Sunday, September 23, 2018

American Political Shit Storm - Category II

                                   American Political Shit Storm - Category II

If you think America is politically divided now, just you wait. With so many Americans talking past each other as though the other was a despised enemy, our country's political shit sandwich will most likely upgrade to at least a Category II Shit Storm. Perhaps worse.

So I want to speak to folks on my side of the political continuum. I want to stress that I wish they had read the following article by David Wong about the Trump phenomenon before the election of 2016, listened to the two linked podcasts of interviews with Wong (one right before and one right after the election), and taken to heart the seriousness of the issues involved.

Unfortunately, my side of the political continuum has instead been wasting huge amounts of time and energy:

1) Fantasizing that Trump will be impeached (to leave us with President Pence! Yeah!),

2) Doubling down on proclaiming that large swaths of our fellow citizens are simply ignorant and racist and have absolutely nothing valuable to say. It is certainly true that ignorance and racism has been part and parcel of our country from day one. And it is certainly true that President Trump presents himself as both. That, however, in no way excuses demonizing masses of people that we don't actually know. Heck. Demonizing masses of people that we don't actually know is part of what we don't like about racism. Right? So let's just stop it. OK? And,

3) Going on and on about how horribly aggressive Russia was - Facebook posts, leaked (true) emails, fake political rallies - OH MY!!!  I have two simple things to say about all of this:
A) If only we Americans could say that this was the worst we had ever done in interfering with other countries' self-determination. But alas. We cannot. We have done far, FAR worse.
B) America has, thru NATO, placed tanks on Russia's borders - a country that was invaded by (and stopped) both Napoleon and Hitler. Let's remove our tanks from their borders before continuing to whine about Internet Trolls. OK?

So instead of continuing to double down on these 3 political dead-ends, let's attempt to actually understand how we got to this political moment. These are the links:


1st Podcast Interview (before election):

2nd Podcast Interview (after election):

The interview/ podcasts are overly long, but well worth it in the end.
Remember, we're looking at what will likely be at least a Category II Shit Storm. We've got to get a grip on what's going on here. These links will definitely help with that understanding.

Here is the County Election Map of the 2016 Election (Holy cow!):

Now that you've read the article above and listened to the podcasts (you've done that, right?), please continue....     

The Electoral College creates an over-representation of rural voters. This is how Trump won the 2016 election, by winning the rural vote hands down despite losing the popular vote by millions.  The Electoral College is an outrageously undemocratic institution that was born from our aristocratic founders.  Now that we have cleared that up, I've got something crazy to say:

I am in full support of the Electoral College continuing to exist for quite some time.

If America has had affirmative action for generations to attempt to level the playing field tilted by our racist past, then we can certainly continue the Electoral College for a couple more generations to attempt to level the playing field tilted by our long-standing prejudice against rural people.

If rural folks are going to supply the great majority of our food, our wood products, and our energy, then it seems only fair that they should have a larger say than the folks who have no earthly idea where our food, wood, and energy come from and who somehow look down upon the folks that do.

If we don't like the political ramifications of that, well then I pray we can find constructive approaches to reckon with our long-standing prejudices against rural people.

Doing a deep dive into where our food, wood, and energy come from is certainly one constructive place to start. Let's get to it.

Take care.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Post 10: Invisible Flying Monkeys & $70 Trillion of Debt

Invisible Flying Monkeys & $70 Trillion of Debt
Let’s say I’m President of the United States.
Let’s say I send a letter to four countries with the greatest levels of proven oil reserves*: Venezuela – 301 billion barrels, Saudi Arabia – 266, Iran – 158, and Iraq – 142. (These four countries have just over half of the world’s proven reserves). My letter says:
All of your oil is now our oil. We now own every last drop of it. Don’t resist. If you even try to resist, you’ll be attacked by an army of invisible flying monkeys who work for us for free. So don’t even think about it.”
Let’s assume that every drop of that oil can be drilled and transported to market at absolutely no cost. We’ll assume that our army of invisible flying monkeys will take care of all of that.
Let’s say that we sell every one of those barrels at market for $80/ barrel. (Which is above what it is selling for now, and is above average for the last 20 years).
Well, we’ll have just made $69.5 Trillion – almost enough to pay off the total US Debt (the sum total for all government, personal, and business debts).
Total US Debt is on track to top $70 Trillion on April 22nd 2018 – Earth Day.

Let’s review: we’ll pretend that we own half of the world’s oil; we’ll pretend we can get it to market for free; and we’ll pretend that we can sell it all in one instant for an above average price. With all of that, we’ll be just shy of covering our nation’s debts.
So what I’m saying is this: in 2020, vote Clueless Honky for President!
At least I have a plan!

*Excluding Canada and her tar sands, which would be in 3rd place with 170 billion barrels.
Real-Time Debt Counter:

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Post 9: Two Choices?

Two Choices?
As Americans, we can choose to be screwed by a red, white and blue elephant. Or we can choose to be screwed by a red, white and blue donkey.
Roughly half of Americans prefer the donkey - because they feel that the elephant just screws them too hard. Whereas roughly the other half of Americans actually prefer the elephant - because, well, the donkey is a little squirrelly, if you know what I mean.
But, one way or another, we’re all getting screwed.
We are stuck within a strange, twisted game of Good Cop/ Bad Cop. Where roughly half of Americans actually believe the Democrats are the Good Cops. And the other half of Americans actually believe the Republicans are the Good Cops.
Despite all of the hullabaloo around this dangerous game of Good Cop/ Bad Cop Screwing, certain trends always continue. Certain realities never get mentioned. Certain questions never get asked.
I’m done with this game.

We know our political system is like a drinking water system contaminated with shit. And we know it’s going to take a lot to clean it up. Voting for politicians is, at best, an attempt to clean some pipes here and there. But all our efforts to clean some pipes are in vain if, each and every day, more shit gets dumped into our drinking water system as a whole. 
What is the water that flows through this system? Wealth, power, and human interests. This is the flow of politics.
What is the shit we dump into our drinking water day after day? Our confusion of debt for wealth.  We all spend money every day. This is without a doubt the most political thing we do – it is dramatically more impactful than voting.
When we spend money, we assume that our money is a symbol for wealth. When in actuality, our money is not a symbol for wealth. It is a symbol for debt. Every dollar is a symbol of a debt – payable with interest – to a private bank. Literally.
What is wealth? Wealth is not a thing. Instead, I assert that wealth is an integrated ecology of:  happiness, healthy communities and ecosystems, fertile soil, clean air and water, wild and domestic diversity, knowledge of one’s place and of one's past, healthy integration of generations so a culture can remember itself, exquisite adaptations to natural and cultural landscapes, the energy and skills required to take care of ourselves without poisoning or exploiting other people and places, and the time and space necessary to adequately gawk at the mystery of existence.
What is debt? Please, check out
Note that Donald Trump was correct in saying that under Obama, the US almost added as much National Debt (Federal Government) as all previous presidents combined. What he didn’t say was that the same was true under Bush II. In fact, just before Reagan, the National Debt was under $1 Trillion. It is now over $20 Trillion.  
Folks, there are no Good Cops in this strange, twisted political game.

Why do I think this matters? Because the primary requirement for a debt-based economy is affordable concentrated energy. For example – “You want a loan for a machine that will replace lots of expensive workers? No problem. That debt will pay for itself over time - as long as there is affordable energy to make, run, and service that machine”. Well, we stumbled upon huge amounts of affordable concentrated energy over a century ago. We call them fossil fuels.
Well, we’ve now picked the lowest hanging fruit of the fossil fuels, and we are increasingly left with harder to get to, and harder to drill for, fuels. Oil and Natural Gas may be mostly affordable to U.S. consumers right now, but it is continually less affordable at present prices to those producers trying to get loans for Arctic or deep sea or fracked energy exploration.
As the exploration budgets of big energy producers slowly disappear, we head into a future of energy price volatility, where the price will fluctuate between being unaffordable to consumers and then again being unaffordable to producers. One day, it will be unaffordable to both consumers and producers.
But likely, long before that day, the debt-based economy will have imploded by simply being unable to service its debts without the steady input of affordable energy.
Our debts are going through the roof while the true wealth of the world is increasingly disappearing. Wow, who would have guessed? When every dollar we use is a symbol for an actual debt - payable with interest - to a private bank? Go figure.
Let’s use money as a symbol for wealth, and stop using it as a symbol for debt. Let’s stop shitting in our drinking water.
I do know this won’t fix all of our problems. Parts of our political plumbing will remain contaminated for quite some time, and other parts will surely be contaminated by other sources over time. But why continue to knowingly shit in our drinking water each and every day?
What do we want? Money as a representation of debt? Or money as a representation of wealth?
In the meantime, you can vote for whoever you want. I do really mean that.
I, for one, am going to vote for the one political party that has as part of its platform:
 "Democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation. This means nationalizing the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and placing them under a Federal Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department. Prohibit private banks from creating money, thus restoring government's Constitutional authority."  

That’s from the Green Party Platform.        
So, personally, I’m voting for the first woman president of the United States – Jill Stein.

Are you new to the issue of debt-based currency? I recommend Bill Still’s great documentary The Secret of Oz as a good place to start:

I likened both Trump and Clinton as Bad Cops out to screw us. And I then only brought up one political issue – monetary policy – that usually doesn’t even see the light of day. So I fully expect a backlash from folks along the lines of “how in the world could you not vote for so-and-so? Can’t you see how deplorable the other so-and-so is?”, which would, of course, have missed the entire point of my last post. But I’m expecting it nonetheless.
So I might as well go ahead and begin to explain why I think Clinton is deplorable as well.
Why only Clinton? I am going to assume that if you made it this far in this writing, you probably already understand what makes Trump deplorable. If I’m wrong on that account, I’d be fascinated to know what makes you tick politically. Really. But I’m assuming that most readers are already on that page, so let me flip that page over.
For now, I’ll focus on Clinton’s foreign policy, which is virtually indistinguishable from Bush II’s. There are more refugees in the world today than at anytime since WWII. And no small part of that fact is because we keep reducing to rubble large sections of what were otherwise relatively modern and relatively wealthy countries – Iraq, Syria, and Libya – in the name of regime change.
I didn’t appreciate it when we were fed a pack of lies by Bush II about how brutal a dictator Saddam Hussein was and about his theoretical weapons of mass destruction, and that this was why we had to invade Iraq. Sure, Hussein was a bastard. Nobody disputes that. But does anybody doubt that invading a relatively modern country that had incredible amounts of just-below-the-surface ethnic, tribal and religious tensions was a complete disaster?
The answer to that question is that yes, there are those that actually think the invasion of Iraq was a great idea. You should know that they are very strong supporters of Clinton -
I surely thought most Democrats thought these kinds of policies were disastrous in 2008. But I guess that was then and this is now. It somehow was wrong for the Republicans to enact regime change, turn cities to rubble, unleash civil wars and destroy other people’s lives, but it is just fine for Democrats to do it. (Think Syria, Libya, and Ukraine here.)
As far as Syria and Libya go - sure, Assad and Gaddafi are/were bastards. Once again, nobody disputes that. But also, once again, we’re talking about relatively modern countries with incredible amounts of just-below-the-surface ethnic, tribal, and religious tensions. You can’t just depose a strong leader and pretend everything is going to go all right.
Mind you, these are policies in which Clinton finds no remorse, but, on the contrary, brags about. “We came, we saw, he died” is her line about Gaddafi in Libya.

And then there is Syria, which of course brings us to their primary ally, Russia, with whom Clinton seems excited to start a war, ignoring that Russia is a nuclear and military powerhouse. Democrats used to ridicule Bush II for not having an “exit strategy” in our invasion of Iraq. But who in the hell is asking what the “exit strategy” is for a potential real (not cold) war with Russia? Have we gone crazy? Maybe somebody should exhume both Napoleon and Hitler and ask those otherwise highly effective conquerors how that might turn out.
We backed a coup in the Ukraine against an elected government, and installed a NATO friendly government, and began involving NATO forces there. Once again, are we crazy? Napoleon’s and Hitler’s armies marched through the Ukraine on their way into Russia. Of course Russia is not going to put up with that.
All right, let’s step back a second. So you say that Putin too is a bastard, and look, he took over Crimea. Yes, that’s all true, but consider this – Crimea is a majority Russian ethnic land, that voted by overwhelming majority to return to Russian governance. Crimea was “given away” by former Soviet leader Kruschev to the Ukraine decades ago. This would be as meaningful as a US president “giving away” Washington D.C. to Maryland. Heck, the Ukraine was a Republic within the United Soviet Socialist Republics at that time. Kruschev never envisioned the USSR collapsing and Russia losing its influence over Crimea.
Look at the whole Ukraine thing this way:  imagine that the Russian Intelligence service was behind a coup of an elected government in Canada. Russia then installed a Russia-friendly regime in Canada, and began making military pacts with the new regime and sending in “military advisors”, and amassing tanks along our northern border.  How would you feel about that?
Think what you want. But at the absolute very least, ask yourself, why are these questions not being asked more within our government and mainstream media? Why is it that it’s mostly the fringe (both right and left) online media that usually bring up these very valid questions and concerns?
But before you rush to answer that, please go back eight years in time, two presidential election cycles, and ask yourself the exact same question – why was there not more questioning about our invasion of Iraq? Why did our entire mainstream media take at face value all of the lies about Hussein and his WMD?
OK. Now come back to present time, and answer those same questions about Russia, Ukraine, Syria, and Libya.
Our government and our mainstream media often act as if they are in collusion, that they have a set agenda, and that they will push their agenda regardless of any issues of morality or sanity, regardless of what people think, and most certainly, regardless of who people vote for.
There are so many reasons I find Hillary deplorable. A foreign policy that justifies and brags about destructive regime change and that flirts with world war is just my first reason. 

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Post 8: Recommendations

Sorry for the immense delay in posting. One day, the clueless honky will return with new material.

In the meantime, let me make a couple of recommendations:

1) If this is your first visit to the site, please read the posts in the order they are numbered. They might make sense reading them out of order. But goodness knows, they'll make a lot more sense in the order they were intended to be read.

2) If you're looking for other blogs worth reading, let me kindly recommend two blogs by one author, John Michael Greer, that are not only highly valuable, and incredibly well thought out and written, but are also highly pertinent to the subject matter of the Clueless Honky.

Greer's weekly blog is Ecosophia: 
His monthly blog is the Well of Galabes:

The Well of Galabes was started just this last year (2014), and is only done monthly, so it is worthwhile to go back to its beginning and start reading from there. Even if it seems like it's not up your alley, I'd recommend really giving it a concerted effort. His unfolding description of the magical traditions is the best I've ever read, and is certainly causing this clueless honky to really sit with my own understanding of the story of the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

My own use of the term "magic" within this blog, and how I believe it applies to all ancient and modern forms of technology - this is most certainly not what Greer means by the term "magic". There are huge important differences between magic and technology, and likewise important reasons to maintain them as separate and distinct concepts.

And yet, however, there also seems to be some strange similarities. Perhaps I'm forcing them under the same word "magic" because of my incredible affinity for the story of the Sorcerer's Apprentice, and because of how much I find this story to be a strong and clear message/ warning from our ancestors.

And perhaps I am not forcing the issue. Most of the earliest scientists whose insights led to many of the modern technologies of the industrial revolution were also practitioners to some degree of some ancient magical tradition. We are heirs to whole worlds of linguistic confusion, and the subjects of magic and technology seem particularly ripe with these "gifts".

It is likely that clueless honky postings in the near future will have nothing to do with these questions about the strange relationship between magical and technological traditions, but I guess I just wanted you to know that these questions are afoot. Maybe you too can catch sight of them sneaking around.

Thanks for your time and attention.
take care,

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Post 7: Magic is Life

Important: For the first 7 posts on this Blog, it is best to read them in order!

Magic is Life

In order for any of our magical spells to work appropriately; the spell has to be grounded – meaning that the magical spell has to return the power back to the source.  
I proposed in an earlier post that the “source” is the marriage of heaven and earth.  Where the radiance from the heavens, either from our star the Sun during the day, or from the Sun’s neighbors at night – where this radiance falls and meets the earth, either on land or on water – here at the marriage of heaven and earth we find the source of our lives, and the source of life itself.  

I now want to focus on a mostly overlooked aspect of life that can perhaps help us understand more about magic. I know that this might seem strange, but I want to talk about bacteria. Because bacteria are literally invisible to us, bacteria are far too easy to overlook for their massive role in our world, in our lives.

Scientists now believe that life on earth is about 3.5 to 4 billion years old, and that for the majority of that time, for almost 2 billion years, bacteria were the only living beings on Earth.

These are admittedly realms of time beyond our ability to imagine – and for the majority of this unimaginable time on Earth, the only living beings were those unnoticeable to our present senses. Part of me would like to stop this post right here, and just have everyone meditate on that simple fact.

How did everything else besides bacteria eventually evolve (the eukaryotes – which include protozoa, fungi, plants and animals)? Well, scientists now believe that more complex life forms evolved through symbiogenesis, which literally means “creation through symbiosis” – in this case, symbiosis between two bacteria.
The first eukaryote evolved from two bacteria in such an intimate relationship with one another that one got subsumed into the other and became an organelle. As if they made a deal. ‘Look’, one said, ‘I’ll take care of the whole energy production business, with ATP and all, and you take care of all the other functions of the cell.’ We call these ancient ones “mitochondria”, and they now take care of energy production within all eukaryotic (non-bacterial) cells.
Then, for the evolution of green algae, the precursors to all modern plants, scientists believe there was a protist – a single cell organism with an organelle such as mitochondria as I’ve just described – in intimate relationship with a cyanobacterium (a photosynthetic bacteria) and it was such an intimate relationship that the same thing once again happened – symbiogenesis. The cyanobacteria got subsumed into the matrix of the protist and became an organelle. These organelles, or ancient ones, became what we now call “chloroplasts” within the cells of all modern algae and plants. 

One could argue that all of life is either a bacterium, or an amalgamation of bacteria which joined forces to create more complex cells.
Many modern taxonomists no longer talk about the 5 kingdoms of life like they did when I was in high school, but about 3 kingdoms, two of which are bacteria (the eubacteria and the archea bacteria). The third kingdom is everything else – the eukaryotes which includes the plants, animals, fungi, and protists – each of which used to be classified as their own kingdom.  The point of this change was to emphasize that all animals, plants, fungi, and protists are actually more alike one another than the eubacteria and the archea bacteria are alike one another.

These bacterial kingdoms are themselves arguably like big super species, or super organisms. What I mean here is that historically the definition for a species is a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring by having sex with one another.  Well, for a long time, we assumed that bacteria didn’t have “true” sex.
Well, although it is true that bacteria reproduce asexually by simply splitting into two, it turns out that all bacteria are still having “sex” with one another all of the time.  Biologists call it “horizontal” or “lateral gene transfer”. Bacteria regularly go up to one another and swap genetic information; they swap snippets of their DNA with each other. So it turns out that we call bacterial “species” are more like temporary “habits” within this bacterial super-organism.

Bacteria themselves continue to play an absolutely crucial role in the ongoing lives of supposedly “higher” organisms.  Take the soil food web, for example.  For those unfamiliar with the soil food web, I think the best way to describe it is to point out that for an average plant, 1/4 of all the sugars the plant creates through photosynthesis are “leached” out of the plant’s roots into the surrounding soil.  When biologists first realized this, they were astonished that a biological system could have evolved that was that leaky and inefficient. But then they realized that it wasn’t inefficient at all – that the plants’ leachate feeds huge populations of beneficial bacteria and fungi, upon which a whole microbial ecology - “the soil food web” - grows.
Why would a plant trouble itself with cultivating a “soil food web”? It turns out that bacteria and fungi are experts at releasing organic acids that break down earthen particles and extract nutrients from them; that bind soil particles together and create the humus that gives soil a crumbly structure, and that magically allows for both good water retention and water drainage, essential for plant health. 
Bacteria and fungi are very nutrient dense, and all of the other microorganisms that eat them like protists and nematodes have to eat a lot of bacteria and fungi to get the carbon they need, so then the protists and nematodes wind up “pooping” out the excess nutrients in soluble form right there by the roots of the plants – exactly what the plants need. 
It has been pointed out that it’s almost like the plants are “farming” this microbial ecology all around their roots, in order to achieve all these many benefits.
What I want to ask, however, is:  Who is farming whom?

It has been known for a while now that an average human body contains more than 10 times as many bacterial cells as it does human cells: (  Try reading this linked article, and then ask yourself again, who is farming whom?

So, to summarize here: 
For the majority of life on earth – for roughly the first 2 billion years – bacteria were the only life forms on earth.
Ever since then, all the non-bacterial living cells evolved as amalgamations of bacteria themselves. 
All bacteria are like one big super organism in a strange sense, continually swapping genetic information with one another.
And one could argue that they seem to be “farming” all supposedly “higher” life forms.
Bacteria are the ones that gave birth to our oxygen atmosphere.  Bacteria are the ones who primarily seed our clouds and therefore give us rain and rivers, and therefore, life on land.
There is an unfathomably deep intelligence within the bacterial realm.

What are bacteria but little spheres of flesh? And what is flesh but the 5th element? Flesh is characteristically different from the other four elements – earth, air, water and fire – and is actually the weaver of the 4 elements, the conversation holder between the inside and outside of organisms.  And what is on the outside of any one bacterium is the whole cosmos, which includes all of the other bacteria.
But what’s on the outside of each of those other bacteria is, once again, the whole cosmos, which includes all of the other bacteria, including the bacteria previously mentioned.  And what’s on the outside of each of those bacteria is the whole cosmos, including the two previously mentioned. And so on, and so on.  There is this crazy way in which flesh really is all one. “Inter-subjectivity”, phenomenologists call it.
For us animals, we need to remember that flesh is not just our skin, but all those organs where the inside and outside of us meet, greet, converse and explore – our eyes, our ears, our nostrils, our mouth, our entire gastro-intestinal track, our lungs, our sexual organs – this is the conversation holder between the inside and outside of us.   
Too often we assume that our flesh is just our skin, and that “who we are” is simply what is on the inside of our skin. I would argue instead that “who we are” is the ongoing conversation between the inside and outside of our flesh.

So much of modern physics has pointed out that what we call “matter” is barely even there, that when you break it all apart; matter is almost all empty space.  This has led entire legions of “new agers” and the like to proclaim that reality is but a dream.  But what I want to say is – No, no. A dream is what each and every one of us does within us. Reality is instead an ongoing conversation amongst all of us. And I for one am definitely including bacteria and all other life forms in the definition of “us”.
At the core of so many of these conversations is the question: Is there some aspect of the cosmos that has not yet been unfolded, expressed, made manifest?  If not, then let’s do it together. 

Magic is not supernatural. Magic is not pretend. Magic is life.

Check out the next Clueless Honky Blog post for more.
Thanks for your time and attention

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Post 6: Money As Wealth

Money as Wealth

In my last two posts, I gave some examples of how everyday technologies such as writing, agriculture, time-keeping, and money all have within them some "mirroring" or "reflecting" quality to them. I went further into a broad analysis of money, and how we have mistakenly been using money as a reflection of debt instead of as a reflection of wealth as we had previously thought.
My exploration of money may have brought up two questions for you. First question: Is this honky crazy for even thinking that our entire culture is going to go back to the drawing board to completely re-work how we create and use money?
This is a great question. And to be honest, no, I don’t think it is very likely that this is going to happen anytime soon.
However, I don’t think using money as a reflection of debt is likely to continue for very much longer without us walking our way into a horrible civilizational collapse. The viability of debt-based money goes hand in hand with a world awash with cheap energy, cheap food, and cheap timber.  And since cheap food and cheap timber are themselves contingent upon cheap energy, cheap energy is truly the linchpin that allows debt-based money to continue to function.
In other words, if cheap energy goes, so does cheap food, cheap timber and debt-based money along with it. And it is becoming an increasingly safe bet to claim that we are experiencing the first stages of cheap energy’s departure from our lives.  
So sure, we can hold on to our debt-based currency system if we’re scared of confronting the political and economic powers that keep it locked in place – if we’re OK with sacrificing any kind of viable and attractive future for ourselves and our children.
I’m a little sorry for stating such sweeping opinions without having laid the groundwork to fully explain and justify them. I hope you can forgive me in the moment, for laying such groundwork is one of the many aims of this series of posts, and we are only just beginning. For now, please just let me tie these sweeping opinions back into the story of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice and say the following: 
We are now at the point in the story where all of our accumulated miscast and ungrounded magical spells are beginning to completely spiral out of control. We can kick back and assume that the Sorcerer will soon return to cast the one overarching spell to put everything back aright. Or we can commit ourselves to returning the power back to the source by using our magical spells consciously with gratitude.
Does this mean that we have to wait for our central bank to re-create itself before we start using money with gratitude in our own individual lives? No. We can begin that anytime. But eventually, we will have to unite to address this deeper root – of not only how we use money as individuals, but how we all create money together as a culture. And honestly, the sooner we address it, the better.
The second question: Even if we were going to start over and begin to use money as a reflection of wealth instead of debt, then that begs the question, what is wealth?
This is another great question. I will always assert that wealth is an integrated ecology of:  happiness, healthy communities, healthy ecosystems, fertile soil, clean air, clean water, knowledge of place, knowledge of one's past, healthy integration of generations so a culture can remember itself, exquisite adaptations to natural and cultural landscapes, the skills and disciplines of taking care of ourselves without poisoning or exploiting other people and places, and the time and space necessary to adequately gawk at the mystery of existence.
Of course, how we each define wealth and just how exactly our culture should go about spending new wealth into our country is open for debate. But this is exactly the debate that our country should be having right now. What technologies, using what methods, in which locations, at what scales? But right now isn't the time or place to go further into those debates. What I am saying here is that unless we get clear on the "money as debt" vs. "money as wealth" issue, our debates will never amount to any lasting solutions.
In other words, I am not saying that changing our money from a debt-based to a wealth-based system will solve all of our problems. Not at all.  I am saying, however, that it is a prerequisite for solving any of our problems effectively on any kind of large and lasting scale. And since we all live on a small planet falling through space, we might want to give it a minute or two of our attention and thinking.
Right now, the important thing is, the next time you overhear a debate about economics, and there are a lot of them these days, listen to it anew. More than likely, both sides of the debate are assuming the continuation of our debt-based money system - where money is created as debt, for the benefit of a few.  We had decades of a cold war and many real wars between communism and capitalism, yet neither side of this war between economic paradigms ever questioned the validity of debt-based currency. Yes, there may continue to be very differing “sides” to current economic “debates”, but they are all different paths that lead to the same black-hole. Think instead about the options for a money system where money is created as wealth, for the benefit of all.
If you’re interested in exploring more about this subject, I’d recommend an excellent documentary called The Secret of Oz, by Bill Still.

And also check out the American Monetary Act by the American Monetary Institute.

A bill similar to the American Monetary Act was introduced on Sept 21st, 2011 before the House of Representatives by Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. In that congress, it was HR2990, and was called the NEED Act.
Since then, long term Representative Dennis Kucinich was gerrymandered out of his congressional seat by his own Democratic Party.

Admittedly, I had only intended to mention money in my last post as yet another example of a magical spell that we don’t usually see in that light. And as another example of how magical spells often have some kind of mirroring or reflecting quality to them. And perhaps as another example of how “mirroring” and “reflecting” aren’t really quite the right words for what I’m talking about yet.
The issues surrounding debt vs. wealth-based currencies was a little like a tractor beam pulling me into the Death Star. I do want to go further into these issues eventually. But for now, I want to zoom back out again and remember that in order for any of our magical spells to work appropriately; they have to return the power back to the source. A magical spell has to be grounded.
I’ve stated before that I believe the “source” is the marriage of heaven and earth. Well, there is a funny thing that happens on the ground here at the marriage of heaven and earth – namely Life. And next week, I want to focus on a mostly overlooked aspect of life that can perhaps help us understand more about all of these magical mirrors.
Until then, take care, and happy new year.

Check out the next Clueless Honky Blog post for more.
Thanks for your time and attention