Wednesday, July 14, 2010

I've seen my own shadow

Many want to solve a civilization instead of humanity problem. Philosophical arguments with civilizations philosophical solutions. The problem is civilization itself.
Civilization requires civility in an uncivilized world to make it work
all have to conform, both humanity and nature Humanities philosophy is
wisdom not knowledge. There is no compounding of philosophical
gibberish. It's not ideas of how live the idea of humanity is to live.

There is no key
There is no door
Step out beyond your walls
It's wide open out there
To the stars and beyond
Don't you see it
There is no father
No one abandoned you
You were created by the virgin mother
We call her earth
Join and let us celebrate together
Let us respect and heal her
She will protect and nourish us
She is not a beast to slay
What are you afraid of
Only you were created in your own image
Face it
Don't be afraid of your own skin
You are loved
Please share
Pass on the light

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

How lost is our way

I've been writing incessantly in my notebook and elsewhere coming to terms with a subject as such.
I'm not as much conflicted as torn. I am stuck in a world where we are all thinking, about life, how we got here, where we came from, how do I still tinker and make things, I don't really want to make nor does anyone really need to have made. I live close to a forest and it's full of food. I remember childhood television of show from far off lands with different people, and they had food from the land, I have an interest in the indigenous cultures of the land in which I tread now. They lived with the land in nature. They weren't taken by gimmicks or facades. because nature doesn't fool or trick. Somewhere someone started thinking and thinking they were gaining knowledge of what was around them instead of having the wisdom of the things around them.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

The stolen island

So our ancestors came to this land, and the people that greeted them, the ones already here, who were in general, wild, free, powerful, philosophical, eloquent, and a solitary people.
A people that could express themselves sensibly, intelligently, with interests of conscience, and of his rights. Our ancestors that explored and cataloged the riches to plunder, had to work with the natives or starve to death and freeze to death out on the prairie, and up in the north. Those who listened to the wisdom of the natives, who lived with the land for centuries, survived.
Then as the exploiters we brought alcohol, guns, and prejudiced against the natives, jails and prisons and so much more. We signed treaties with them.
What were they given in return after signing legitimate treaties, you know things like the residential schools with deadly health conditions, banned their language and culture, subjected them to sexual degradation and physical violence, and disrupted their families.
That's how their freedom and rights were handled.
Nonetheless they survived.
They were an autonomous sovereign people an ungoverned society of people and I think they can guide us to that place again.

While the Mexican people have an even richer native heritage and culture.
Will the signing of the 2005 security and prosperity agreement, bring us to wiping it out also, the Mexican cultural past which is so celebrated. Will the modernization and westernization lead to a cultural annihilation.
Under the British Colonial directive. The Americans annihilated their native population, this is the same control as today. They annihilated everything that was in the way, the natives, the buffalo, the plants, and other animal species.
The colonialists took over the territory. They brought their methods and they made sure that their methods were going to make the land conform.
The Catholic Church, the UN, seem to want to wipe out peoples autonomous  history, the destruction of books, the destruction of information, the destruction of our planet, the one source of information. All from one small, tightly controlled, non-elected, non-representational elitist oligarchy.

Sunday, July 04, 2010

Cheap-Money Experiments in Past and Present Times

THERE are a few elementary principles in economic science the mastery of which by
the great body of the American people would be of incalculable value to us as a nation. One of
these is that no government can create money out of anything which it may choose to call money.
Another is that all classes of the people, rich and poor, laborer and employer, are far better off with
a sound and stable currency than they are with any of the varieties of "cheap money." Another
is that no part of the financial or business world can be benefited or injured by changes in the
monetary standard of value without corresponding benefit or injury to the other parts.
Still another is that the larger part of the business of the country is transacted upon credit, and that
anything which tends to disturb or to foreshadow disturbances of the monetary standard of value
cripples credit and demoralizes all business. Finally, though we have by no means exhausted the
list, it would be of the highest importance for the common people to become thoroughly convinced
of the fact that in every instance in which the financial world is disturbed by changes or threats
of changes in the standard of value the sufferers are always the poorer people and the beneficiaries
always the rich, for the latter are able to guard against the coming trouble which they are quick
to scent, while the former are powerless to take the necessary precautions even if they were able
to anticipate it.
The harmful delusion that the Government has the power to create money is traceable directly to
the Legal Tender Act of 1862. Previous to that time the American people, in common with those
of other enlightened nations, believed that the sole function of government in relation to money was
to certify to the weight and purity of the metal contained in it. This view, which, it is scarcely
necessary to say, has been shown by the experience of all civilized countries to be the only sound
one, was completely upset in the minds of thousands of uninstructed people by the issue of the
legal tenders and the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court upholding the right of Congress
to make such issue. The pernicious doctrine that anything which the Government might choose to
stamp as money paper, or silver, or nickel, or copper became ipso facto money for the amount
named on its face obtained so firm a lodgment in the popular mind that calls began to be heard
from all quarters for the liberal issue of Government money in almost every form except gold.
The country has passed safely through several varieties of the "greenback craze," which was the
most radical and dangerous form of the delusion, but it has yet to reach the solid ground occupied
before the war. So long as the admission is allowed that the Government can create money
there is no satisfactory answer to be made to the questions, "Why should we have a gold standard?"
"Why should we have national banks ?"
or " Why should we have any limit put to the volume of our currency ?
" If the Government can create money, why should it not create all
that everybody wants? Why should anybody
work for a living?
We must get back as a people to a just comprehension of the truth that no government can make
an inferior form of money equal in value to a superior form like gold by enacting a law decreeing
that it shall become so, and that it cannot do. this for the simple reason that the superior form
costs more, and it is this cost which constitutes its value as a medium of exchange. The kind of
money which every man wants is the kind which will buy the most of the things which he needs
that is, have the largest purchasing power. Nothing is clearer than that cheap money means high prices,
and dear money means low prices. Cheap money is as costly for a nation as it is for an individual.
Mr. H. C. Adams has demonstrated very convincingly that the legal tenders made the expense
of our civil war greater by $800,000,000 than it would have been had they never been issued.