Tin Foil Hat Has Gone Mainstream!

The inmates have taken over the asylum:

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

So when will they remove the straight-jacket?  I can hardly breathe.

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one.

Not only are we now the majority, the minority is going bonkers:

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

They are hostile because the foundations of their American religion are crumbling.  They are fanatics defending their religion:

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true.

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

Who but the insane could believe such a nutty conspiracy theory?

The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

Wait a minute – the theorists formerly known as kooky are actually the ones who are sane?

You know the feeling, when you are one of only a handful of people who know about a rock band; it feels like a small club, a little gem that you don’t have to share with many?  You know how you feel a bit upset when they finally hit it big, and become popular?

Well, I don’t feel any of that pain regarding this news.  The internet is doing its slow drip, drip, drip of work.  Hip, hip, hooray!

(HT Charles Burris at LRC)

What Did the Pope Actually Say?

I have written several posts regarding the Pope and his views on free markets and the state.  I have based these on second-hand reports, and not the first-hand sources; shame on me. 

It is time to use a first-hand source.

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION

EVANGELII GAUDIUM

OF THE HOLY FATHER

FRANCIS

TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY,

CONSECRATED PERSONS

AND THE LAY FAITHFUL

ON THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL

IN TODAY’S WORLD

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 24 November, the solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, and the conclusion of the Year of Faith, in the year 2013, the first of my Pontificate.

I am only extracting sections that bear directly on economic issues.  I initially started to cite Biblical passages which counter the Pope’s views and support my comments, but I have decided to greatly limit this desire; Gary North has spent forty years on exactly this subject – he concludes that the Bible supports private property and free markets.  Nothing I can include in this post will top Dr. North’s work.

A sneak peek that summarizes well the Pope’s view, in his own words:

I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots – and not simply the appearances – of the evils in our world! Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good.  We need to be convinced that charity “is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)”. (Par. 205; in all cited passages, emphasis added)

This is a pretty long post.  If you don’t want to read further, I will summarize: I am a person with a great amount of faith – faith that the Bible is God’s spoken word.  For many in this world, even many who call themselves Christians, this is a laughable faith. 

The Pope demonstrates more faith in politics and politicians than I do in God and His word.  While you might suggest that my faith in the Bible is based on little direct evidence, it is clear the Pope holds his faith despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  His many comments on economic and political issues throughout this exhortation will only further affirm this conclusion.

Mainstream Criticism of Police and a District Attorney

The sports world is abuzz over the decision to not charge Jameis Winston with a sexual assault charge.  Winston is easily the most exciting player in college football.  Being a freshman, he is not eligible to be drafted by an NFL team – if he was eligible, he could easily be the first pick.  He is a frontrunner for the Heisman Trophy.

To begin: something terrible occurred.  Either Winston got away with a criminal act, or Winston was falsely accused of a horrendous crime.  But this isn’t the point of this post.

What is the point?  This is the first time I can recall reading such open criticism of the state’s (in)justice system in mainstream media outlets in the last decade – perhaps since September 11, or even the Vietnam war.  Even sports television and radio – normally cheering on the military and the so-called first-responders at every turn – is openly criticizing the public servants.

First, the DA.  In announcing his decision, he apparently decided to do stand-up:

There was laughter. There were jokes. There were smiles. The news conference in which Florida state attorney Willie Meggs announced that Jameis Winston was not going to be charged with sexual battery was an extremely light-hearted affair.

Everyone seemed so incredibly happy to be talking about an alleged sexual assault.

Reporter: "Was there a sexual assault?"

Meggs, laughing: "Well, that's kind of why we're here."

Reporter: "Any idea why she was hesitant to tell you who her boyfriend was?"

Meggs: "Well, tell us about your girlfriend."

More laughs. It was a regular riot, with that smiling former state senator, Al Lawson, standing in the background, playing Ed McMahon to Meggs' Johnny Carson.

Again, either a horrendous crime is going unpunished, or a young man has been falsely accused of that crime.  Not a jovial moment either way.

Then to the police.  The charge was first made almost a year ago, and basically sat:

Then consider the strong words from the accuser's lawyer that she was advised by the police not to press charges, and this looks like a group of authorities in a stereotypical small town fumbling their legal responsibilities because they were so smitten by their football team.

Meggs curiously declined to criticize the police for failing to investigate the case for 11 months.

Of course not.  They play for the same team.

That's the face of justice in northern Florida in the 21st century?

No, this is the face of justice in the United States.  The only difference is that usually the smugness is discretely hidden from view, or just not reported in the mainstream.

This time, for some reason, it is being exposed and reported for all to see.

The Fed as the Tool of the One Percent

Posted at Mises:

There are two paths by which to offer criticism regarding the Fed in particular, and central banking generally, and both are given audience within this post. 

The first is the path of criticizing the Fed’s effectiveness at its (for public consumption) mission, and it is evident in the opening line of this post:

“End America’s central bank because it caused the crashes of 2008, 1987, and 1929 and will blunder again.”

The second path is to criticize the Fed based on the immorality inherent in the institution itself, and this is offered in the last paragraph of the post, via a quote from Joe Salerno:

“’History and current experience,’ Salerno adds, ‘reveal to us that groups endowed with a legal monopoly over any area of the economy are prone to use it to the hilt to enrich themselves, their friends and allies.’”

It seems to me that both approaches have merit, and each might reach different audiences.  I lean toward the latter; the first approach always strikes me as leaving room for someone to say “we learned the lesson, it won’t happen again”…oh, wait – Ben DID say that:

“Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

We can be certain that one of Yellen’s successors will trot out a similar line when the current mistakes manifest in the next catastrophe.  “We learned the lesson, we will pass regulations, we will update our models, it won’t happen again.”

The second approach offers the possibility to expand on the immorality of the institution, the vicious means by which it continuously skims a few tenths of a penny off of every single transaction of every person using its currency (or digital equivalent).

The evidence is manifest – the stagnant standard of living of the middle-class in the midst of one of the greatest technology booms in recorded history is but one instance.

There is a vague understanding that the 1% is sticking it to the rest of us.  All that is left is to properly expose the appropriate 1%, and properly explain the means by which we are getting stuck.