Debt Rattle September 5 2022


Home Forums The Automatic Earth Forum Debt Rattle September 5 2022

Viewing 10 posts - 81 through 90 (of 90 total)
  • Author
  • #115274

    When the “pandemic” was being rolled out a couple of years ago I had some small sense of what was in store, and decided
    to read some English and English-like novels while we were in “lockdown”.
    The first was a re-reading of Edith Wharton’s ‘The House of Mirth’, which is still my favorite short novel in English.
    Then I read Henry James’s very long ‘The Portrait of a Lady’, and wondered why I bothered.. his high-toned act got old fast, and the insights were few. Now I’m just over halfway into George Eliot’s ‘Middlemarch’, and really can’t praise it highly enough; it’s a superb book, IMO. Casaubon has just died, and Dorothea, who was going to promise- against her own best feelings- to satisfy her dying and failing husband’s wishes, because she’s a good and dutiful human- is at sea. The characters
    are many, well-cast, and *so* memorable.

    On the other end of the spectrum- Bukowski’s ‘Women’ should arrive tomorrow. I read it twenty years ago,
    and gave the book away with some contempt. Reading it again tomorrow
    afternoon, I hope. I like Buk- his voice seems honest, mostly. My kind of
    guy, for better or worse.

    Veracious Poet



    Point to one article where Ilargi explains the monetary system is a fraud, which it is.

    QE Is A Fraud Perpetrated By Made Men

    Includes this for example:

    …what central banks have done so far, first in Japan, then in the US and EU, is to cordon off the debts residing in their banks (e.g. in the form of swaps and not-so-securities), and then flood these same banks with money/credit, in order to make them look healthy

    and a lot more saying the money system is a fraud. I found this by searching “money fraud” on TAE.


    Cutting the supply of oil, increases the demand, increases the price.


    As my grandma would have said: “Well!” (As she clapped her hands together at her waist.)

    D Benton Smith

    Now I know why @upstateNYer gave the Tucker Carlson Mattias Desmet interview such high reviews. Literally awesome. So awesome that I just popped $20 full retail for Desmet’s book because I need to study some of his points in greater depth and finer detail, and learn something. Rumble has the video for free here : .

    The following attempted essay might make more sense if you listened to that video recorded interview first. Not absolutely necessary, but it would probably help as sort of a “lead in” to material which is damned difficult to articulate because it is such a primordially fundamental concept that is hard to explain without using the concept itself as a key part of the explanation. Like trying to define the word “in” without using the word “in”.

    What Tucker and Mattias discussed towards the end of their conversation aligns very closely with an idea that has dominated my attention for many years. It concerns the nature, the ESSENTIAL nature, of “Respect” and the role which respect plays in human relationships.

    Now, clearly and obviously respect is not a singular fixed value or some kind of an “on/off” or all-or-nothing affair. It’s not a simple yes or no of either having high respect or none at all. Respect exists as a “sliding scale” of valuation. It’s a word expressing an entire range or continuum of something very basic, related to “how much” we value another.

    So then, what is respect?

    I’ve come this far in defining it after long , humbling (and sometimes even humiliating) work :

    Respect is one’s voluntary acknowledgment of the other person’s deserved right to be there and to communicate.

    Outright admiration isn’t necessarily a part of it. Admiration is fine, if deserved, but it’s not necessary. In other words, you don’t have to admire something to respect it. Far from it. And it’s certainly not necessary to express praise to show respect for it either (far from it again!) All that is required, insofar as respect is concerned, is that the object or person be regarded with the appropriate degree of acknowledgment that they have the right to be there and they have the right to communicate. The correct amount, that’s all. Sometimes the correct amount is low. QUITE low.

    To say that another way, what we’re considering here is the degree of acceptance of the other person’s deserved right to be and to do. Guillotining the King or relegating a citizen to a forced labor camp are expressions of having an extremely low acknowledgment of the other person’s deserved right to be there and communicate. To want someone to be dead and gone is about as close to no respect that I can imagine, but there are many many gradations in between.

    And what does any of this nit picking about respect have to do with anything?

    Well, quite a bit actually. Almost everything, in fact, because respect is the most fundamental medium of exchange of value that informs all human relationships (comparable in some ways to “money” but in a social sense). And I really do mean ALL relationships. Indeed, it’s not possible to even have relationship between people in the absence of some type and some degree of acknowledgment of both parties’ right to be there (to exist, wherever they choose) and to say or do as they see fit. If either party is simply not there (at all), or if either party does not transmit or do anything (at all), then there simply is no relationship, at all.

    In other words, and simplified to the point of no return, if there is ZERO respect then there is zero relationship. In order for two or more humans to interact, to have relationship with each other at all, there absolutely must be at least SOME voluntary acknowledgment of the other person’s deserved right to be there and to communicate.

    Allow me to fill in some back story of why I’m writing this particular admittedly esoteric comment at this particular time. I got into two fights (of the verbal argument variety) in one single waking day. TWO, within a span of less than 12 hours. What the hell? How did THAT happen?

    Well it turns out that both incidents were caused by the same thing: failure by one party in an exchange to show the appropriate amount of respect to the other party in that exchange.

    Now the tendency in such fights . . . . . no . . .. wait. “Tendency” is the wrong word. It is WAY the wrong word. Let me make a fresh start on the intended statement :

    Such fights are ALWAYS caused by the recipient of valued goods or services not showing the correct amount of respect to the provider of those valued goods and services. It is never the other way around, and it is never for any other reason that does not fit snugly into the broad category of “exchange.” Fights only occur when the receiver of something of value does not properly acknowledge or accept the right of the provider to be who they are and where they are, engaged in whatever they need to be engaged in.

    That’s remarkable, isn’t it? Why do you suppose that is? You’ll never hear anyone complain that the price they’re being made to pay is too low, now will you? Ever hear of a thief breaking and entering to place valuables there for free, as a gift? That’s odd, neither have I. Do spouses ever berate spouses for NOT cheating?

    Only when the taker does not respect the maker will you ever hear the cry, “Stop.Thief !”

    The tendency is for complaints about “respect deficiency” to be expressed as a demand by the receiver of the goods (or services) to be given them at a reduced valuation, or even for free, on the basis that somehow, by some unexplained magic or undefinable standard, they simply (and for no other reason )deserve the freebie as their birthright.

    This typically plays out as a long winded narrative that the “best” people deserve stuff because they are superior, and that the stuff should be given to them gratis by people who are deplorably inferior because they are only able to obtain things by dint of their own labor. Having to work for a living in order to survive is considered to be proof that they are little or no better than beasts of burden, and thus inferior, and therefore undeserving of respect ( or equitable payment!)

    And thus the truth, reality itself, is inverted and turned on it’s head.

    The upside-down “logic” is that because these common hewers of wood and haulers of water are inferior (in comparison to the “better” people, who can make nothing) they are decidedly less (not more) deserving of respect. Thus they have less (not more) of a right to be there and exist, and they would also have less (not more) right to do as they please and say what they please (freedom of speech) as decided by the “better” people, who have first dibs on such things as freedoms of any and all kinds.

    This phenomenon manifests as a weird and mentally unsettling perversion of Reality itself, and to the highly aware it often looks like what it is : a monumental lie in violation of a universal truth. It looks evil, absurd, nonsensical, tragic, comical or so nonsensically unreal that it makes one doubts one’s own reality (gas-lighting), and it is indeed all of those things

    But it is ALSO common to all human relationships that have gone awry. It is as true between groups, nations and empires as it is between individuals, spouses and friends. When things go south, THAT is why they went south. The receiving or taking party in an exchange has failed to show proper respect to the providing or giving party in the exchange.

    Simple as that.

    When there is a convergence of bad intentions among organized groups of mutually cooperative recipients of ill gotten goods and services this phenomenon can really get out of hand. Elites, for example, can decide that those who refuse to make and give the elites everything they want, for free, have no right to be there or to communicate all, in any way whatsoever. As in genocide.

    Like now for instance.

    D Benton Smith


    So what if Ilargi does or does not write what you want him to about the subject that you want him to?
    He let’s YOU write whatever you please without objection, even to the extent of letting you rag on him (rather repetitiously, I might add) without returning the favor.
    How is this not good enough for you?


    Dammit Janet!

    I’ve had two visits to Maori health sites and three visits to a Kiwisaver with just six clicks TAE pathways.

    And the Internet-based retail payment system in this region has stalled for me three times in the last couple of days.


    ‘Cutting the supply of oil, increases the demand, increases the price’ ???

    Surely, cutting the supply has no effect on demand but competition for what’s available increases the price. and increased prices reduce demand.

    It’s called demand destruction.

    First to get pushed off the cliff are poor brown people. Then poor white people. Then wealthier brown people. Then wealthier white people…..


    Sometimes, what will happen does not follow what you thought would happen.

Viewing 10 posts - 81 through 90 (of 90 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.