Monty Pelerin's World

I meet people that still believe that the world is fine. They believe things like:

Bonus Comment:

Firstly, I often tell people, especially students, that when asked an open ended type question the first two words of your answer should be: “It depends …”. Secondly, I would suggest that given that the issue is learning, or at least related to it, it likely boils down to two things: (1) the process of learning itself, and (2) awareness.

Regarding the process of learning there are at least two keys: (1) motivation, and (2) exactingness. Exactingness relates to the penalty associated with the task, which in this case is the penalty for not grasping reality and what is occurring and ahead (i.e., economically and otherwise). For example, the most exacting job and environment may be a soldier on the front lines. The penalty or exactingness of the task is death. It gets no more exacting than death. On the other side of the spectrum is something like night school where the penalty for a poor result is at worst not passing or a bad grade. Regarding motivation there are two kinds: (1) internal (e.g., self satisfaction or “doing a good job” for the sake of doing a good job), and (2) external (e.g., monetary motivation, i.e., doing it “for the money”). Of course, there are tradeoffs between exactingness and motivation. For example, if you do not care internally about your grade your effort (due largely to your lack of motivation) will be lacking in school. Linking this back to the question at hand, it may be that the perceived exactingness and/or motivation(s) are lacking. For example, take someone like Ben Bernanke, he is rewarded for screwing up monetary policy and hiding inflation, etc. etcetera. Therefore, his motivation is completely lacking for really doing the right thing (i.e., with respect to the economy in general he is more likely to systematically lie, cheat and steal from taxpayers and please the one world cultural Marxist oligarchs on purpose and has little or no external or internal motivation to do otherwise), and exactingness is missing. Also, as mentioned, his exactingness is perverse; and he and his ilk seem to be immune from breaking the law anyways, thus zero or near zero exactingness. Furthermore, many non-insiders like the people you refer to may not even perceive that they are negatively impacted (i.e., their perceived exactingness and/or motivation may be largely absent).

Which brings me to awareness, that is likely to be crucial for the type of people you lament do not seem to be aware of their own best interest in terms of becoming aware and waking the heck up. In the military there is a term called “situational awareness”. Essentially it is the ability to be aware of multiple threats on the battlefield and the tendency to correctly pick out that threat that most likely lead to your death (there is some ink to, e.g., IQ but not much of a link; which may in part explain why “smart” people don’t get it or won’t get it). Most fighter pilot aces have it in varying degrees; and by the way, it is a real thing that is measureable (especially military pilots are tested for it; and special forces). I suspect that at a minimum the people you mention have low levels of what I would call economic situational awareness and/or motivation. In short, many are not even aware that anything is wrong, or motivation wise do not care. For many, the mainstream media is awash in false propaganda that all is well, “green shoots”, etc. The fog of the 24/7 false propaganda cycle alone is enough to keep economic situational awareness for most people in check. Finally, for some they just are not able to be situationally aware (regardless of the type or awareness). Simply put, just like the fact that very few people can run the 100 yard dash in under say 15 seconds, so too it appears that many cannot comprehend that we are indeed entering a depression (if not already there; e.g., using ShadowStats we have been there for awhile). Thus, some are unwilling to comprehend for simple motivational reasons, while others are unable to because of cognitive/mental limitations which are not necessarily related to things like intelligence (i.e., as measured by most people and not specifically tailored to situational awareness of the economic and social type). So you have unwilling people and/or unable, and regardless of perceived intelligence.

In terms of what to do, I would suggest targeting motivation and perceived exactingness for those hat can perceive. The key is that some will not understand regardless of approach, method, or the news media’s false propaganda; therefore, we must target those that are capable of being aware. Those people that are capable of being aware at this point must have their perceived exactingness and/or motivations changed in such a way as to wake them up from their slumber. It may require a shock like losing their job and not being able to find another, or it might just be reading this piece. But my guess is that for many it is one on one discussion combined with reinforcement from blogs like this that will set off the mental tripwire that helps a slumbering fool awaken to the horror that is all around them. Unfortunately, given the media fog combined with human cognitive limitations for many you may not be able to save many more until after the proverbial SHTF and those that are still standing snap out of it (i.e., assuming they make it that far).

 Matt Patterson (articles often appearing- Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Newsweek HITS OBAMA

Finally, Newsweek speaks out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print the article about Obama that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media.

I Too Have Become Disillusioned.

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Democrats to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

NewsWeek Dumps Obama

Please Share this information with your friends!
Tweet

Watch Part I & Part II and make your own determination.

More Videos

Jim DeMint

Politicians who fail to recognize it are certain to become relics of the past.

THE 2012 REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES are showing early signs of another banner year for the Tea Party. The candidacies of Republican insurgents such as Richard Mourdock, Josh Mandel, Deb Fischer, Ted Cruz, and Mark Neumann follow the spirit of Senators Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, and Rand Paul—who each defeated establishment forces in their 2010 senatorial races. Meanwhile, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who enacted ambitious reforms of public-sector unions in his state, trounced his recall opponent by a seven-point margin.

In just a few short years, the Tea Party has evolved from small, disparate groups scattered all around the country into a full-fledged movement with considerable influence. Tea Party candidates are no passing fad; they are trailblazers of a new, lasting political reality.

For too long, politicians got away with proclaiming the value of fiscal responsibility on the campaign trail without ever acting on it once they were in Washington. But thanks to the Internet, that’s no longer an option. Activists around the country have ready access to politicians’ voting records, speeches, and statements with just a few clicks of a mouse. It’s nearly impossible to mislead voters these days. That’s why it’s no longer acceptable for candidates to simply mouth conservative rhetoric. Their records must back it up. For that reason, many longtime incumbents, whose walk didn’t match their talk, had to go. They couldn’t pass muster in an age of transparency.

The pundit class often laments the lack of bipartisanship in Washington and wistfully recalls the good old days when Republicans and Democrats would work together to bring home the bacon and plunge our nation deeper into debt. Times have changed. Jay Cost made an astute observation in his essay “The Politics of Loss” inNational Affairs. He said that the stunning economic growth in the postwar era “liberated policy makers from having to make any hard choices. The people could have guns, butter, and low taxes—all thanks to a private economy that seemed to grow regardless of what government did.”

Today, however, the private economy is pinned under the jackboot of big government. There’s no more room for compromise. When Republicans and Democrats worked together in the past, the result was almost always a bigger, more expensive government. As a result, government now controls our health care, our energy, our education, our transportation, our mortgages, our banks, and countless other things. The debt is now bigger than our gross domestic product.

It’s time for toughness. Merely raising the subject of eliminating a single government program provokes ridicule and anger from any number of constituencies. Those who speak frankly and honestly about the decisions that must be made to save our entitlement programs can expect to be labeled in the crudest terms by the Democrat Party and its assorted special-interest groups.

But anyone who looks at the numbers can see that the real radicals are the ones running Washington right now. The creation of our $15 trillion debt is the single most extreme action ever undertaken by the U.S. government. Thankfully, we know what the answers are. Republicans have offered numerous ways to shrink the budget, empower states, reduce the tax burden on Americans, and provide the certainty needed for the economy to flourish once again.

The Tea Party has provided a much-needed infusion of accountability to ensure that the GOP champions the values that have made our nation prosperous. The genius of the Tea Party is that it is not a single group that may one day be corrupted. Its allegiance lies with the Constitution and our founding principles, not with a person or party.

With the Tea Party’s backing, Republicans should have the temerity to offer voters a clear and bold choice between the Republican and Democrat agendas. It’s not a question of left or right, or red or blue. It’s a matter of whether this country succeeds or fails.

That’s why I’m laser focused on retaking the Senate with Tea Party candidates who are committed to repealing Obamacare, balancing the budget, securing our border, stopping the bailouts, and enacting pro-growth, freedom-based policies that will get Americans back to work.

This is the new reality. Politicians who fail to recognize it are certain to become relics of the past.

Our nation’s survival depends on it.