest revenue-crisis in the history of our nations; all the politicians ever talk about (and occasionally do something about) is cutting spending.
Who continues to advise our idiot-politicians to continue slashing spending (in order to ensure that their minimal brainwave activity is never directed toward increasing revenues)? The deceitful bankers and the even more-incompetent economists. Of course it is this same cast of liars and fools who are 100% responsible for creating both our revenue-crisis and our solvency-crisis (which has resulted).
It was the bankers who assured our governments that they had “discovered” a magical financial formula which would permanently allow all our governments to borrow money at much lower interest rates, and thus (“safely”) carry much more debt. It was the pseudo-expert economists whose “forecasts” proved to be absurdly optimistic, and thus woefully inaccurate.
Why did the bankers (always) lie? Why were the economists (always) wrong?
The bankers lied to our governments about financing their debts for two, equally important reasons:
a) They wanted to bury our governments in debt, and thus enslave us in debt to these very same bankers (or, more specifically the bankers’ Masters).
b) They wanted to ensure our governments never engaged in fiscally-responsible economic policies, specifically that they failed to produce adequate revenue-streams to accompany their (rising) debt-loads.
The economists were wrong for a plethora of reasons, broadly broken down into two categories: their biases/blind-spots, and their utterly inept attempts at analysis and prognostication. Some of these biases can be summarized as simple, class-based elitism; it is beyond the scope of this piece to cover the remainder of those (numerous) biases.
The ineptitude of these economic charlatans also has numerous facets. Perhaps their greatest failing can be roughly summarized as their inability to perform dynamic analysis, and thus their insistence on engaging in static analysis. These terms are likely unfamiliar to readers.
Simplified; static analysis is analysis where one’s modeling is based upon a world which never changes. Conversely, dynamic analysis (as the name suggests) is analysis which does incorporate change into its modeling – and future forecasting.
Because we live in a world of change; static analysis is always grossly inferior to dynamic analysis. Because we live in a world of exponentially increasing change; this inferiority of analysis has also increased exponentially. The economists have not simply been “wrong”, they have been spectacularly wrong.