|FOMC: Federal Office of Monetary Crimes.|
Now that even the NYT is admitting that Climate Change isn't a Global Hoax (although there are certainly stalwarts among us who feel that's precisely why we should think it is), maybe we can discuss the criminality of the Fed and how they are, perhaps to the world's advantage, but, this is still a nominal Democracy, so such subterfuge should not go uncommented on, the fact that they are now, and have been for a generation, manipulating the economy, not to goose employment, but for exactly the opposite reason, to noose it:
As stated on Wolf Richter's Testosterone Pit blog:
"Advanced economies don’t automatically and inevitably have to suffer a labor force participation rate that is sinking into permanent decline, and savers don’t have to be demolished to get there."
But when that economy is fossil fueled, and the fracking its doing is pouring methane into the Arctic, along with the other "Ring of Fire" oil-extraction operations, at such an accelerating pace that the Arctic itself has joined in the frenzy, such that, were it a country, it would be the fourth largest emitter of methane, soon to be number one if the rapid proliferation of the fens in that region is any indication.
Now, whereas my stance on the connection between Capitalism and Global Warming is worn on my sleeve, one need not assume that others, those in positions of power, don't keeping their similar stance under wraps. But when the government goes so far as Darpa's program of using chemtrails to weave a worldwide web to veil the planet from the deleterious effects of CO2 and Methane increases in the atmosphere, it takes not too great a leap of logic to assume that other branches of the government are doing the same thing in their own respective realms.
Making the wrong assumptions often leads one to drawing the wrong conclusions. For example, in 2004 when every step the Bush regime took resulted in the worsening of the disaster in Iraq, everyone assumed the plans of the Texas Triumvirate in the Whitehouse were going terribly awry, because they assumed that theresults the then-current occupants wanted were the same as those they promulgated. That however was not the case. Oil selling for under $15/bbl was a disaster for the oil interests, the only interests the President and VP were concerned with, as they coincided with their own. So getting the oil productivity of Iraq back to what it was before they attacked it, so that their War in Iraq could "Pay for itself" was the last thing on the minds of the digarchy to whom "Deficits don't matter".
What most assuredly was on their minds, however, as revealed many times in many speeches by the Dark Lord, was the shortage of Oil supplies he foresaw and for which he chastised the Democrats during the 2000 presidential campaign for not having a plan to rectify (this from the party that eschews any and all government planning as Communistic, or Socialistic). They, however, had already formulated a plan, one that included the attack of the sovereign nation of Iraq, to put into place, as outlined in the PNAC,
"a substantial American force presence in the Gulf that transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein", this "-- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops --", the main rallying cry Osama Bin Laden used as his pretext for the 9/11 attacks.
Thus do the actions of the Bush/Cheney digarchy reveal its real understanding of the nexus of the three E's: Energy, Economics, and the Environment, that is the topic of not only this particular post, but of this entire blog, such that when I see certain government actions, I look at them with these three intractable factors in mind, because you can't address one without addressing the other two. So when the policies of the Fed decreases permanently the employment level of the country in which the largest carbon footprint is made by its citizens, and whose policies ensure that that will remain the case, but in such as way as to give them plausible deniability should someone confront them with the fact that that's what they're doing, I can't help but wonder, especially given the vapid reasons they give for their policy decisions, if what they say their reasons are are sheer fabrications.
Many people relegate this kind of thinking to the realm of conspiracy theory and in a sense, that is where it belongs, because you can never prove such idle musings. However, it's also true that many of the people making that judgement remember the days of the Hippy movement when college students, as the 60's turned into the 70's, were graduating and had to find employment, of the idea of "working from within" to bring about change. This is not a dead concept, as was just evinced to me via a Facebook exchange, where I made the apparently unforgivable indiscretion of making a quip about Noam Chomsky to the effect that he is, after all, an employee of MIT. I was severely chastised and informed he was doing precisely what I said above, working from the inside to effectuate change, worded in such a way that the interlocutor was basically justifying betrayal and sabotage, which, if you take that reasoning to its logical conclusion, such a person as Noam, being employed as he is by one of the major institutions of the military industrial complex, is engaging in (especially Noam, who, although I admire his work, (I'd wager the person arguing so vehemently on his behalf doesn't have "The Noam Chomsky Reader" in her personal library, as I do) has no need to retain his position there, having by now I should think, notoriety enough to eke (hah!) out a living from his writings and personal appearances).
So what I mean to say, is that if Noam, who has nothing to do with making policy, can work for an institution that's diametrically opposed to everything he believes in, just for a paycheck he doesn't ostensibly need, it isn't really a stretch to suppose that there are people working for the Federal government who would never be able to get a job in the current environment in the private sector, and so retain their position and, knowing, like the rest of us, that we're destroying the very capability of the planet to sustain mammalian life, would work to do whatever they can to undermine the system they believe is doing so. And how better to do that than in the heart of the monetary system by throwing sand in the cogs of the machine? If you saw a steam roller chugging toward even someone you didn't know, never mind someone you cared about, yet saw that the driver was armed to the teeth to shoot down anyone who dared to try and stop his progress, wouldn't you try any subterfuge possible in order to stop them? What's the point of staging a direct assault and getting killed in the attempt? Then you couldn't stop anything, or ever investigate and report on the actions of those who were fueling the steam roller, without which, no matter how well-armed the diver was, he couldn't proceed.
In which case, it is us who, given this opportunity they are providing us, are at fault for not clamoring more assiduously for leadership on these pressing concerns instead of trying to digest the daily toxic fare of what happened to flight 337, or who's doing who, or any number of nonsensical things broadcast on the television under the rubric of News. When are we going to grow up and realize that it's our acceptance of the Kultur of Kamikaze Kapitalism that keeps it going, and keeps us going ... right toward the precipice over which we insist on driving?