Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

WHY AND HOW AMERICA MUST COLLAPSE

by Kirk Brothers

CLICK HERE to return to Index

  
 
INTRODUCTION  
  
     To anyone with a penchant for history, it is obvious that  
our once-great nation is dying--and the end will not be peaceful. 
The United States, like an aging star, must first collapse, and  
then explode, in a final burst of energy that will be awesome to  
behold.  
     Alternatively, to pursue our astronomical metaphor for one  
more sentence, the United States might by that dreadful time have 
become so massive from the dead weight of political corruption  
that it will end as a black hole, from which nothing can escape.  
     This grim prophetic view of our destiny will, of course, be  
laughed off by those who habitually refuse to see the truth even  
when it walks up and spits in their faces--but happily, I do not  
expect to live long enough to see the end, which is inevitable.  
     The signs of our bleak future are to be seen everywhere, and 
it is our national tragedy that neither our alleged leaders nor  
the majority of the people are intelligent enough to recognize  
them.  For what it is worth, this article will point out the  
facts, if only for the benefit of future generations who must  
pick up the pieces of rubble and try to decide what to do with  
our junk.  It is my hope--albeit a forlorn one--that my articles  
may survive long enough to serve as documentary evidence of  
exactly who and what were to blame.  
  
THE ROOT CAUSES  
  
     Let's begin with Malthus (1766-1834)--the Catholic Church  
disapproves of Malthus, which is reason enough to hold him in  
high esteem.  And by way of introduction, let's recall for a  
moment the innumerable times you've heard some older person  
reminisce about "the good old days"--before you were born.  
     Well, the good old days were pretty rotten in some ways, but 
on balance they were very good, indeed--for one reason.  
     There weren't so damn many people overcrowding this planet!  
     Malthus wrote in his classic economic work, AN ESSAY ON THE  
PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION, that population increases much faster  
than the resources necessary to support them--so that as popula-  
tion goes up, the quality of life goes down.  Let me give you a  
specific illustration from my own life span.  
     I grew up in a little town in Massachusetts at a time when  
the country's population stood, fairly constant, at around 120  
million people (the latest figure available estimates our numbers 
now at some 266 million).  My home town numbered about three  
thousand, and there were a number of farms quite close to the  
center--which was marked by the Unitarian Church and a row of  
about a dozen small stores.  
     Less than two blocks from our home on the main street stood  
a 60 acre dairy farm where we could buy raw milk.  A mile further 
down the main street, a shallow river trickled through what we  
called a swamp, but would nowadays be termed a wetland (it sounds 
better).  We could catch fish there in the summer, and skate on  
its ice in the winter.  During summer vacations, school buses  
took us to Red Cross swimming lessons in Walden Pond--where  
Thoreau's cabin site was still marked--or we could drive to  
Revere Beach to swim in Boston Harbor.  For a day of fun, there  
were steamships from Boston to Nantasket Beach for swimming or  
amusement rides.  
     There were only 120 million people in the entire country  
then.  
     Well, the old town has changed.  The dairy farm was sold to  
make room for a large shopping mall.  The wetlands were drained,  
and the river reduced to an underground pipeline, to make room  
for a second mall.  Walden Pond has long been so polluted with  
human sewage that it is closed to swimming--the same is true of  
Boston Harbor beaches.  
     The town's population is at least 15,000 nowadays, or about  
five times what it was in "the good old days".  The point is that 
the land area remains the same size, but five times as many  
people try to live in the space we knew and loved as youngsters.  
And now here's an example of what Malthus was talking about, in a 
simple everyday example.  
     Suppose you're having a family dinner and you've baked a pie 
for dessert.  If there are six in the family, everybody gets a  
good slice.  If a seventh person shows up unexpectedly, it's  
possible to do some tricky cutting and offer each diner a seventh 
instead of a sixth--a little skimpy, but still adequate.  
     But suppose there are two extra people.  In that case Mom  
says she isn't hungry or is on a diet or some such alibi, and  
cuts seven slices, going without dessert herself.  We all had  
Moms who made such small sacrifices.  
     Okay, now suppose you have thirty people for dinner--five  
times as many as you have food for.  Figure it out for yourself.  
 
POPULATION PROBLEMS IN A NUTSHELL  
  
     There are four billion people too many on this planet.  
     The best figures available tend to show that two billion is  
the maximum number the Earth can sustain if the quality of life  
is to be acceptable.  Yet in South America (Latins are predomi-  
nately Catholic and therefore opposed to birth control, abortion, 
or common sense like Malthus' observations) the population grows  
so rapidly that the vast tropical rain forest is being cut down  
at an alarming rate.  Loss of the Amazon rain forest will alter  
the whole world's climate and ecosystems in a way that cannot be  
projected, much less prevented.  The changes will be catastrophic 
--but try telling that to people who have too many children to  
feed and house, and are stupid enough to argue that "nobody needs 
a jungle".  
     In brief, the human race is fornicating itself into extinc-  
tion, and nothing can possibly improve significantly until one  
person out of every three now alive dies without being replaced  
at the world food table.  But just try telling that to the Pope.  
  
WHAT ELSE COULD BE WRONG?  
                                
     Very simple.  It is an absolute and unquestionable fact that 
fully one half of the world's population is below average in  
intelligence.  The figure is the same for each and every country, 
without exception.  
     Okay, so I'll prove it--and here's the proof.  What is the  
definition of the word "average"?  
     It's a mathematical or statistical concept which determines  
the midpoint in any population--and if you calculate a midpoint,  
one half must fall above and one half below the average--obvious. 
     Okay, what does that mean in the world of politics?  
     It means that elections are decided by the stupid.  
     It means that laws are made and enforced by and for the  
stupid.  
     It means that intelligence counts for nothing, because the  
majority of those voting don't understand what the intelligent  
are talking about.  And by intelligent, I mean those smart enough 
for college work--with IQs of 120 or higher.  
     Let me give you an example.  In the first three articles in  
this series, I proved that Social Security (and therefore that  
virtually every major government program) is blatantly unconsti-  
tutional--that our Federal Courts are so corrupted by party  
politics that Judges refuse to address that question--and, worst  
of all, that we have had no valid Constitution for at least 150  
years.  
     Suppose you want me to prove it here and now, in a half-  
dozen well-chosen sentences of less than ten words each.  I can't 
--simply because it took about 30 pages, single spaced, to prove  
it there, and stupid people don't want to read 30 pages of  
anything except sex novels.  They want the news in headlines with 
the important events summarized in 10-second sound bites, so as  
to have lots of time for the latest scores and sports action.  
     Why?  Because they're stupid.  
     Who caters to the stupid?  
     Well, our politicians--the mass media--the academic airheads 
who dictated the Conventional Unwisdom that is leading our  
country to economic collapse--and our government-controlled  
schools--to start the list.  
     In any rational society, laws would be made exclusively by  
the wise, leaders would be only the wisest men and women in the  
nation, there would be a mere handful of laws, based upon  
universal principles easy for all to understand, applied by  
Judges who are both wise and unprejudiced--and only those with  
IQs of at least 110 would have the right to vote.    
     If these standards be reasonable, by which one of them does  
ours qualify as a rational society?  
  
FALLACIES OF THE STUPID  
       
     The list is virtually endless, but let's look at just a few  
of the most important ones, because they impinge on our lives in  
the most nefarious ways each and every day.  
     It should be common knowledge that most Americans (or other  
people worldwide) will choose a pleasant lie over an unpleasant  
truth.  By making that choice, they believe they have done the  
right thing, and they don't want any intelligent person to point  
out their mistakes.  
     They won't trouble their brains to read this article, but  
I'll point out some of them, anyway.  I list them in no particu-  
lar order of importance--I believe they're all valid observa-  
tions.  
  
NOBODY WANTS EQUALITY  
                              
     We were all taught to respect the idea that we are all  
equal, at least under law.  But nobody would be satisfied with  
that idea, even if it were true.  
     Why?  
     Because equality means you're exactly the same as your worst 
enemy.  He has exactly the same rights you have, and you have no  
more political power than he does.  
     Nobody wants to be equal to his worst enemy.  And so Bible-  
belt fanatics persist in trying to shove Christianity into public 
schools by hook or by crook--heterosexual fanatics persist in  
passing laws to punish homosexuals--gun control fanatics persist  
in destroying the priceless right of the Second Amendment--  
ignoramuses who view "drugs" as evil persist in passing more and  
more stupid laws to prevent even moderate use of substances which 
clearly have great medicinal value--and so on.  
     Fanatics want to be "more equal" than the people they hate,  
for one reason or another.  But a Libertarian (of which I am  
proud to be one) believes that government must adopt the princi-  
ple of laissez faire--letting people DO WHAT THEY WANT, as long  
as they do no injury to OTHERS (what injury they might do to  
themselves is their own fault, and society is NOT to blame!).  
     Bad habits might be deplored, but to outlaw them is to put  
Mrs. Grundy in the driver's seat, where she is absolutely out of  
place.  Mrs. Grundy wants to PROHIBIT things which many people  
like, simply because she feels superior for not liking the same  
things.  She is stupid, and a bigot to boot.  
                         
NOBODY IS SATISFIED, EVER  
  
     I hold it to be self-evident that nobody is happy with what  
he already has (except for those rare individuals who have seen  
the fallacy in pursuing what erroneously passes for wealth).  
     All too often a person says that if he could only make so  
much money he'd be satisfied.  He goes on strike and gets the  
money he demanded.  And then it's not enough.  He strikes again  
to get more.  
     Or a young man says that if he could get a new Ford he'd be  
happy.  He gets a new Ford.  And then he wants a Mercury instead. 
Or a newlywed couple say they'll be happy in a nice apartment.   
But don't worry--in a year they'll want a house.  Perhaps because 
all their friends have houses, and they have to keep up with  
them.  
     The love of money might not be the root of all evil, but  
it's at least the seed.  The greed shown by many Americans  
indulging themselves in conspicuous overconsumption has unfortu-  
nately caused the peoples of underdeveloped nations to want the  
same things--increasing demand for more and more consumer goods  
at prices which are excessive to begin with, and are inflated  
even more by the increased demand.  
     In "the good old days", a loaf of bread cost about ten cents 
if a supermarket brand, or fifteen cents if a "name" brand.  Now  
a loaf of bread costs more than a dollar at a bakery thrift shop. 
Twenty cents used to buy a quart of milk, or a can of soup, or a  
gallon of gas.  A new family car, of sturdy steel and easy to fix 
oneself, used to cost well under a thousand dollars.  
     In what way are today's prices an indication of improvement  
in our economic well-being, according to the Conventional  
Mistakes of our lunatic economists?  Only that people have more  
dollars to spend.  But the dollar is worth less, so nobody bene-  
fits, except those who live on over-extended credit--of which our 
government is the prime example.  And the more world population  
increases, the worse everything gets.  
     Malthus understated his case.  
  
THE FALLACIES OF ECONOMICS  
  
     Most Americans appear to be suckers for anyone with a degree 
in anything.  A prime example of this is their gullibility for  
anything labeled "economic" in any terminology.  The government  
issues monthly fiction called things like "cost of living index"  
or "consumer price index", etc., but they all boil down to hot  
air and wishful thinking.  I submit as fact, which few will  
accept, that the so-called science of economics is 90% garbage  
which should be tossed in the garbage can.  Here's why.  
     There are basically two types of science: descriptive and  
experimental.  Some sciences are both.  A botanist like Luther  
Burbank, for example, first learns to classify and identify  
plants (descriptive), and then learns by experiment to develop  
new and/or improved varieties by selective reproduction  
techniques.  
     But some sciences do not lend themselves to experimentation. 
Geology is one.  A geologist describes earthquakes but does not  
try to control or cause one--he's lucky to be able to predict  
aftershocks from a major tremor.  Similarly, a meteorologist  
describes hurricanes and tornadoes but cannot control them--  
prediction is the best he can hope for.  
     Economics is also a descriptive science--which applies  
useful terms to human behavior in acts of getting and spending  
money--and may lead to meaningful predictions.  But it is of  
value only if it is studied in a context of conservative common  
sense (which is not common), or a practical application like  
business administration.  
     Unfortunately for all of us, economists for more than 60  
years have fooled Americans into believing that theirs is an  
experimental science, and that the economy can be controlled.  
That delusion has been so deeply ingrained in Americans' mind-set 
for 60 years that eradicating the error is a virtually impossible 
task.  Nevertheless I'll give it a try.  
  
THE ECONOMY CANNOT BE CONTROLLED  
  
     What is "the economy"?  It's the sum total of each and every 
consensual contract between each and every person, in the course  
of doing business of any kind--from buying a hamburger at  
McDonald's to selling a thousand shares of blue chip stocks on  
Wall Street.  There are literally millions of such transactions  
each and every day, and it is absolutely impossible to even list  
them, much less make decisions about their effect on other  
transactions.  The fact is that the staggering number of economic 
transactions in a single day would surpass the capacity of the  
largest computer to extract and manipulate data.  
     So economists do what they think is almost as good.  They  
use statistics and propaganda.  
     We used to joke that there are three grades of lies: little  
white lies, big black lies, and statistics--the joke being that  
statistics can be used to prove anything the statistician wants  
to prove.  He simply "adjusts" his "data" and sets up the numbers 
to give him his desired results.  
     Does this sound familiar?  The government issues some  
damfool economic summary, predicting that next quarter will be  
much better or worse than this one.  The prediction turns out to  
be wrong.  So the government "revises" its index to "reflect"  
more "accurately".  And millions of Americans (the stupid ones)  
smile in satisfaction at the wisdom of our leaders.  
     There would be another problem if economics were a truly  
experimental science: the only way one could control the economy  
would be to regulate EVERYTHING (and don't think they're not  
trying it already)!  That would mean tinkering in everybody's  
business, laying down thousands of laws and rules governing how  
one runs his company--and punishing people who either don't know  
all the rules, or have the attitude that our stinking, lousy,  
meddling government should get the hell off our backs and LEAVE  
US ALONE!  
     Economists are the greatest (worst) meddlers in the world,  
and the tragedy is they meddle in order to "prove" a theory that  
by the rules of logic cannot be proved.  Economists appear to  
believe that a free market is not to be trusted.  Libertarians  
hold that ONLY a free market is to be trusted--not self-serving,  
empire-building bureaucrats on a power trip.  Laissez faire  
again.  
       
WHAT ECONOMISTS NEVER TELL YOU  
                                           
     Every true science has laws which can be demonstrated time  
and again by students anywhere at any time.  For example, in  
physics a student performs simple experiments (in the beginning)  
to prove the laws of magnetism or gravity.  Economics has no  
"hands on" test for anything it preaches, but presumes its laws  
to be carved in stone by the finger of God.  And many courses in  
economics omit facts which should be common knowledge to anyone  
interested in his personal economic security.  Here's one such  
example.  
     Let's assume you had a million dollars to spend last year,  
so you invested it in an original Picasso oil.  Art experts  
appraised the work as worth more than two million--but you got a  
bargain.  
     Your original Picasso is hanging on your dining-room wall so 
you can admire it, and you are so happy with it you aren't at all 
interested in selling it.  It's given you a million dollars'  
worth of pleasure so far, perhaps.  
     Question: how much is your Picasso worth now?  
     Answer: not a dime.  
     Why?  Because you don't want to sell it.  
     The value of anything is determined only when it is traded,  
and its value is exactly what the seller will take and the buyer  
will pay.  As a matter of fact, art values are totally fictitious 
--because collectors are notorious for putting an art work such  
as a Picasso on the auction block every few years, bidding the  
price up above others at the sale, and buying it back.  There's a 
commission on the sale price, but that's all it costs them.  In  
return, it is now a matter of record that the painting increased  
in value by so many thousands of dollars between auctions.  That  
proves it's a good investment, right?  
     Well, is it?  Here's a well-known anecdote reputed to be a  
true-life story.  After the Communist revolution in Russia, many  
of the old wealthy families (who could not leave the Soviet Union 
and take their wealth with them) were down on their uppers, and  
in a bad way for basic things like food.  
     So one day a man of prior wealth decided to sacrifice part  
of it, by bartering his beautiful Faberge egg--an artifact for  
which the Age of the Tsars was noted.  It was hand-painted,  
decorated with precious gems, and had cost a fortune in the old  
days.  The man covered his priceless egg in a protective cloth  
and carefully took it by horse and buggy to a farm on the  
outskirts of Moscow where he hoped to exchange it for food.  
     When he told the farmer what he wanted and what he offered,  
the farmer sneered and offered a sack of potatoes.  The former  
nobleman was shocked at the offer--until the farmer beckoned his  
customer to the door of an adjoining room.  
     The table, the shelves, and the floor of the next room were  
littered with a vast collection of Faberge china--all beautiful,  
and all useless to the farmer, who could not sell them any more  
than the nobleman could.  The nobleman took the sack of potatoes. 
     And you think you have security because you've invested in  
comic books--having paid, perhaps, a hundred dollars for a copy  
of the first Batman story in "new" condition?  Well, the person  
who paid ten cents for it, and kept it carefully for future  
collectors, made a killing on his investment--but as a general  
rule most art collectors are loaded with expensive, yet worth-  
less, items they can never recoup their investment on.  
     One man I met has a collection of miniature elephants in  
many sizes, materials, and poses.  He honestly believes them to  
be worth what he paid for them, plus a profit.  But if a Faberge  
egg could be worth a sack of potatoes, how much could an elephant 
statue demand?  Think about it.  
     There is an excellent paperback book called "Economics in  
One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, a journalist like myself, whose  
style and illustrative examples are a pleasure to read.  I will  
not steal his thunder, but I should like to give him credit for  
two points which I must re-argue in my own discussion.  
     To paraphrase Hazlitt, economists are prone to "prove" their 
theories by showing you only one side of a two-faced coin--the  
side favorable to their theory, and the only one they want you to 
think about.  In that way they are like magicians who show the  
audience an impressive box of sturdy construction, which they  
open to show full of money--but fail to show that the box has no  
bottom, and the money is on a spring inside a special table the  
box is set upon.  
     In arguments over various hare-brained proposals, economists 
like to show you the "heads" of a coin--namely, WHO GETS WHAT--  
and argue, using every propaganda trick in the book, to show how  
"good" their proposal is.  But they never show you the "tails"  
side, which is WHO LOSES.  
     The true science of mathematics is based upon the law that  
you cannot get something for nothing--but the pseudo-science  
economics pretends you can.  During the hard times of the 1930's, 
truth-telling mathematics offered only unpleasant reality, but  
New Deal economics promised pie in the sky--something for  
nothing--a pleasant lie.  So stupid people chose the pleasant  
lie, and voted for Franklin Delano Rooselvelt four times.  And  
here we are now, seeing what was on the other side of the New  
Deal coin.  
     Economists occasionally "prove" their wisdom by the propa-  
ganda fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (meaning "after that, 
therefore because of that").  For example, say that three months  
ago the "Fed" lowered interest rates, and the economy improved.  
"Hooray!" they say, "lowering the interest rates caused the  
improvement".  
     First, and in passing, let's stop to think if we really give 
a damn about the Fed's raising or lowering of the interest rate.  
What the hell has it ever meant to you?  Only what you heard  
somebody say on the news, I'll bet.  When the news tells you  
everything is great, do you really believe it?  If so, what's  
your IQ?  
     But let's get back to the fallacy of "after that, therefore  
because of that".  The fallacy is to leave out all other events  
and facts that might indicate the true cause.  An example more  
easily seen as a fallacy is that of a superstitious farmer who  
plants corn after the new moon and before the full moon.  If he  
gets a good crop, he says it's because he planted his seed after  
the new moon and before the full moon (ignoring weather, fertili- 
zing, etc.).    
     The economic fallacy of concern to us is the failure of our  
government to admit the obvious fact that if something is "free"  
to some people, it's being paid for by others.  Or, as a simple  
variation, it will be paid for in the future by the next genera-  
tions.  Social Security, as shown in the first article in this  
series, was "sold" by Franklin Delano Roosevelt by golden rheto-  
ric dwelling on its short-term "benefits".  Roosevelt himself  
ignored the real (long run) cost of those "benefits", and the  
final price will be the total economic collapse of the United  
States in a few decades or less.  
  
OTHER OMISSIONS IN ECONOMICS  
  
     Economics mentions barter more or less in passing, and  
quickly dismisses it as irrelevant--a mere holdover from primi-  
tive times in economic history.  The fact is that barter is still 
the basis for every transaction, but most people don't bother to  
perform the rituals of asking price, offered price, and negotia-  
tion--in fact, they've never tried "dickering" over the price, or 
think it's not dignified.  Barter demands aggressiveness which we 
regard as antisocial, but is absolutely necessary if and when  
money is worthless.  
     When is that?  Well, in Australia today there are some  
tribes in the Outback who still don't use money.  They exchange  
goods or services for goods or services, by mutual agreement.   
People from "civilization" who go into the Outback and may need  
to obtain food while there are well advised to have trading  
goods, like the Dutch who bought Manhattan Island for 24 dollars' 
worth of jewelry.  
  
BUTTER AND GUNS  
  
     One of the classic illustrations used in economics is the  
real (practical) problem of striking a bargain between parties in 
a barter system--the usual example being that of exchanging  
butter for guns.  In a barter economy, a gunsmith who needs  
butter for his kitchen, and a dairy farmer who needs a shotgun to 
shoot crows, must somehow meet face to face to agree on how much  
butter is a fair trade for one gun.  Obviously, if a gunsmith  
doesn't need butter or a farmer doesn't need a gun, they can't do 
business.  
     In the dim past, when communities were isolated and trading  
was done by traveling merchants, the problems of doing business  
were greatly eased by the mercantile invention of money.  It was  
the merchant, acting as a go-between, who offered the gunsmith or 
the farmer so much symbolic paper or coinage for each man's  
goods, and sold each customer what he needed in a monetary  
exchange.  The barter was limited to how much money was agreeable 
in each separate transaction, not how many pounds of butter for a 
gun.  
     Money is truly one of the great human inventions, but it was 
not the work of a political bureaucracy!  It was only later that  
politicians saw the enormous potential in controlling the money  
used, and governmental control of money has been universal ever  
since.  
     That control is the power, and the weakness, of economics--  
for if a government collapses, the money in circulation becomes  
trash.  It happened in the South after the Civil War, with the  
demise of the Confederacy and therefore Confederate money.  It  
happened in Germany after World War I, when a wheelbarrow-full of 
paper money might be needed for a loaf of bread.  
     As part of economists' meddling in matters they do not  
understand--like the Sorcerer's Apprentice who conjured a broom  
to carry water--they seek to control both the supply of money and 
the value of money.  Basically, they want inflation.  Inflation  
is good for debtors (which is most of the people), and bad for  
creditors (who are held to deserve a little loss, by the morality 
of Robin Hood).  Deflation, which nobody really wants to see,  
would be a bonanza for creditors and the final straw for debtors  
--they would have to pay back more real value than what they  
borrowed, rather than less.  
     In any rational society, money would be absolutely rock hard 
and absolutely beyond the power of any political scheme to change 
it a hair.  If one were to borrow ten dollars now, he would have  
to pay back the full value of ten dollars, plus agreed interest  
for the time borrowed.  If you think that's unfair because you  
borrow money, how would you feel if you were the lender?  
     There is one, and only one, way I can see that could create  
such a rock-hard, non-manipulable monetary system--and it has  
been suggested by a number of theoreticians with common sense,  
who were therefore called crackpots.  That is, to establish a  
money system in which the minimum unit of coinage (one cent, for  
example) would be deemed equal to exactly one minute of time  
spent at minimal labor.  
     Obviously, there can never be one second more or one second  
less than sixty minutes in an hour.  Therefore in this system,  
the minimum wage would be sixty cents per hour, and all higher  
units of money and all contracts would be negotiated in terms of  
money at that rate of exchange.  All market prices would be nego- 
tiated using this system of hard money as its basis, so that a  
person earning the minimum wage could afford a modest lifestyle  
(my first job paid me fifteen cents an hour).  
     Of course, some people would want to borrow an hour's worth  
of work time, and pay it back with fifteen minutes--that's  
inflation.  But the short answer to all demands of that nature  
must be NO.  
                       
WALL STREET  
  
     Stock markets are the biggest gambling casinos in the world. 
That's not their public-relations image, but it's the truth.   
Wall Streeters like to pretend they're doing a profound and  
patriotic service in helping little Americans buy a piece of the  
nation in stocks and bonds.  I submit that such claims are an  
earthenware container of organic fertilizer.  
     Wall Street is a complex mechanism for manipulating wealth-- 
in the form of symbolic paper--and its attraction for high  
financiers is the lure of a quick killing by buying low and  
selling high.  If financiers guess wrong they may jump out  
windows--or take a flight out of jurisdiction with embezzled  
funds to evade criminal prosecution.  The little Americans who  
lose their shirts when the market crashes never know what hit  
them.  It happened in 1929, and is due to happen again--despite  
the best efforts of economic "experts" to keep it from happening  
by more and more controls.  
     The fact is that Wall Street is a bubble perilously close to 
bursting.  Our economists can't control Wall Street, so how the  
hell can they pretend to control anything else?  I'll tell you  
how--by bluff and bluster.  
     We all know that Social Security will be bankrupt in about  
thirty years, and Medicare in about ten, and that our economists  
created the mess by meddling in the free market system instead of 
letting banking and insurance institutions offer retirement  
pensions by consensual contracts.  Now our "experts" admit that  
Social Security is in trouble, and their God-given superiority  
has advised them exactly how to prop it up.  
     Invest in Wall Street--the world's biggest gambling casino!  
     And stupid Americans continue to trust them!  How long can  
their brains hibernate before they wake up and smell the coffee?  
  
SUMMARIZING FOR THIS TIME  
  
     The Medicare Program will go bankrupt in perhaps ten years,  
and Social Security will go down the tubes perhaps twenty years  
later--if we're lucky.  These blatant swindles are the legacy of  
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and for proof of this statement please 
read my previous articles in this series.  
     The collapse of our country will be the result of numerous   
interlocking factors, which I have here tried to separate for  
individual consideration by thoughtful readers.  The factors are: 
     1) The overpopulation of the planet, by about 50% of what it 
     should be.  
     2) The domination of politics by a two-thirds majority of  
     people below IQ 120, who are the least qualified to make  
     intelligent political decisions.  
     3) The facts (few) and fallacies (many) in the so-called  
     science of economics which have contributed to, and continue 
     to maintain a moribund national economy which gets worse as  
     time passes.  
     4) A bit about the psychology of the American people, and  
     the propaganda tricks which are used to deceive them.  
 
HOW AMERICA WILL COLLAPSE  
       
     There are two options--neither one desirable--but I cannot  
say with certainty which will prevail because I broke my crystal  
ball last week, and my Tarot cards are out for repair.  
     One possibility is that political revolution will come  
first, if apathetic Americans can be galvanized to take decisive  
action to force reconstruction of our corrupt bureaucracy at all  
levels.  A proposal for the first step is a Constitutional  
amendment to bring the American people back into the political  
process in a meaningful way.  See THE TIME BOMB IN OUR CONSTITU-  
TION for details on our plan to restore freedom and civil rights  
in a country which is shown to be a de facto police state, though 
not recognized by the mentally retarded majority.  
     The second possibility is more likely, in my opinion--  
namely, that Americans are too cowardly to take action until  
economic collapse becomes a reality.  That collapse will come  
with the end of Social Security and the sudden termination of all 
welfare programs which bleed all Americans to support the present 
corrupt regime.  
     With the collapse of government programs and, therefore, the 
entire government, the so-called "Domino Effect" will cause a  
remorseless chain reaction worldwide.  First, American money will 
instantly become as worthless as Faberge eggs, and Wall Street  
must crash almost immediately.  With the collapse of Wall Street, 
all foreign exchanges must follow as the panic spreads, and our  
so-called leaders--a pack of congenital idiots--look, for the  
first time, for lifeboats on the S.S. Titanic.  There aren't any, 
because the Titanic is unsinkable, right?  
     So, must we all sing hymns as the ragtime band plays  
"Nearer, My God, to Thee"?  
                             
BUT WAIT!  IS THAT A SHIP ON THE HORIZON?!  CAN WE BE SAVED?!  
  
     Maybe.  
     It's the U.S. Congress, and if the crew is intelligent  
enough to see what needs to be done--and has the courage and  
integrity to do it--they might yet be able to keep us afloat and  
tow us to shore safely.  
     The problem is that the crew of the U.S. Congress has been  
on a binge for sixty years, getting drunk with power--that's  
always been our problem.  Will there be any heroes on board the  
Congress who'll sober up in a hurry and do what has to be done?  
     I'll have the script for our eleventh-hour rescue in my next 
article.  
     But will anybody in Washington read it?