Saturday, November 24, 2012


Last Saturday towards evening, after a day of rain and darkness, the clouds to the southwest broke open and sunlight came sidelong through like a golden cavalcade whose shouting victory made a double rainbow on the northern gloom; and the double rainbow was fully arched. It was so bright, so unbelievably solid, like thick glowing bars just taken from the smithy's furnace, that people all around were stopping and looking. At its outer edge the blue-black sky was held at bay, while the sky on the rainbow's inside was many degrees lighter - the perfect arch causing a summer-day resplendence within its own home.

Before I entered a store, I paused awhile to gaze. A man came out lingering, and I told him I had never seen a rainbow like that before. Then another man came out and started filming it on his little gadget thingy, and that somehow became a cue to turn inside and leave the sight behind.


Did you know that when you go to Mass on Sunday you are actually sanctifying the sabbath day? You are obliged not so much in the sense of one filling up a quota for God, but as one would be obliged to fulfill the opening up of a gift which, upon being opened, actually blesses the day, through your obedience to God's command. And that in turn blesses you - and others. This is part of the common priesthood to which everyone is called - man, woman, son and daughter: you are sanctifying the day, thus you are imitating Christ. Thus, when you do not go to Mass on Sunday, you are refusing to sanctify the sabbath day. You are profaning it.

It's hard to see this when Mass has been turned into an entertainment. And when Mass has been turned into entertainment it is never entertaining; it is just pure hell.


Any pursuit of beauty that goes unchastised, that goes without being humiliated and rebuked, will inevitably bring one to the ugly pit of insensibility.


Banks must be outlawed from practicing fractional reserve lending, which is lending money (at interest) that they do not actually have. Banks must be enforced by law to be able to lend only money they have. Imagine that: lending only money they have. Well, who would have thought? What a concept!

Governments must be outlawed from borrowing. Governments being outlawed from borrowing means they are then automatically beholden to their electorate who elected them into office; they become answerable to them, and not to unelected international bureaucrat bankers. For the borrower is servant to the lender.

Governments must print their own debt-free money, backed by nothing (for money is not "backable"), and spend it into existence. When the money is borrowed into existence, then no one (but the banks) owns that money, and thus no one owns the wealth which it should represent; and that is why incentives done under a debt system do not work. It's not because the money is "fiat"; it's not because of inflation - indeed, inflation today is nothing but the inevitable result of a debt money system; it's because the money is not the peoples.

When the government prints its own debt-free money and then spends it into existence, it releases ownership of that money. This is true distribution of wealth that simultaneously puts the incentive of producing wealth into the hands of the people. This is decentralization, and subsidiarity, and distributism - without that whole redistribution part. It's an open proposal communicated through the first experiment of being spent into existence. That release of being spent is the first touching point that goes to defining the growth that follows.

Money must not be "backed" by anything - indeed, money is not "backable", for it ever and only transfers, and when people think they have "backed" it with something, what they have done is merely transferred it to those who have the material that "backs" it.

The purpose of money (that is, debt-free money) is that it gives a common value to transaction itself, and simplifies it, whereas bartering is a discontinuous usage. Money is concomitant with the enacted model, or the principle, under which it is first issued. By being an issuance both before and after a transaction, it fixates transactions that are completed into a kind of societal memory bank, which, while providing "liquidity", is also a vast and continuing stabilization through manifest completed transactions, spread out, which is beneficence of the common good, which is economic stability, which can in turn do nothing but give birth to the incentive of further transaction.

Economies happen by enacted model; a model borne into existence out of which its bills come from that first successful experiment (the completion of a public work) and go into their secondary issuance: the second economy; an economy free for the public to shape and grow and expand.

Government ought to print its own money and spend the money into existence (which is what the governments are not doing today) - release totally from its hands its own money into the public through public works, which becomes the first animus, the first economical locus, indeed, the first completed exemplar economy: economies do not happen in a vacuum. They do not happen by "stimulis". Nor do economies happen in or by commodities. Commodities happen in economies. Contrary to our logic, transaction comes first: without transaction, commodities are not even commodities. Economies happen by enacted model.

Everything always has a model.

We've been led to believe that either a model doesn't matter, or that we don't have a model that's being enacted right now; and that if we do, it somehow isn't causing the consequences we're seeing. This is the result of economic contraception.

The truth is, there is always a model, and the model always matters, and the model is always consequential to any present economic condition that one sees.

When you have a government who makes the first economical locus one that borrows the money into existence, should anyone be surprised that a debt economy follows?

Likewise, if the first economical locus is one in which a commodity largely owned by wealthy people is made the "standard", then don't be surprised that a rule-by-rich economy follows, one in which the middle-class evaporates and the life-blood of the poor is sucked dry.





No comments: