"Rather than seeking to liquidate the national debt, Hamilton recommended that government securities pay sufficient interest to be traded at par promoting their perpetual circulation as legal tender equivalent in face value to hard currency." First Report on the Public Credit, made by Alexander Hamilton to Congress, 1790.

“As often is the case with addictions, the fanciful notion of a gradual discontinuance only provided a comforting pretext for more sustained indulgence.” ― Ron Chernow [on Alexander Hamilton's life of marital adultery] 

Fiat credit IS monetary adultery

All adulterers know [or soon learn] that each successive act of deviance makes the real thing worth less ... until it finally becomes worthless ... incapable of functioning as it was originally intended. And this is true whether the "real thing" is marriage or money.

And although history has not provided us with an account of the first act of marital adultery, it does provide us with ample evidence that the practice of monetary adultery ... [mixing public credit in with the public's money until there is no practical difference left between the two] ... was well known and in continuous circulation in Europe [along with syphilis and small pox] prior to the American Revolutionary War. And furthermore, it reports [in careful accounts like William Hogeland's Founding Finance] that Alexander Hamilton, America's first Secretary of the Treasury officed in America's first national capital on Wallstreet NYC, heartily embraced the deviant practices of European elites and coveted every opportunity to introduce them to Americans.

Subverting subsidiarity

Eager to experiment with adultery on a grand scale, Hamilton [in what was euphemistically disguised as The Compromise of 1790] seduced Jefferson and Madison [and the South] by promising them that all future acts of American monetary adultery would be officially performed in the District of Columbia ... although everyone understood that they would continue to be orgasmized on Wallstreet ... a sordid, bifurcated practice that continues to this day with the Federal Reserve doing the official act in Washington but Wallstreet [always under the Fed's lustful gaze] transmitting the stimulation to an eroticized cadre of financial insiders who, it is said, are frequently so overwhelmed with bliss that at least some of the good feelings trickle down to a long deprived public. [The amorous George Washington needed no persuasion ... he had long ago turned West ... away from Virginia as his first love.]

In the Compromise, which John Calhoun [only a boy of 8 at the time] would come to rue along with all the Southern States, the federal government assumed the revolutionary war debts of the still-sovereign states ... mixing them with the federal war debts ... in the first official act of American federal financial adultery ... a practice preserved in the form of federal grants to all 50 states [among many other financial trysting partners] and which is set to explode again as states face a world that is increasingly tax-intolerant thanks to the widespread assurance that federal fiat credit is free and unlimited.

Of course, some principled persons will proudly proclaim that they [and the civil or corporate bodies in which they serve] have "balanced their budgets" and that Washington needs to do the same. But this is  nothing more than empty talk, for without the benefits of Washington's deficits [directly or indirectly] most of them would cease to exist overnight. They will be quickly and rightly dismissed as unfounded and provincial in their thinking.

Institutionalizing the delusion ... "fiat pecunia" Gen 1:3

"In the beginning" the adulterer thinks [s]he can stop before any lasting harm is done and can thus get away with it. But adultery is hard to stop and, for this reason, hard to hide. And so most adulterers persist until caught in the act and faced with the prospect of judgment and/or cessation. And although some repent in shame and others offer ambivalent excuses, the truly brave [with consciences fully seared] double-down and redefine the real thing to include their deviance. The deviation becomes normative.

Modern Monetary Theory is an example of the redefinition approach to deviance. Its premises have become "self-evident" [veritable natural laws] after two centuries of Hamilton's financial adultery. The federal government, via its sovereign monopoly powers, can forever alternate between being

• a net issuer of fiat money in the form of either currency OR credit for the goods and services it purchases and consumes [or doles out] until a continuously-redefined inflation [the only possible unwanted result] rises too high and 

• a net collector of taxes until a continuously-redefined unemployment [the only possible unwanted result] rises too high.

What could be simpler than formally declaring fiat money to include fiat credit ... extinguishing once and for all the distinction between money and credit ... Hamilton's adulterous dream come true ... and NO NEED TO PAY INTEREST ON THE FEDERAL DEBT ... EVER AGAIN. What could possibly go wrong?

That this accommodation of perversion could ever produce other unwanted and unexpected effects has not yet occurred to today's enlightened, elite adulterers [marital and financial]. Their dulled minds [Democrat and Republican alike] are now fully reprobate and can no longer be sociologically reclaimed ... only destroyed in the inevitable, coming collapse of the societal and environmental structures on which civilization currently rests ... the "great reset".

Surely, stagflation is a logical impossibility ... a world of unemployed people facing a rising cost of living ... where robots [owned by an oligarchy of capitalist-elites-in-luxury] do the work while the marked masses fight one another for a share in an increasingly expensive subsistence existence. Rev 6:6

The rise of crony capitalism ... and the fall of democracy

"As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery. ... The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of [sociological] destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. ... [T]hese Governments are fast rendering impossible a continuance of the social and economic order ... [b]ut they have no plan for replacing it." 

- The Consequences of the Peace, JM Keynes, 1920

One order cannot fall without chaos ensuing unless there is another already usurping its place ... and so the seamless collapse of distributed democratic capitalism into centralized crony capitalism was to be expected. That FA Hayek predicted this in his 1944 reflections on Nazi Germany is now little more than an historical anomaly forgotten by some but never known by most.

The future can no longer be in doubt. Deferred repentance has become not only unimaginably painful but ideologically inconceivable. Full-on authoritarianism [monetary and political], with a managed chasm insulating the rich elites from the poor masses, is already taking place.

All that remains is to see if this "brave fiat world" will be taken seriously by God ... or not. Psalm 2

I enjoy keeping up with the local news in Wichita.  Recently, I heard of something new, a panel that the Mayor has deemed necessary because of a social problem much in the spotlight – the lack of diversity.  Diversity is a word that cannot exist on its own, but describes the variety in something else.  A panel, like a choir, is organized by a director, and produces a cant, a litany for some edifying purpose.  I will pitch in, casting what is not the first stone, but one from without the circle of diversity that this particular panel describes.

One of the great tautologies in human experience lies in the observation that other people do things that are wrong, whether it be the direction they choose to walk down grocery store aisles, the colors they paint their houses, the kinds and numbers of animals they keep in their yards, the types of masks they wear (both for halloween and modish hygiene), even the sorts of churches they do or don’t attend.  If we each had our way, certain things would not be permitted (and other people don’t forbid or permit the right things anyway).  Those with the freedom and power to deny or allow often purpose incorrectly.  This is a tautological certainty.  The “land of the free” has become the land of constant transgression. 

A certain French Emperor, who believed that Europe was doing wrong things, observed that society was impossible without peace, that peace was impossible without government, that government impossible without law, law without authority, and that no-one would submit to authority without religion.  Of course that self-styled Emperor could not enforce the religion required for peace without buckets of blood, since people kept doing things wrong.  In his case, people insisted on belonging to various duchies and kingdoms that weren’t French, an alarming and messy diversity, egged on by the pesky British.  We, of course, observing that the French “did it wrong,” congratulate ourselves upon observing that religion and government don’t mix. 

 ‘Bleeding Kansas’ refers to the armed conflicts that characterized our struggles in this territory to become a state, whether free or slave, under the principle of sovereignty, the idea that if you can get enough people together who believe a smaller group of people are “doing it wrong,” you can put a stop to their doings.  This principle, which replaced the Missouri Compromise regarding accession of new states to the union --where one new slave state was allowed for one new free state (a sort of parity) --  made the struggle for statehood in Kansas one of ideological (religious) persuasion rather than constitutional order.  People interested in forbidding others from doing wrong things flooded into the territory of Kansas to make sure others would do things right, both Northern abolitionists and Missourian slave holders.  A bloody fight broke out, and to make things brief, we now live in a free state in a free nation, ascending to the stars in the national flag’s field of blue through our “difficulties.” 

This fight was religious, because it dealt with the purpose of man itself, and no one who makes a pronouncement as to what others should be doing is free of religion. 

When differences of religion exist, resistance, rather than submission, to laws will inevitably break out.  You may say, “That’s where you are doing it wrong! We separate Church and State in these territories, sir!”  I would reply that you are doing it wrong, since I never said Church, but merely religion.  Religion is the question of purpose, what we should be doing with life.  It is wrong to assume that since church attendance is down among us, that there aren’t as many people who think everyone else is living the wrong way.  Here in the land of euphemism, we detect religion that relies on mystification in order to avoid its positive implications. 

“Ah, but what about Cotton Mather?”  The Hawthornian view of the sins of our fathers would have us meditate upon the horrific Salem Witch Trials.  Fascination with witchcraft led to trials at law and subsequent executions of people who may actually have been victims. A crime looking for a perpetrator is one of the touchstones of those who proclaim, “I thank thee, oh Lord, that I am not as them.”  We are fascinated that so many others would join in this vicious pursuit of new criminals, people so wrong as to seek league with the devil himself.  Though insane to court the hosts of fallen angels, doing so could be a very handy benchmark for singling out those so wrong they must be blotted out of the public square.  A social consensus organized a community to pursue wrong doers, creating policy that engaged and enraged citizens.  We vilify Cotton Mather and his community-organizing effort -- and feel better about ourselves.  (Witches also feel much better about this.)

Mather was wrong, so wrong that even today pastors, preachers and priests are wrong to tell us who is wrong, and they certainly shouldn’t make laws.  This is our agreement about religion.  Unfortunately, it is impossible to coerce obedience to laws without religious assumptions of some kind amongst the governed.  After all, “man does not live by bread alone.”  If religion is necessary, but people aren’t in Church, then how are they to know who is doing wrong things?  Fortunately, a preacher doesn’t need an ornate setting, a collar, a crucifix.  A preacher needs a congregation though, and our Mayor, Brandon Whipple, seems to be building one around the discovery that others are doing something wrong.  In the vacuum of moral instruction by the clergy and schools, a young man with mild experience of the mundane takes up the mitre. 

The Mayor’s “Diversity, Inclusion, and Civil Rights Board” has been, if we are to pay attention to words and meaning, “ordained” by means of a city ordinance.  This seemingly harmless empaneling is in actuality more like the installation of the Dominican Order or the Knights Templar, or for those of us in a happier mood, perhaps “The Justice League” or “The Avengers,” all in order to pursue wrong doings.  One of the first acts of this “inclusion” group was to disinclude a member who was a bit too diverse.  Hopefully he won’t be burned at the stake, but it is clear that he is not to be tolerated in the public square defined by this group.  Any assemblage that identifies heresy has an orthodoxy, and this is religious.  Apparently there is a right kind of unity, of diversity, and of who should be included and excluded.

This entanglement that leads to strife has customarily been avoided by our constitutional arrangements, even the arrangements of our city government in Wichita which features a relatively weak office of the mayor, so that people may enjoy maximum freedom in our social arrangements.  This may be annoying to those who see others using this freedom to do wrong things.  In the past, this border, this wall of right and wrong has been relatively well defined by things we call laws.  These have devolved from something like “Honor your Father and Mother”and ‘Thou shalt not covet,” giving us both the line of authority for submission to instruction, and the warning against worrying that other people are doing wrong things.  It seems now that the law isn’t enough, that we must realign our religious understanding into a unity and inclusion.    The restless tendency in current politics to foment movements -- where before there was peace -- and to cry “justice, justice!” as we warp law, should be understood as religious.  Religious goals always bring the sword, and if you do not realize this, you are doing history wrong.  Sometimes the sword is inevitable, necessary and purgative.  Often, the sword is merely the means to organize guilt and self justification, often for the assurance that numbers declare righteousness.  We call these last goals political.