I saw the best minds of the younger generation blunted by austerity, starving, hysterically holding onto their youthful zeal,
dragging themselves through the Black, Hispanic and White streets at first hour looking for knowledge that may bring purpose,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo of literature, mathematics and even accounting if they’d only bury the cell phone machinery of night in their pockets,
who with shared textbooks and too many wobbly desks sat excruciatingly until lunch where they could contemplate Spotify or Google Play
who bared their brains to Mrs. Hummel in English even though they didn’t dig writing and they knew they couldn’t slack off because she was from eastern Europe where they didn’t tolerate nonsense…at least not in class,
who passed through high schools with warrior guides performing 15 different professional job descriptions for half the monetary reward but who cherished the respect and gratitude their students heaped on them 15 years later,
What pecuniary mixture of tyrannical finance, hamstrung politics and lack of willingness and ability to find solutions bashed in your hopes and dreams?
Ah Maria and Andrew and Shakayla I’m with you in spirit,
In my dreams you drive, dripping nourished and rejuvenated intellect on the scalding surface streets of a risen Phoenix, to the doors of higher education in the western night.

Monopoly power in legitimate private commercial agents is just about as problematic as monopoly paradigms wielded by illegitimate private financial agents.

This is why private money creation must be consigned to the dust bin of history by a publicly administered national banking system with the universal dividend and retail discount/rebate policies that monetarily empower the individual instead of enslave them, and why a government program I have suggested here before (the Dept. of Competition, Innovation and Ecological Sanity) is also vitally important to foment and where necessary enforce an economic ethic of subsidiarity.

There is no such thing as total freedom for consciously sensitive humans in the temporal universe, only freedom within known and ethical barriers. Paradoxically, the sooner we embrace the beatific chains of ethics….the sooner we will all be more free.

Michael Hudson has a fascinating discussion on his website here: http://michael-hudson.com/2018/04/bronze-age-redux/

wherein he effectively analyzes the history of debt jubilees and the recent history of the financial and globalist corporate problem. A debt jubilee aligns perfectly with the new paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting and yet it alone is an insufficiently penetrative and flowing integration of the new paradigm which the policies of the dividend and discount/rebate policies would be able to seamlessly accomplish, and a publicly administered banking system and attending and aligning governmental departments would help solidify.

A new monetary and economic paradigm is an opportunity for all agents to better prosper because that is the nature of a paradigm change. This must be impressed upon the wealthy and corporate elites as much as the individual. The only and yet essential difference is the locus of monetary power must be/will be transferred from the elites into “the many hands of the individual”.

The new paradigm terminally ends the dominating nature of the current paradigm of Debt Only and enables the re-retailization of the economy which is what Marx and every other political economist thought would occur with industrial capitalism, but which was usurped by private finance. A publicly administered banking and financial system would enable a seamless shoe horning of finance back into the end of the legitimate retail/industrial economic process where with the discount/rebate policy it could be used to further benefit all legitimate economic agents instead of being a huge parasite that benefits only finance and its largest globalist corporate allies.

The above shows how Keen’s disequilibrium/Minsky’s financial instability theory and Hudson’s financial parasitism both integrate with each other and align with my paradigm changing innovations and extensions of Douglas’s Social Credit. The only two things that they need to realize in order to see this is that the pricing, money and accounting systems are all digital in nature (debits and credits of equal amounts sum to zero) and the significance of the fact that the point of retail sale is:

1) the terminal ending point of the legitimate economic/productive process
2) the terminal summing point of all costs and so all prices for every item and service both at classical retail sale and also at the point of every “retail product” of every business model to the next business model throughout the entirety of the economic process
3) ultimate retail sale is also the terminal expression point for any and all cost and/or price inflation and
4) thus the discount/rebate policy, which utilizes the digital natures of the systems above….is all by itself a paradigm changing one and the universally applied accounting system and its conventions enables those paradigm changing effects to be seamlessly and immediately integrated into the economy.

I told Keen these things several years ago when he made the critical and correct observation that economists could get their PhD’s in economics without so much as taking a basic accounting course. It’s too bad he didn’t take my advice and look directly at the operations of day to day commerce and thus realize the significances above. There’s nothing wrong with looking for significances in abstractions of course, but if you don’t look directly at economics in the temporal universe you usually end up missing important facts.

Finally, looking at the temporal universe effects of policy is the acid test for whether one is more concerned with/too caught up in problems, or is focused on solutions, as theory is largely verbiage while policies a priori have their effects where we all exist.

JB:  Craig, if we compare business to sports’ leagues, it is obvious that rules are not applied to the same degree in global business these days. It is both more challenging & more rewarding to operate across many poltical jurisdictions, is it not? Sharing the campus of my former university is a small tech firm (flow controls) with operations–R&D, production and/or sales–in well over 100 countries.

Me:  The rules and conventions (specifically the cost accounting convention that all costs must go into price) of accounting are universal and if not universally applied….then one is practicing fraudulent accounting.

Neither turning a blind eye to following the agreed upon rules, nor lack of awareness of the digital nature of the systems I mentioned or the facts and economic significances of the point of retail sale detracts from or changes anything. Temporal commercial realities….rule.

Also, abusing the rules and fraudulently construing financial actions by private banks is just another excellent reason to end finance as a private business model. The truth is not terminatedly handling the problematic nature of private banking’s money creating abilities is a total and naive cop out.

Another point. If one believes that systems are made for man, not man for systems what matters most is what is real for the individual consumer and the enterprises that are ethical because they play by the rules.

Sorry about these serial posts, but serial cognition also occurs.

KZ:  Craig, private money creation ought to be abolished. What’s its history? But monetary policies that empower rather than enslave the individual aren’t going to fix this problem. Assuming monetary policies are even necessary, they should empower communities not individuals. And communities should democratically establish money policies. Ethics is important, but it is also community-based. So, we’re back to decision making by communities.

Me:  Ken,

Direct to the individual Monetary Gifting via universal dividend and discount/rebate policies ARE the policies that will resolve modern economy’s most basic problems of inherent scarcity of individual demand, chronic inflation and forever domination by elites. Depending on an economy’s level of productivity you may have varying levels of monetary gifting, but the fact is the individual and his/her freedom in a monetary economy is the essential and only true starting and ending point of the purpose of any economics worth its butter. And lest we forget, the individual actually is the community.

KZ:   Craig, do you believe the Chinese Communist Party is applying cost accounting? I’d look to Confucius and Lenin rather than cost accounting.

All humans and institutions are what Bruno Latour calls, “actor networks.” Actor networks are the result of a history of interactions. Actor networks grow longer but their basis does not change. Which means, first that micro and macro are simply instances of actor networks. It also means that the human both influences actor networks via interaction and is influenced by them via the same process. Consequently, systems are made for humans and humans are made by systems. Which part is emphasized depends on the motives of the observer.

Humans do not act as individuals, but as members of one or more communities. Every advertising person knows this. If you want to change human actions, then you need to focus on the communities within which human lives exist. The only way it’s possible for humans to exist.

Me:  Ken,

I’m not disputing any of your psychological, sociological or political insights. What I am saying is in order to resolve the deepest and most chronic problems of our economy and make it serve man it requires specifically targeted policies that actually do so. That and the following facts:

1) we live in a monetary economy

2) money and accounting are excellent tools for the integrated distribution of wealth….especially if we utilize their digital natures and economic insights regarding the point of retail sale to, again, craft policies that actually DO serve rather than enslave man.

Me: Dave,

Douglas was a contemporary of Keynes and had begun a world wide movement between the wars. Hidden amongst the verbiage of Keynes were several disguised theoretical plagiarizations of Douglas but the rejection of his specific remedies for the economy. If Douglas’s policies had been adopted the history of the 20th century would undoubtedly have been a lot less bloody because the monopoly paradigm of Debt Only would have been more balanced by Monetary Gifting and domestic economies would have been more stable within themselves and so there wouldn’t have been nearly the pressure to stabilize them via empire building/maintenance. It’s also true that Douglas’s ideas would have probably met the same morphing destiny that Keynesianism experienced because his policies lacked a full natural philosophical exegesis of its primary and underlying concept of grace, and likewise that concept’s full alignment with subsequent understandings regarding physics and quantum reality. My extensions and innovations of those policies accomplish the paradigm changes necessary to truly progress the discipline of economics.

Subsidiarity can be both an ethic and an organizing principle.

What I said was that the valid CRITIQUES of Keen and Hudson as well as my policy extensions and innovations all align with each other and, integrated, are the resolution of agreed upon thrusts of heterodox thinking.

The primary missed insight is that modern technologically advanced economies are inherently cost inflationary requiring a new monetary paradigm that can increase individual incomes without incurring additional costs, namely Monetary Gifting.

C:  Responding to DT: Thanks. A comment on a minor confusion above.

So what is money? If it is debt, who would want to be given it, let alone given it back? It makes sense, though, if it is credit.

Money is credit and money is debt. Because debt is credit and credit is debt. “Credit” and “debt” are two words for the same “thing”, the same relationship, viewed from different directions. That is the classical, historical and uncontroversial understanding of those English words. My third sentence is basically a quote from Alfred Mitchell-Innes a hundred years ago.

I’ve not read any confusion about this absolutely fundamental point in older works. Only quite recent ones, mainly on the web. It is one of those “needless to say” things that end up not getting said enough – so people end up getting progressively more confused ideas about it. It is like thinking that there is something mysterious about my right being your left if two people are facing each other. That there must be an absolute right or absolute left, and one of those words is the only correct word to describe the situation. No, everybody understands that right and left can be relative to the speaker. Credit and debt being relative the same way is something embedded in all financial and economic and and legal and moral systems, and consciously understood, again, until quite recently.

It’s a free universe and we moderns are free to concoct new definitions. But they will make a tremendous amount of work and social systems unintelligible if read or understood anachronistically, And in fact nobody has concocted intelligible new definitions. Some just insist that there is some distinction between credit and debt as traditionally understood but never actually make the distinction or give any examples!

Me:  Calgacus,

Nice succinct explanation of the synonyms of credit and debt. Now all we really need to do is recognize that one of the signatures of paradigm changes is that in significant ways the new is always conceptually in opposition to the old/current one, and is a single concept that fits seamlessly within most/all of the current structures of the present area of human endeavor that the new paradigm applies to and yet creates/transforms a whole new pattern by resolving its present chronic problems, evolving the entire area and increasing the abundance and survivability of same….always via an integration of a dualism, the inversion of a ratio/duality and/or replacement of the primacy of the old and new paradigm.

Like: Debt Only vs Monetary Gifting

Money Gifting fits seamlessly within the present natures of the money, pricing and accounting systems

Monetary Gifting resolves the paradox of thrift, resolves/transforms the chronic problems of scarcity of demand for both the individual and enterprise into an abundance of demand available to all, inverts/transforms the economic tendency toward chronic erosive inflation into painless and beneficial price deflation and saturates/largely replaces the old paradigm of Debt Only throughout the entire economy with the new paradigm making it then the prime one.

KZ:  Craig, it is correct that most of the world in a monetary economy and that money and accounting are tools for the distribution of wealth. Two things to keep in mind, however. First, there are dozens of kinds of money. Knowing which kind(s) we’re dealing with in each setting is important in terms of effective and coherent choices, for the person on the street and the “professional” economist. Second, accounting is based on rules. Change the rules and accounting is changed. Look at, for example, the Enron robbery.

Me:  Ken,

As I said fraud is fraud. And as I also said, “the sooner we all embrace the beatific chains of morals and ethics, the sooner we will all be more free.”

Me:  This has been an excellent and erudite thread. However, perhaps the best way to sum it up is to remind ourselves that the ultimate signature and historic reality of a paradigm change is that everything about and within the area in which it occurs…adapts to the paradigm change and not the other way around.

What America, Europe, the world and economics needs is paradigm change via the integrative processes that are Wisdom itself, not the dis-integrative blathering of demagogues who claim the clothing of change and progress while unconsciously blundering along with orthodoxy or worse disguised self interest.

Me: In response to L…

L,

“Another consequence of fiat money is that the government never needs to borrow.”

Correct.

“It can create whatever amount it decides to spend.”

Correct, and also how, to whom and in whatever form it decides.

“Also, the effect of taxes is to decrease the money supply.”

Correct, and yet, except perhaps for a relatively minuscule percentage taxes are completely unnecessary with certain policies, .

“It is, however, necessary to avoid uncontrolled inflation.”

Correct.

“When the real economy reaches full employment any addition to the money supply will cause inflation.”

This is where MMT begins to betray the fact that it is still bound to old paradigm thinking. Demand pull/”monetary” inflation is a misnomer and not the operative cause of inflation. It may be a facilitator of it, but the actual cause of it is the complete freedom, read chaos, of commercial agents to raise their prices…and, presently, the complete lack of freedom/ability of individuals to correct such chaotic “freedom”. And of course cost inflation, which is inherent in modern technologically advanced capital intensive economies, is a hidden/almost entirely missed source of inflation as well. Also, employment is fine and good and will always be necessary to one degree or another, but obsession with full employment is truly old paradigm thinking.

There is a better way with the various policies of the new paradigm of Monetary Gifting that cuts the Gordian knot kept entangled by the present monetary and financial paradigm of Debt Only. Cut it and all agents are better off and the system will finally attain free flowingness as well.

Macro-economics has become a discipline that confuses more than it enlightens, and is rigged around fallacies that have become truths to guarantee this fact, and to hamstring any attempt within the current monetary paradigm at finding a solution.

Take for instance the paradox of thrift and the quantity theory of Money. These are both true but only within the paradigm of Debt Only and only within the delusion that free markets actually are free and should be left alone when what they really are within the current paradigm is in a continual state of unethical disorder increasingly bordering on chaos….and that actually require good order/control. Now the word control unfortunately has negative connotations, but its proper definition within economics and any other temporal universe system is simply control as in starting, changing and stopping, i.e. flowing which actions align it with the nature of anyone and anything embedded within the temporal universe.

With the integration of the new and primary monetary and economic paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting the paradox of thrift, quantity theory of money and “free” markets are transformed into fallacies by the insights and policies of the new paradigm. So was it when nomadism as the means of survival was transformed into the increased abundance and survivability of agriculture, the ego and terra-centric cosmology of Ptolemy was transformed into the scientific truth of helio-centrism and sanctification via the church’s sacraments was transformed by the realization that sanctification was possible by a direct relationship between oneself and God and/or one’s self awareness.

The project of macro-economics is to create a system that enables the individual to become free to create his or her own concept of utopia which is something entirely different from the straight jacket of a Utopian one size fits all system.

“He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough.”

Lao-Tzu

Learning is a joy surpassed only by knowing, love and acting with love. Get knowledge, get wisdom and get understanding. These are the jewels of Life.

One can hardly criticize Brexiters and others for wanting to exit the mish mash of onerous, unworkable regulation and neo-classical fallacy known as the EU. The problem like everywhere else is that economics has become a long list of “epicycle” perturbations of that fallacy that does not look directly at the temporal universe operations of commerce and so cannot craft policies based on the economic insights available there that will resolve the economy’s underlying cost inflationary problem that has become inherent. Everyone agrees that there is a scarcity of individual income and that austerity is idiocy….they just don’t know how to transform it into a free flowing system of abundance for all agents. Once they look…and see…the scales fall from their eyes.

Hi, my name is Steve Hummel and I’m here to explain to you how the new paradigm in economics and money systems works. It’s really quite simple, but it’s also very elegant and effective….as all new paradigms actually are.

Now right up front I hasten to add that other heterodox economists make a lot of good and correct observations about economic theory, it’s just that unfortunately they don’t look directly at some of the day to day and moment to moment things that occur in commerce and hence they miss the paradigm changing things I’m going to give you here today. Also, virtually all of the observations of certain of those cutting edge heterodox economists align with what I’m going to show you today and in fact enable what they themselves say they want to accomplish…it’s just that they don’t know how to accomplish it….and I do…and you’re going to know it too. So hold on to your seat, you’re going to witness the same kind of change that occurred when nomadic tribes switched from hunting and gathering to agriculture, when the sun and the earth switched positions, when the printing press was invented and when Luther nailed his 99 theses to the doors of the cathedral.

Explain

illustration of economic process, retail sale and retail product sale from enterprise to enterprise throughout the entirety of economic process

20% “pass on” discount/rebate and 50% discount/rebate at final retail sale

(act out the policies to make them real to everyone)

universal dividend at age of 18 onward

end of money creating power of private finance, beginning of publicly administered creation of money and its forms

retailization and extension of finance allowing its public form to participate in discount/rebate policy

Show how these not only talk about change, but accomplish the goals of cutting edge heterodox economists, immediate benefits for all agents and potential knock on ones in taxation/government funding, political integration/agenda accomplishment and social and psychological progress

Completely agree we need a new economics. Only a paradigm change qualifies as a new economics. Everything less than that is merely “epicycle” reform that will be gamed and morphed back into the same old economics. Erudition and abstraction are all well and good, but the deep insight and transforming effects of a paradigm change ultimately render most of such to distracted and non fully looking vanity. So let us have a new paradigm so we can actually accomplish a new economics.

Studying the history of paradigm changes is an essential and enlightening guide to deciphering both the old/current one and the new one. In the Reformation the primary aspect of the paradigm change was directness of the relationship to the product of the dominating force, i.e. the God’s grace via its sacraments. This defined the current paradigm of sacraments only via the church and the new one as the individual’s direct relationship with God. Today in economics it is the form of Debt Only for the distribution of money/credit that is the current paradigm and monetary gifting directly and reciprocally applied and distributed at the point of retail sale throughout the entire economic process that is the new one.

If we want and need paradigm change let us study them and apply their signatures to economics.

***************************************

Steve Keen says DSGE’s problem is it doesn’t have money, debt or banks in its model, and he’s absolutely right. His only problem is he talks paradigm change and reformation, but he doesn’t have a clue about their nature, their signatures, what the current one or the new one is and how to implement it. He’s a good mathematician and probably a great pedant, but he doesn’t have the mindset skills for paradigm perception….and he’s probably the best economist on the planet…and that tells you something.

Economics needs an informed visionary who can also look directly at commerce, discern its significances and craft policies that deal terminatedly with money, debt and banks, not the endless wandering opaqueness of erudition and abstraction that resides entirely within and cannot step outside of the current paradigm.

FS:  Surely, the major error in conventional economic analysis is obvious. Equilibrium analysis is and must be that gross misunderstanding. The empirical evidence since the start of the industrial revolution is of cycles. Therefore, there is no known period of equilibrium.

Me:  General Equilibrium is the macro model problem, but what is it that plagues both enterprise and the individual and prevents the entire system from being free flowing? Money, debts and banks are the clue…and the deepest answer is INDIVIDUAL monetary austerity. Okay, so banks create virtually all of our money, its form and nature is Debt Only and banks dominate and manipulate all other business models and 95-98% of the general populace.

The answer to the current paradigm of Debt Only is a direct monetary gift to the individual (a universal dividend) and a direct and reciprocal monetary gift at the strategic point of retail sale throughout the entire economic process with a discount/rebate policy that resolves the chronic problem of modern economies, namely price inflation. Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting resolves that problem, the monopoly paradigm of private banks and a whole host of other problems and unnecessary stupidities. If any one can show me that they can do these things and more I’ll applaud them and get on their bandwagon. Otherwise lets get on with the mass movement to herd the entirety of the political apparatus toward the implementation of the above.

FS:  While I do not disagree with the general thrust of your comments, economists must not bite off more than they can chew.

They may wish to emulate Hari Seldon, but the likelihood of their success is very small.

To use scientific development as a more relevant example, it was achieved by many tiny steps each creating further insights. Despite a few false steps, progress has been continuous. The application of the scientific method has been and is of critical importance to its achievements.

As I see it, it will only be through making small rigorously valid steps, will economic understanding on a larger scale be achieved.

L:  Mainstream economists see no difference between rentier income and income directly tied to production of goods and services. Michael Hudson’s views deserve an honest evaluation and discussion. Steve Keen is not (IMO) the best communicator of MMT. Stephanie Kelton and Michael Hudson are the most effective communicators in my view.

Me:  Michael Hudson’s fire in the belly regarding the parasitical nature of finance is impressive. Steve Keen recognizes that MMT has the mechanics of money creation correct but that it only speaks about government debt which is “a tempest in a teapot” compared to the deflationary nature of total individual and corporate debt. However, neither is apparently aware of the breakthrough insight about how to implement what they both want to see, namely the end of economic and monetary austerity for both the individual and for enterprise by tying monetary gifting directly to the point of retail sale throughout the entire economic process.

We can pray that incremental reforms and tweaking of theories will undo the 5000 year old paradigm of Debt as the only form for the distribution of money, and hold up the 500 year old paradigm of Science as the only way of discovering an answer, but these orthodoxies, the increasing pace of change and the rising stress of long delayed resolution will spell disaster for everyone….unless we discover and utilize the supreme integrative human mental discipline of Wisdom which includes science plus the pungent kick in the @ss discernment and decisiveness necessary to resolve and extricate us from the building chaos.

C62:  But the demagogues are already here. Where and when will a reform of existing structures and a latterday Bretton Woods economic consensus come from? Meantime individuals are more nearly “atomised /brownian” largely due to their fixation on mobile devices/”new media”. As in the poem the centre cannot hold & the worst are full of passionate intensity. Isn’t there some sense that the laudable objectives expressed here might resemble rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Me:  You have to bring an every way integrative appeal to traditionally opposed constituencies like the individual and the small to medium sized business community, and use the very means of distraction to unite them. Discernment and integration of only the truths in opposing perspectives and inverting/transforming an apparently problematic means of communication are two of the processes of Wisdom which not only includes science, but is actually its most radical form and manifestation.

KZ:  Craig. “The question is how are we going to resolve the issues that everyone agrees upon, namely the continual build up of debt, systemic austerity and scarcity of individual income?”

Change the laws that allow such actions to be carried out. Then, enforce these laws strictly.

Me:  “Change the laws that allow such actions to be carried out. Then, enforce these laws strictly.”

Yes, so how do you change the current law/current situation?

You recognize the most important, problematic and operative factor in the current situation, money, and then you intelligently and insight-fully resolve its scarcity so that the individual, commercial agents and the system become a lean, mean freeing machine that serves them rather than slavishly makes them serve it.

Look directly at commerce and its tools and operations until you see, then focus on the solutions there and never stop until they are implemented.

PP:  Banks do not spend money, except trivially to pay salaries and run their buildings, etc. When someone walks into a bank and gets a mortgage loan, the following happens:

1. The banks writes in its books that person X owes the bank $100k plus interest over some years. That’s a loan.
2. The bank and person X write a contract that if X is unable to repay the loan the bank has a right to repossess and sell the house. That’s collateral.
3. The bank writes in its books that the bank credits X’s account $100k, which means the bank promises to pay X $100k whenever they ask. That’s a deposit.
4. At the end of that day the bank checks that it has enough credit with the central bank (the Fed, ECB, etc.) to meet some legal targets, which are fairly low. If not, the bank takes a loan from the central bank. That’s reserves.

Money gets created at step 3, when the bank writes out the loan amount into the customer’s account. That money doesn’t come from anywhere, not from the central bank. The bank creates it. The bank can create money like this because:

* It’s a bank. It has a special license that makes it different from a person or bakery.
* The bank has assets to match or exceed the amount it created (the loan and collateral).
* People accept bank credit as money, and call it money for all intents and purposes.
* The central bank and the government have the bank’s back and promise to guarantee it all if it goes wrong. Except in Europe where they don’t so there’s constant crisis.

I hope this helps.

Me:  Nice, succinct analysis.

Now consider that we currently give one business model (finance) the sole monopolistic right to create the life’s blood (credit/money in the paradigmatic form of debt ONLY) for the survival of every business and every individual.

This is domination and felonious temptation waiting to happen, and because old paradigms are largely unconscious and new ones require a new conscious realization…..all we have to do is stand up on our own hind legs and “stand in the light” of the new paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting long enough to perceive it.

JB:  Unfortunately, perhaps, Craig I don’t know of any large global firm which worry’s much about debt, since so much of it disappears into investors in the form of stock. Bank debt, for example, is for consumers & non-incorporated firms, which in the US can generally walk away from with a formal bankruptcy. Two years later they’re on their way legally in most cases.

Me:  Yes, well those large global firms still would need to compete with the small to medium sized corporations who would be able to under sell them with a 50% discount/rebate at the point of retail sale which would make that and other new paradigm policies “an offer even those with global reach could not refuse”. And any line of credit they may need would be better coming from a publicly administered banking system that could offer them such at 0% interest.

RL:  Calgacus, Compare the history of Europe under unbridled nationalism in the first half of the 20th century and the peace and prosperity of Europe in the second half and you’ll understand why your advocacy of nationalism is nonsense. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Those who forget how Europe gained the reputation for being “The Dark Continent (The mass killing field of the world), would not advocate your position. Europeans as nationalist are mass killers. When I studied European history 1952-1965 that was the history we learned. What makes you think that Europe as a bunch of nations won’t revert to old habits. Europe does not have a history of freedom and justice that the nasty
EU EZ is perverting. Its all we can do to keep the Europeans from committing mass murder.

Me:  Robert,

You make excellent and historically accurate points, but there is nothing like the stable prosperity that a new monetary and economic paradigm would effect to make the demagogues and xenophobes crawl back under the rocks they came from and that would also break through upon the ensconced positions of the financial elites.

Resonance, the mutual and similar/same frequency is the experience of Grace and of heightened consciousness of electro-magnetic frequency/vibration. This I believe is the heightened fullness/three dimensional experience of space as one comes fully/more fully into present time.

The actions of consciousness fit perfectly within and exemplify the actions of consciousness:

[ G/C <–>  (Reach x Withdraw) ] or

[ G/C  (<–>) ]