Friday, December 28, 2012

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Pencils H, B and 6B

This drawing was done from a still of the film Stalker.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Where is Thorin's beard?

It's Thorin: Thrain's son, Thror's son, king of the Lonely Mountain. You give him a beard and you give him a bloody big one, with braids, not some sparse and dinky close-trim.

And Thorin is florid and dignified in his speech, proud of bearing in his manners but not blinded thereby. He's not some pissy, arrogant, hard-hearted, somber man-model with the wet-look from the cover of some glamour magazine.

The dwarves are hearty and stout and have good appetites. They are not a bunch of ruffian frat boy rugby players, scraping the mud off their boots on Bilbo's furniture and burning the elven furniture for a fire on the elven porch in what is supposed to be the Last Homely House - the House of Elrond in the valley of Rivendell. Seriously, can you imagine? They actually burn furniture of the elves to make a food fire on the porch. And why do they do this? Well, that brings me to the next part.

You may be a vegan, Peter Jackson, and you may think it's all that, but elves, I assure you, are not vegans. Their food is most welcome to all the races of Middle-earth that are not evil. Nor are elves a bunch of absolutely remote, airy-fairy, asexual beings whose music is equally remote.

Gandalf knows his shit. He does not require the platonic caresses of Galadriel and her telling him in her annoying Cate Blanchett droning, affected voice not to be afraid, as Gandalf looks back at her all hopeful-eyed like he was about to cry. What bullshit.

And what up with the G-rated violence? Beren may have written the book in a style which he later abandoned, but even for that, the violence is, well, violence. Here though, when Bilbo pulls Sting out of an orc, it doesn't even have blood on it. The Great Goblin is supposed to get his head cut off and all his minions are supposed to go into a rage over it; not some stupid paper-cut across the belly and another across the throat together with a stupid one-liner that is supposed to be humourous. When Gandalf lights the cones on fire, it's his special fire that sort of explodes when it hits the wolves; not stupid regular fire where everyone else gets to join in in throwing regular-burning cones. Pathetic.

How does one so offend the soul of a work while being so milquetoast at the same time?

Let's see...what else. Oh yes, Cate Blanchett is so horrific a Galadriel it's not even funny. But we already knew that. I guess we just needed to be reminded.

Oh yeah, and Peter Jackson? You had to do the stupid butterfly thing with the eagles again, didn't you?

Yeah, I knew you would. It worked the first time back in 2001. You didn't need to wreck it.

Ho ho ho! Merry Christmas everyone! Happy holidays!

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Arvo Pärt - Piano

Couple of delicate piano pieces by Arvo Pärt. They remind me of Chopin.

Variations for the Healing of Arinushka:


Hymn to a Great City:

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Pencils H, B and 6B

Pencils B, 6B and 2H
"Our ancestors decided that they could do without God, and in their misplaced optimism they thought that in rejecting him they were lifting up human liberty and dignity. But they didn't understand that he himself was our freedom, and that this true freedom was our salvation. And so our supposedly liberated and dignified souls found themselves adrift, only to become dingy and beaten down by the rotten luxuries of the false glory of violent entertainment, the false joy offered by advertising, the false connectedness of pornography. And that's where the next guy is right now, I have no doubt. He's reaching out for some relief, but in places where it can never be found, and it gets worse every day. And as the imprisoned soul turns in on itself, the unthinkable gets a little more thinkable each day. And so I pray for him." --Father Charles, a minor friar, How I'm Praying Today

And so should we all, in repentance.

Thursday, December 13, 2012


I was wondering how birds fly in synchronization, noticing them now and again. Not birds like geese flying in a V, but the quick little birds.

There will be a gust of them, flying as a unit, and in mid-air all of them at once will veer sharp, not one bird lagging; and then another sudden hard angle turn, each of them at the same split second. How do they do this? They do not practice. You never see birds practicing their synchronization, do you? They just fly that way.

There is no leader, as there might be one at the head of the V, as with geese. But these quick little birds fly as an amoebic amalgam, constantly shifting its shape - totally synchronized.

There is only one explanation, and it is this: there is some music that they sense and they fly to this music. There is no other explanation.

If there is another explanation, and you would like to share it, please don't. I don't want to hear it. Because it's a damn lie. Thank you.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012


Those that over-evaluate sex in Catholic teaching - to the point of holding it as the primary sign and impetus for realizing the incarnation of everything in Catholic teaching - simultaneously devalue (and distort, and drain) everything in Catholic teaching to the point of being worse off than an ignorant pagan: at least the ignorant pagan has a fighting chance to come to reverence the News which the prophets would have given everything to see. But those who twist Revelation into their own vain imaginings?

It will be worse for them than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah.


Love truth, or be damned.


What if there were world powers, which were evil and tightly knit, and they had every intention of taking over the world, and while still invisible to the public eye, they had differentiated themselves absolutely from the mad-dog repugnance of a Hitler and a Nero by first gaining for their poison crafts respectability - technological respectability, scientific respectability, cultural respectability, an almost omniscient respectability - and that respectability had been transferred down the social strata and conferred on you and me?

It would mean that any movement of revolt against this power would feel like a revolt against our very selves.


Did you know that depressions are not caused by stock-market crashes? Depressions, such as the one of the 30's, are not "caused" in any sense of there being a single "crashing" factor that then just happens to leave the populace in desperate lean times for a decade. Such is a sort of rot-gut economic calvinist myth. No, mankind for all his fallen nature has a resilience that must actually be chained through the application of external forces, continually applied, when it comes to economies - because that's what people do: they grow things, they have babies, they sell, they buy.

Depressions are not "caused"; rather, depressions are purposefully sustained, annum per annum. Depressions are sustained through the deliberate, continual contraction of the money supply, which is what happened exponentially with every year in the 30's - and that, in spite of a booming population.

During the depression of the 30's, billions of dollars of the money that was contracted year after year was funneled into Germany. Much of it also went to the Kennedy family. It went into building up Germany's infrastructure. So when the 40's rolled around, their money stolen from them, the American people were told, "You have to give up your husbands and sons". And they went to be killed and maimed fighting the forces that were built up with the money that was fleeced from them in the previous decade.

Money only and ever transfers hands.


“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.” --Theodore Roosevelt

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” --Woodrow Wilson

“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation… The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, … and control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”  --New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922

"In the first place, it is obvious that not only is wealth concentrated in our times but an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure.
This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will." --Pope Pius XI, QUADRAGESIMO ANNO


Of course, they said those kinds of things because they were just a bunch of kooky, paranoid fringe conspiracy theorists.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Pencils B, 6B and 2H

Deacon Jim Russell Quote

"And so, there has been a bit of conversation on “mature purity” at Paul Stilwell’s “Spike Is Best” blog (which has the dubious distinction of possessing such animosity toward Christopher West that Paul actually deliberately posted daily attacks on West for the whole of the last Lenten season—not sure how one grows in holiness doing so, but there it is…)." --Deacon Jim Russell: the Body Guard

Flipping that pancake

"The whole problem of "pornovision" and of "pornography," as it appears on the basis of what was said above, is not the effect of a puritanical mentality or of a narrow moralism, nor is it the product of a way of thinking burdened by Manichaeism." --Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 62

Well. I guess Christopher West must have missed that part.

It's understandable. People make mistakes. It's a big book.

Golden Oldie X

Monday, December 10, 2012

Filling these hearts with self-fulfillment

You know how the last post touches on how the saints that are "utterly pure" experience freedom from the dominion of concupiscence and how they experience union with God - that is, in experiencing themselves more and more as impure, like a mote in God's ray? Yes?

Which means that there is no one point in time in which a person, saint or no saint, can say, "I am pure" and that the person who is "utterly pure" is one who is rather completely imbued with God - that is, who has been emptied of self, in which case he experiences self as more and more impure, like a mote in God's benevolent ray? Yes?

Which means that freedom from concupiscence, or mature purity, is one which flees from the near occasion of sin, knowing the vulnerability to falling to sin, and it knows this because of the maturity of its love of God, yes?

And you know how Christopher West defines this mature purity, yes? by fixing it as the subjective experience of no longer experiencing lust--

What, you thought that was the end of the sentence? Ha! No (in which case it would still be wrong).

It's like this: Christopher West fixes the definition of mature purity not as the subjective experience of the self as impure in God's sight (while trusting in, and experiencing, His benevolent mercy and redemption happening right now), but as the subjective experience of no longer experiencing lust when seeing a Catholic apologist's naked wife.

Yeah, West must be using it in the same sense that JPII used it.

One mature purity sees beyond the self, and in so doing in Christ's graces, becomes free from concupiscence, which is no final end in itself. One "mature purity" focuses on the self as pure.


No one is pure: does not mean total depravity

The purity that St. John of the Cross writes about when he writes of union with God is not merely freedom from concupiscence. The saint writes of how the closer the soul comes to union with God the more impure the soul finds itself. One way of putting it could be that the soul begins to see itself more and more with the eyes of God, before whom no one is pure. That's right: in reality, which is God, no one is pure.

And what is the touching point by which the saint comes to mature purity? It is through the process of picking oneself back up, again and again. It does not matter if the saint is free from the sins that used to be a recurrence for him or her: the way the soul experiences and comes into mature purity of union with God is through picking oneself back up, again and again, right up to the point of death - where "picking oneself back up again" comes to be more like "entrusting oneself to God more and more".

This is true even when picking oneself back up, or entrusting oneself to God once more, has not been occasioned by any event of sin. For the soul never comes to some point in time in which it can say, "I am totally pure. I am done." Which is what the person claims when he believes in, and practices, a "purity" that he defines precisely in doing what he could not do before (or rather, doing exactly what he did before, with the exception that he gives himself exception from sin according to his subjective level of what he decides to call freedom from lust, which is whenever he decides to call it total arousal sent from heaven's song instead, and with the exception that now he can add pride and delusion to his list of sins and errors) thereby proving he is "redeemed" and thereby, in actual reality, debauching any true ethos of redemption.

If the person does not realize this, that person will at some point fall into despair, having thought himself totally pure - that is, thinking himself able to be cognizant of how objectively pure he is by his subjective experience of not feeling lust (whatever that may be, in whatever occasion of sin), which is his precious subjective version of "not lusting".

This is the fallacy which Christopher West's teaching of "mature purity" sets one up for: either despair or the further hardening of the soul in presumption.

Friday, December 7, 2012


The opening for Vertigo is "book-ended" with the film's conclusion. They both "hang" there. The film redounds upon itself, like a cyclic force, like vertigo: one of the reasons why some people find themselves returning to this film again and again.

One of the things that's so great about the opening of Vertigo is it doesn't give you any information, then or later, how Jimmy Stewart gets off the rooftop.

The film has a strong moral lesson about obsession.

Donald Spoto's biography of Hitchcock full of lies

When I was eighteen or so, I read Donald Spoto's biography of Alfred Hitchcock, The Dark Side of Genius: the Life of Alfred Hitchcock. In it, the later Hitchcock is portrayed as a rather dirty old man who, when he was dying, refused to have a priest and to be reconciled in the faith into which he was baptized and raised as a child.

I do remember that in this biography it talked of how the only driving Hitch would do was when he drove his daughter the short way to Mass, which he did regularly, though not attending Mass himself.

Anyways, that biography left me with an uneasiness as to what to think about Alfred Hitchcock the man. I've always loved his films, which made the uneasiness the greater. There's typically a hunch one has when the truth is not being told.

Thus it was with great relief that I just read this article about Hitchcock's last days written by one of the priests who was there.

"After we chatted for a while, we all crossed from the living room through a breezeway to his study, and there, with his wife, Alma, we celebrated a quiet Mass. Across from me were the bound volumes of his movie scripts, "The Birds," "Psycho," "North by Northwest" and others—a great distraction. Hitchcock had been away from the church for some time, and he answered the responses in Latin the old way. But the most remarkable sight was that after receiving communion, he silently cried, tears rolling down his huge cheeks."

Do read the entire article HERE.

Good, good God.

God is so good.

H/T: Father Z.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

When the circus is over: people will live by every word that comes from the mouth of God

Self-fulfillment twisting Christianity makes a return this coming new year with Christopher West's new book, Fill These Hearts. Same old schtick. Joined with a band he's doing his Fill These Hearts tour. Best way of doing business. Forget the very recent last book and its concomitant criticisms. Pop out a new one. Full steam ahead.

The cover picture of his new book reminds me of a joke that Bob tells in the wonderful movie, What About Bob?

He's in the psychiatric unit cracking jokes with the people working there:

So a psychiatrist has a patient and he draws a circle and he says, "What do you see?"

Patient says, "I see sex."

He draws a picture of a tree and he says, "What do you think about that?"

Patient says, "Sex."

Then he draws a picture of a car, a house...

"Sex, sex, sex."

The doctor says, "Well your obsessed with sex."

Patient says, "Well you're the one drawing all the dirty pictures."

So, no, I don't really care if people think I'm nuts for saying that the cover picture of Christopher West's new book is a subliminal vagina - and was meant to be. So I just went ahead and said it - just now. I think that cover was very purposefully thought out.

It's practically the one thing West would want people to say about it, too. Because then it's a sign that they are repressing their sexual longings and secretly seeing sex everywhere. And when they are talking critically about him, it only means they're talking about their own immature impurity, and projecting it on him - and his disciples. Say, he can use the What About Bob? pop-culture reference in his talks for that. Watertight cult. Debauch Revelation. Drink that Kool-aid. It's the banquet set for you.

Met a woman once who told me that people are saying that Christopher West is a living saint. He had come up in the conversation before and I had decided to say nothing. But when she broke out with the third-party living saint bit I started to say some things. A convert was there. Ex-Lutheran pastor. Converted because of Theology of the Body written by Pope John Paul II. Not by West. Found it so beautiful he decided only someone who had the truth could have written it. I was excercising restraint in releasing my opinions. Conversation didn't go very far. Woman got the gist I didn't think West's teachings were very good - that is, not at all a true interpretation of late Pope's Wednesday talks. She wasn't beholden either way. But she took up my doubts about West and pondered.

Went to a Katrina Zeno talk once. Someone paid for me to go. Only way I would go. Waste my Saturday. This person said to me I should go and find out what this Zeno is about. He said this to me before he knew anything about what I had written about Christopher West. Told me the thought came to him in prayer that I should go. Years before, he and others were instrumental in having a West gig here cancelled. LOL. So that's the only way I went. Katrina Zeno talk. Took some Zenotes. Sound recorder didn't work too well. Whole damn day. Ugh. Zeno getting audience to repeat many times throughout her talks one mantra. Zeno would say, "Theology of the body means--" and then she would implore audience for the taught answer, and audience would chant in unison: "the body reveals God".

Many times this mantra repeated: "the body reveals God." Bloody cultish.

And who would have thought of foreskins as a prefiguration of the temple veil that was rent apart to reveal the holy of holies upon our Lord's death?

Zeno goes on about significance of old covenant of circumcision: that the foreskin is a type of "veil" that is removed, or drawn back, to reveal...reveal what you say? Now, don't be a knob!

Or, of course, for the uncircumcised, this would mean perhaps that every time the man has an erection this would be an "unveiling". Holy. Every erection is "the desire for heaven gone beserk".

I think that talk was the 15 and older one. Not sure. Didn't seem to matter with the youngins running around while the penetration of the thin vaginal membrane was being used as the other analogy for the revelation through the veil - since theology of the body means what again?

In unison now: "the body reveals God".

This is what's making the circuit these days as "Catholic teaching".

Ug think Ug's erections come from fertility god. Ug build big penis towers. Ug erect big penis tower as offering to fertility god. Ug paint many penises on cave wall. Ug like that. What then you say? How many babies you make? Ug make many. Ug blessed by fertility god with many erections.

Ahhhh yes. Of course many folk from the same Zeno talk now reading this post would be likely to go ballistic saying I am twisting it and misrepresenting it and they'll be all standing up from their computers shrieking:

But it was you see. These false prophets work with sublimation.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

The Great Fleecing of the Ages

If money is being overprinted today, and overprinting is what's causing price inflation, then why are there not people arriving at stores with their wheelbarrows of worthless trash money to buy just a single loaf of bread? Why are there not people wallpapering their walls with their worthless trash cash if money is being overprinted and that overprinting is what's causing price inflation? If money is being overprinted today, then why aren't people's chequing accounts filled with thousands upon thousands of worthless electronic digits?

Answer: it is not being overprinted. The cause of price inflation is absolutely because of the interest on the debt. Interest rates go up, then so do prices, because people have to make a profit from what they sell. Businesses depend on loans. All money is a loan. The banks own 100% of the money all of the time.

Don't think so? In the beginning they do and in the long run they do - which is basically the definition of something that's on loan. The money that comes into existence as a loan did not exist before the loan was made. If all the money comes into existence as an interest-bearing loan, then - to repeat Byron Dale's simple and ingenious question - where does the money come from to pay the interest on the loan? That too has to be borrowed - at interest.

Which of course, leads to Dale's perceptive analogy:

"You cannot borrow yourself out of debt - no more than you can drink yourself sober."

The cheque that you get from work, the payment that you get for your services, is money that was, at some point in time, by some other person (whether in industry or government), at some other place, borrowed into existence as an interest-bearing loan. That's right: that fiat money in your wallet and purse came into being in the exact same way that credits on a credit card do. There is no fundamental difference between them.

Ah, but surely once a loan is paid back, that money then gets circulated back into the system in various ways and thus there comes to be money in the system that is not loaned?

You want to know the kicker? When a loan is paid back to the bank, they extinguish that money from the system. Before the loan was made, the money did not exist; the borrower's promise to pay is what brings the money into existence as a loan. When it is paid back, the banks extinguish that money from the system. Of course the interest from it they keep as their own and perhaps some of that goes back into the system, but the proportions of that to what is loaned, and loans refused, and what is called back, would not be near enough to make any difference whatsoever.

So yeah, no, there is no overprinting problem today, here in the west. The problem is completely different.

And when you hear people talking about the problem having to do with too much credit (and the "credit-addicted welfare slaves") as well as that damn fiat money, before going off into a tangent about how we need to become less dependent on government Anarcho-Capitalists, you can be assured they don't quite get it - indeed, that they miss the mark entirely. Because that fiat money is nothing but what the credit is. They are the same. The problem with the fiat money is not that it is fiat. The problem with it is that it is borrowed. The problem with government spending is not the spending, but that they borrow in order to spend (and of course, kicking the payment for the debts plus compounding interest to the next generations, not to mention flushing the nation's sovereignty down the toilet). Borrowing is not something exclusive to "credit-addicted welfare slaves"; it is the very foundation of our entire monetary system.

As has been said, if you are in debt, you may get out of debt as an individual; and no fault to you for getting out of debt, but the nature of the beast that has been spawned on us is such that an individual getting out of debt means someone else must go further into debt. Must. The system, being that all the money (or 95% of it) is loaned at interest, is naturally rigged - like a vast pyramid scheme in which all that happens is that debt gets shifted around - means that a number of people have to go bankrupt in order for some to get out of debt (with hopefully some assets to their name instead of merely arriving back at zero). Participation in the system scheme does not depend on whether you personally are in debt or not: in all of our transactions we are shifting around debt. And while individuals may get out of debt, the nation cannot - at least while this system scheme is being perpetuated. In order for that system scheme to keep going on, a nation must go deeper and deeper into debt.

The only way for a nation to get out of this scheme is for the nation's government to start printing its own debt-free money and spend it into existence.

"The power to create, issue and circulate the medium of exchange, which should be recognized as the supreme prerogative power of government, now forms the stock-in-trade of the business of our super-banking system, which functions as the servant of usury in the realm of high finance." --Gerry McGeer, The Conquest of Poverty - or Money, Humanity and Christianity

St. Matthew, pray for us.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Sunday, December 2, 2012


So a tally was done for the Archdiocese of Vancouver. The tally was to find out Sunday Mass attendance.

This has to do with the Catholics Come Home project.

The number of Catholics in the Vancouver Archdiocese is something over 400, 000.

Of that number, some 83, 000 attend Sunday Mass.


I don't remember ever having genuine Turkish Delight before. I may have had it as a kid - I'm not sure.

Coming across it at the store, I bought a box: all-natural, vegan, no-gmo, gluten-free blah blah blah Turkish Delight.

I now understand Edmund.


"Necessity now compels all to recognize that the creation, and issuance of the medium of exchange, the monetization of public credit, the circulation of the medium of exchange, and the general supervision of the monetary system must be restored to government. If we are to make the Golden Rule the “ism” of Democracy we must drive the money changers out of the temples of government and put the spirit of Christ in charge. By such changes the sovereignty of usury can be overthrown and the elected representatives of the people may become the rulers of the “economic bloodstream of the nation”. Responsible government as an expression of Christian Democracy may then be maintained....

....Money must be restored to its proper function. It must be issued and circulated primarily as a tool of trade serving as the medium of exchange in the creation and distribution of the wealth essential to the need, convenience and existence of humanity. It must cease to be an instrument of appropriation functioning primarily for the purpose of impounding the wealth of the nation to the service of lovers of wealth and money power.
“Thou shalt not make unto you gods of silver or gods of gold,”
“Thou shalt not lend on usury”, and
“Thou shalt not worship mammon,”
sayeth the law and the laws of God must be obeyed."

4812 Belmont Avenue,
Vancouver, B.C.
January 6th, 1935.

Gerry McGeer was the 22nd mayor of Vancouver and he influenced then-Prime Minister Mackenzie King to end the debt-based monetary system and start a public debt-free legal tender, which ran from the mid 30's to the mid 70's.

After that, the nation went back to a debt-based monetary system...and what happened? Surprise! An atomic bomb of national debt was set off and has been spreading, and exponentially increasing, its foul radiation to the present.

Can you even imagine a politician today saying or writing the kinds of words as in the above quote though?


You know how there are lefty liberals who make claims that since Vatican II there have been modifications to teachings concerning sex and sexuality and the like? Yes? And the staunch traditionalists rightly show them what's what, yes? And some staunch traditionalists claim that there have been modifications to teachings concerning usury - the manipulation of money to make money - just like the lefty liberals claim with sodomy, yes?

Yes, glad we agree. Have a nice day.


"But Paul, but Paul!" I hear you saying. "But the gold standard wouldn't be usury! No, the gold standard is sort of like communism: it just hasn't been done right yet, that's all!"


"If you think that the price of money can't be changed, just get your business graph and see what happened to the prices of 'things' in the longest 'depression' the U.S. had ever experienced up to that time [1873]. As it worked with the 'half-shekel of the sanctuary,' so also it worked with the Gold Standard." --Fabious Melton Butler writing during the early thirties.

Saturday, December 1, 2012


There's a frustrating response that people get when they dare to talk about solving the debt problem. People respond to these solutions as though we were not in the worst economic situation that has ever occurred - global collapse. Do you understand what that means? One nation after another, like dominoes.

When people bring up the actual solutions, real solutions, what they get in response is people with the same talking points - oh, that will cause inflation (as though we weren't living in the worst hyperinflation due to debt), and oh, that would have to be taxed (as though we weren't being taxed to death because of debt), like these were absolute pitfalls that implied we simply can't go there. Like we were seated in some economics theory class and had the omniscient luxury of laying out some perfect plan (which is never the case even in good times), rather than living in the worst economic situation the world has seen, and against which simple inflation or its risk and normal taxation would be paradise.

What stupidity.

You want to know why the debt problem doesn't get solved? It's because of economists and economic theory.

And it is the debt problem that is the problem.