The Asian Man Triggered by Donald Trump

An Asian male threw this out as a basis against Trump’s character which thus disqualifies him as President. In a moment of clarity, my various collisions with psychology were brought together to analyze the psyche of the “Asian man.” For those of you that have been involved in the leadership of Korean churches, you may relate. Here was my response:

I don’t think anyone is worthy or unworthy of “support” based on a joke. It’s irrelevant to the discussion and you’re only throwing it out because you have an emotional, visceral reaction on something that can’t be objectified.

Perhaps you are triggered by successful, assertive, white males, that have a sense of humor. Lots of Asians tend to have problems with that due to their upbringing and how they’re told what is “proper” and “good manners.” Asian men tend to be “beta” by definition due to the collectivist values of Confucianism.

Trump embodies the blazen Individualism for which Asian cultures shame against. I can understand why many Asian men feel threatened by that. Asian churches are even worse in terms of shaming individualism.

Trump just happens to bring those insecurities to the surface and then the beta males will attempt to make up various excuses to justify the feelings that are being triggered without realizing the underlying programming they received that leads them to feel threatened in the first place.

Where’s the Love in the Libertarian Movement?

“People don’t care how much you KNOW until they know how much you CARE” – Unknown

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not LOVE, I am a noisy GONG or a clanging CYMBAL. And if I have prophetic powers, and UNDERSTAND ALL MYSTERIES AND ALL KNOWLEDGE, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not LOVE, I am nothing.” – 1 Corinthians 13: 1 – 2

“You can see the rider serving the elephant when people are morally dumbfounded. They have strong gut feelings about what is right and wrong, and they struggle to construct post hoc justifications for those feelings. Even when the servant (reasoning) comes back empty-handed, the master (intuition) doesn’t change his judgment.” ― Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” (T 2.3.3 p. 415) – David Hume


To the Libertarians interested in spreading the Gospel of “Liberty”: we have a messaging problem. It’s not an intellectual problem. We fail to demonstrate LOVE.

Did you notice yourself immediately feeling uncomfortable when I mentioned “Love” or while reading the quotes above? Keep that feeling in mind, because it’s you, especially, this message pertains to. [As I write this, be advised this is primarily an inner-dialog than anything else. My inner-voice is quite confrontational and blunt. There’s no way I can actually know your exact situation and for something as deeply personal as this, I acknowledge this.]

I’m going to steal some concepts from Reformed Christianity to help illustrate my point. Even as an Atheist, Penn Jillette has been exploring Evangelical churches to learn from their techniques in demonstrating “love” to apply to his Atheist church, United Church of Bacon. #LoveNeedsNoGod

There are three, primary “roles” in the Kingdom of God:

– Prophets (Speakers of Truth)
– Kings (Day-to-Day Administrators and Organizers)
– Priests (Relationally focused, ministering mercy and sympathy)

Jesus perfectly encapsulates all three, while humans tend to be strong in one or two roles, and weak in another. Libertarian Prophets are Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and others. Libertarian Kings are successful free market Capitalists. Libertarian Priests are . . . largely non-existent.

I’ve been reflecting on this shortage, since within myself, I have a strong deficiency in my Priestly attributes, and weigh heavily as a Prophet/King. The quotes above and the term “Love” causes my Elephant to buck. As the “Rider,” I began searching into my heart (the Elephant), and realized my Elephant has a knee-jerk reaction to look down on those who exhibit Priestly qualities. My Elephant reacts: “Emotions make me feel uncomfortable due to past emotional traumas.” Then the Rider justifies the Elephant: “Priests are pussies, weak-minded, idiots, contradictory, and emotionally wishy washy. I, on the other hand, in my great Ivory tower of Reason, Logic, and Intellect am superior and could never lower myself to pander to people’s hearts. That would be untrue to who I am.”

For Libertarians, our God should solely be Individualism and to proselytize for new believers. But we have strayed from our one, true God. Instead of Individualism, we have created an idol out of Intellectualism. Instead of humbling ourselves, as Christ humbled Himself even to the point of a torturous death on the cross, we choose to demand non-believers to come to Orthodoxy on their own efforts (through Logic and Reason that their Elephants have no regard for).*

If you were to be a missionary to the darkest depths of Congo, and only communicate to them in English, don’t you think that’s foolish? Why insist and denigrate the Elephants who are incapable of understanding the language of Logic and Reason? Understand them. Empathize with them. Humble yourself to their world, and then speak to them in a language they can understand: Love.

Or another example: what is the more effective tool to win converts to Christianity? The hellfire and brimstone confrontations of the Westboro Baptist Church? Or the hopeful, and love filled messages of Rick Warren and and Joel Osteen? Libertarians would be wise to learn from the outrageously successful, positive messaging these Preachers profess. **


Progressives are right to be skeptical about Libertarians’ claims that charity will adequately provide for the legitimately needy. Libertarians put their “faith” on the goodness of humanity or self-interested individuals to care for those in need. There are no strong, intellectual arguments that can guarantee there will be enough charity, one way or another. Progressives would prefer the sin of “theft” if it means there’s a minimum level of “care” that can be guaranteed. What’s the best way to deal with this “leap of faith” we ask non-believers to make so they don’t have to choose from the “lesser of two evils?”

“Actions speak louder than words.” As Libertarians, we should be like a “City Upon a Hill,” and “Salt Unto the Earth.” Libertarians should be the ones with communities that have the happiest and healthiest relationships. Dumping the intellectual arguments as secondary, Libertarians should have the most loving communities in existence that drive Progressives crazy with jealousy. “By this all people will know that you are Libertarians, if you have love for one another.” ***

Instead, what do Libertarians have to show for a loving community? Ayn Rand? Why do you think non-believers reliably point to Ayn Rand’s personal life as the primary reason to discredit Libertarianism? Yes, I agree, it’s MADDENING! What’s a person’s heart have to do with their ideas? But it’s all about speaking to the Elephant. It’s about pointing to explicit, real world examples that are deeply personal and speak to the heart (and not intellect) of the individual.

Let the doubt toward charity for the needy be washed away by the demonstration of Libertarian communities. Libertarians should be known for communities filled with Love, Peace and Prosperity; “but the greatest of these is Love.”

The Libertarian movement has enough Prophets and Kings. What we need is a revolution of Priestly love. What we need are “Elephant Whisperers” and that starts with us reflecting on our own hearts, humbling ourselves for the sake of Liberty.


What does this mean practically? Well, I’m sure as hell not an expert. But if I were to confess my sins publicly and project them onto you (as to minimize my own discomfort), here it goes:

1) Stop intellectually masturbating over how logical and reasoned you are (no one cares except you)

2) Stop mocking all those “idiots” out there who don’t know how to speak logic and reason (they certainly don’t like it!)

3) Focus on developing your own emotional intelligence (yes, a very different type of “human capital” than what Intellectuals typically tell you)

But the overarching, #1 priority is to practice and grow your Love muscles. I know. Your Elephant is bucking again. So is mine, even as I type it. LOVE LOVE LOVE. Let your Grinch heart grow!

Sorry, it’s the objective truth. Learn to Love others as they want to be Loved, or you will remain ineffective in influencing people. The reality is that those who can be convinced by Reason and Logic have already done so. The rest requires a whole lot of Love.

And lest you fail to realize that you have your own Elephant and are in denial that your Rider is not actually fully in control, you may need to work through some emotional trauma. Even I, while typing through this article, have a long way to go before I can fully embrace the message of Love.

I know. . . echhh. Just give it some time and reflect upon it. Notice how this discomfort you feel is different than the discomfort you feel when intellectually challenged with questions on the existence of Free Will, or if Truth is relative or absolute. I’d say this is a clear indicator it’s your Elephant that’s being challenged, and not so much the Rider.

See! Now you know how those whom you denigrate as idiots feel!


* Reflect upon Jesus, and how he interacted with various individuals in the Gospels. He changed his communication style depending on the individual he spoke to. Ranging from no words, “Jesus wept;” to speaking in Parables; Jesus was a master Elephant whisperer. And. . . let’s just skip those examples where Jesus rails into the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, unless your objective is to be crucified just like Jesus!

** I recommend listening to Tim Keller on preaching to the heart:

*** The Free State Project could be the most compelling argument for non-believers if the Free Staters can exemplify a loving community. Or it could be the worst thing if it breaks down into bickering over intellectual matters that non-believers don’t care about. And I would be remiss not to mention Tom Woods’ Contra Cruise! Also, all the Facebook communities being created to help support one another. Well, already, I’m sure the Libertarian community is already heading in a much more “Loving” direction. Keep it going!

Sam Harris’ Blind Spot on the Apple Encryption Debate: Tyranny

UPDATE:  2/23/2016

It’s intentional:

This whole business about “statism” I find profoundly uninteresting. This is a separate conversation about the problems of U.S. foreign policy, the problems of bureaucracy, the problems of the tyranny of the majority, or the tyranny of empowered minorities (oligarchy)—these are all topics worth thinking about. But to compare a powerful state per se with the problem of religion is to make a hash of everything that’s important to talk about here. And the idea that we could do without a powerful state at this point is just preposterous.
If you’re an anarchist, you’re either fifty or a hundred years before your time (not withstanding what I just said about artificial intelligence), or you’re an imbecile. We need the police, we need the fire department, we need people to pave our roads, we can’t privatize all that stuff, and privatizing it would beget its own problems.
So, whenever I hear someone say, “You worship the religion of the State,” I know I’m in the presence of someone who isn’t ready for a conversation about religion, and isn’t ready to talk about the degree to which we rely, and are wise to rely, on the powers of a well-functioning government. In so far as our government doesn’t function well, then we have to change it. We have to resist its overreach into our lives. But behind this concern about statism is always some confusion about the problem of religion.”



Anyone else noticing the “blind spot” that Sam Harris failed to address in his discussion with Apple for his latest podcast? Namely Government abuse of power (AKA Tyranny)?

It’s starting to become so blatant and so obvious, and I have such high respect for his intellect, that I’m starting to believe this “blind spot” is intentional.

I know he said these are his first thoughts on the subject, however, I notice a common “logic” that he exercises on a frequent basis. It seems in his discussions on various issues, he fails to properly address the reality that there are individuals with a Government title that wield a monopoly on violence. Some of these individuals may not be as “evil” as Jihadists, but are ultimately self-serving and willing to crush independent liberties if politically feasible. These individuals, should they commit these very same actions as non-Government officials, would be considered unethical, yet somehow, Sam Harris provides an “exception” clause. Sam Harris repeatedly fails to explain how a Government title exempts an individual from the standard laws of ethics that apply to the rest of us.

He pointed out some examples to support his case for the FBI which are of such fringe concerns, yet sets them up as the foundation of his argument:

1) It’s inconceivable that there would be anywhere on Earth, a room, or a physical space, where no one can gain access to forever.

2) There are people who have filmed murders on their phone, and if only the police could gain access to it, it would reveal the murderer.

3) Terrorists and criminals use the encryption to their advantage.

4) You can trust the Government to not abuse the power of decryption since you have a “court order.”



1) To equate a digital space to have the same ethics as physical space is fallacious. Primarily, no one is deprived of anything when you deprive them of your digital “space.” You can have infinite “digital” space, but you are limited to “physical” space.

2) How frequently does this actually happen per year? We may “suspect” there is some useful footage, but how many murder victims had enough time to setup their smart phones to record their own murder? This is a false premise to “authority,” made especially obvious when he said his source is a “district attorney” whom he won’t mention.

3) And so do innocent individuals who want to protect their privacy from Government bureaucrats and law enforcement who frequently demonstrate their penchant to abuse their monopoly on violence. Once this unlock tool gets released to the FBI, does Sam Harris seriously believe it won’t eventually be released to the State, County, and City level?

4) What world does he live in where the judicial system can be trusted, in the long run, to rule against Government officials that pay their salaries and give them their power?


SAM HARRIS’ LOGIC: When it comes to trusting individuals with a Government title versus individuals without a Government title, Sam Harris errs on the side of Government tyranny, because without Government tyranny, terrorists and murderers will rule the world.

Sacrifice your individual liberties under the guise of safety by your benevolent protectors: Government bureaucrats.

The Smartest People Should Wield the Greatest Resources so Stop Taxing Them!


civilizations are created by individuals; they are destroyed by collectives

I’ve been back on my binge listening to Tim Ferris’ podcast. Typically, listening to freaky smart people provide info on how they do things feels futile since their tips are so unique to their own freaky abilities. But there are some that are humble enough to be explicit as such, or are so freaky smart and unique, you’re not really taking away tips to directly apply to your life, but to contemplate further implications. Walter O’Brien was one of the latter.

Bernie Sanders will correctly point out the wealth disparity in our country, but makes the mistake that ALL “richer” people obtained their wealth unjustly so that it provides the moral right for the Government to take it back and give it to the “poorer.” We can rightly criticize the wealth generated through Crony-Capitalism (ie. Government Bailouts, artificially low interest rates, etc.) on the basis of violating the Non-Aggression Principle, but what of the immense wealth generated by many of the individuals in the tech industry that obtained it by providing such advances to our standard of life that they got filthy rich?

I’m talking about the Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Uber Founders, Elon Musk, and Walter O’Brien’s of the world. Or let’s go back in time and pick out the Rockefellers, Fords, and Edisons.

If an individual provides such great improvements to other individual lives, and demonstrated that ability over-and-over amassing huge amounts of resources (AKA Money) without initiating aggression on others, then instead of siphoning away the resources these exceptional individuals obtained and giving it to the mediocre performance of Government bureaucrats and politicians, shouldn’t we let these exceptional individuals keep 100% so that they can reinvest their greater resources to advance humanity even more?

It seems backwards that the individuals for which have demonstrated exceptional abilities to advance humanity, should have a greater proportion of their resources expropriated to individuals who’ve repeatedly demonstrated mediocre performance.

The “greater good,” in terms of advancing civilization and technological advancement, should be to allow these exceptional minds to accumulate unhampered amounts of resources through voluntary interactions to promote innovation. “Taking from the rich” and subsidizing the below-average masses hampers the progress of humanity.

I’m not advocating that we start expropriating from the mediocre and poor performers. I’m saying that we should let those, who’ve demonstrated exceptional ability through “Clean” Capitalism, to keep 100% of their resources so that they can reinvest those gained resource toward advancing humanity even further.

There is a myth that the “trickle-down” effect is false and the super rich just “sit” on their big piles of cash like Scrooge McDuck. The truth, if you go meta including the technological improvements and increased standards of living since the proliferation of Capitalism, proves this myth false. Also, can you provide a specific individual who accumulated vast amounts of resources, to simply place their money in a vault and not attempt to generate additional value?

Bernie Sanders asks the wrong question. It’s not: “How much is more than enough money for rich people so that the Government can take away the rest?” It should be: “How much more good can the exceptional do with more resources?”

Allow the smartest and efficient in our world to wield the greatest amount of resources justly obtained, and watch as all boats rise the ocean of innovation.

The Basic Intelligence Test on the Industrial Revolution

There is a basic intelligence test that occurs when someone points to the “Industrial Revolution” as an example of “Capitalism” run amok (I will also throw in today’s “sweat shops” also into the same realm of logical fallacy). They like to emphasize the Robber Barons, Child Labor, working conditions, soot, and other things, that when compared to today’s standard of living, seem criminal.

I will admit that I was once of the same mindset being brainwashed by the public education system, but I think I would’ve quickly realized my fallacious thinking had someone pointed it out to me.

The problems with the critiques against the “Industrial Revolution” is that it doesn’t properly compare conditions. The comparison should not be against the conditions of our comforts here in the United States in 2016, but should be compared against the actual, local conditions at the time in question, and those that preceded it.

Upon that view, it will become clear that the poorer working conditions of the Industrial Revolution (when compared to average working conditions and standard of living in the United States in the present) are actually SUPERIOR working conditions (when compared to average working conditions and standard of living in the locality of the specific time). And when you consider the incredible increase in the standard of living IN THANKS TO “Capitalism,” you really have to wonder if the “better alternative” really can be any “better.” It’s not to say that “Capitalism” doesn’t have its weaknesses, for which there exist. It’s all about perspective since life is all about trade-offs thanks to the scarcity of resources and time.

WARNING: this video presents the information with a level of mockery / sarcasm that’s not intended for those who fail to grasp this common logical fallacy. But if you don’t grasp basic logic, then you probably aren’t reading my posts anyway.


Bernie Sanders Believes 57.2% Tax is Not Paying My “Fair Share”

57.2% Total Income Tax over $406,751 while living in California.

Bernie Sanders believes I’m still not paying my “fair share.”

The 2015 tax year was the first time I’ve reached this threshold. The angry electorate are envious of the hard work invested by my Korean-immigrant parents and me resulting in annual profits over an arbitrary threshold. Now, I’m simply living in “excess.” For the crime of my success, the State will now reward me by coercing more than half of all future income.

At this point, “Politics” is a matter of self-defense and moral indignation. I will not stay silent and see my remaining 40 years of working life “redistributed” to other people’s “free” health care, tuition, welfare, and other “entitlements” via the wasteful, bureaucratic Mafia we call “the welfare State.”


If you disagree, please write in the comments exactly how my immigrant parents and I “owe” the rest of “society” for our success (AKA “Social Contract”). Also, please specify how we didn’t “earn” the success we have today (AKA “Labor Theory of Value” definition of “Exploitation”). Please also specify all the great benefits we received from the State for which we have not already paid for, therefore creating a moral obligation on us to the State to more than half of all future income (or higher if the Progressives have their way).

In the “bottom trawling” crusade of Bernie Sanders against “greed” and “capitalism,” you will find caught in the “net of State coercion and violence” those who practice “clean” Capitalism. Yes, I decry Wall Street bailouts, Corporate welfare, the military-industrial complex, the drug war, and all other forms of “crony capitalism” on the grounds of violating the “Non-Aggression Principle.” You are misguided if you believe punishing successful small business, immigrant owners in your crusade can be considered “justice.”

The reality of what you are advocating for is the use of violence and coercion against immigrant business owners. You may want to reconsider the moral “high ground” you believe you stand on.

Contemplating the Minimum Threshold for Individual Rights

For a “heavy hitter” philosophical debate, see below. But probably worthless to most people since the Utilitarian argument against spanking is overwhelming anti-spanking.

Kids don’t have the same rights as a fully functional adult. The question is whether kids have more or less rights than a fully functional adult.

Even full grown adults, when they have dementia, or a severe mental illness, cannot be seen to have the same rights of a fully functional adult since they do not have either physical/mental capabilities to act competently.

There doesn’t seem to be a clear line between what defines a “child” and what defines someone with a debilitating mental illness. So it’s possibly more like a continuum. For example, if I’m physically preventing my child (which would be initiating violence) to not touch their penis to the urinal when they are age 3, that’s “protective custody.” But if I’m still doing that when they’re age 13, then that can be seen infringing on the rights of my 13 year old who probably has full cognitive knowledge of what they’re actually doing. Who knows? Maybe it’s their “sexual preference” and they like the cold feeling of porcelain on their junk.

If “full rights” are only given to those deemed competent, and those who fail that standard receive rights that are on a continual scale from that standard, then the next question is who has the authority to measure that?

So, for example, to an “average IQ” person, someone with “Down Syndrome” would have less rights than an average person being in “protective custodian” with Guardianship. But isn’t that all relative? We all operate to some degree of imperfect knowledge. The difference between ourselves and someone who with mental handicap is to the degree by which we have imperfect knowledge. One could argue that the genetic “hardware” of the individual with mental handicap is the measurement, rather than just being willfully ignorant of an average person who doesn’t want to put in resources to gain more knowledge (can be described as a “software” limitation).

But how does one accurately measure whether the lack of knowledge is a “skill” or a “will” issue? Is it a “hardware” or “software” limitation of an individual that so hampers their mental capability requiring them to lose some of their rights and enter “protective custody?”

For children, we would say it’s a “hardware” issue along with those with severe mental handicaps. They simply don’t have the physical capacity and it would be impossible for them to have it unless they have “upgraded” hardware. For children, this “hardware” is gradually improving in its capacity as they age and their brains develop.

But once again, isn’t this all relative? And who will be the authority to determine by what continuum of rights one receives as the “hardware” increases in potential?


Let’s look into the future of a time where the average human now has literal “hardware” implanted in their brain, which we’ll call “augmentation.” Now these Augmentated humans are crazy, super smart with levels of knowledge where they literally have instant access to all of humanity of all time. In addition, they are neurally meshed with all other human beings so that they connect emotionally with all other human beings and can know what they are thinking (I recommend “Nexus” by Ramez Naam to explore this sci-fi world).

To us non-augmented individuals, wouldn’t we see these augmented humans as being almost like demi-gods? Even today, the amount of knowledge I have compared to my father (who doesn’t use the Internet), must seem like I’m some kind of crazy smart person simply because I know how to “Google” things. Any question in the world is at my fingertips. Yes, it takes effort. But compare me, augmented with the tools of “Google Now,” and compare that with my father who has to ask his friends for advice, for which are super old and just as irrelevant as he is. We are all like demi-gods in knowledge compared to those who operated pre-Internet days.

[Let’s take this a step further. Now imagine an Artificial Intelligence with perfect knowledge and instantaneous speeds to process. One second is equivalent to 1000 years of human development. The scope of the potential of AI and the “Singularity” will make even those with Augmentation to seem pitiful and limited.]

Now when it comes to the new “normal” of augmentation, won’t the non-augmented humans be seen as “mentally retarded?” Just as we see today’s “mentally disabled” as needing “protective custody,” won’t there one day be a time when we can declare the necessity of “protective custody” on non-augmented humans? Certainly from the perspective of those with augmentation, those who are non-augmented are clearly “retarded” in terms of “relativity” and “hardware.”

Another look could be aliens who come down to Earth with intelligence so superior to us, that we look like ants to them. To the super aliens, we may not fit their standard of “competence” and we may be considered easily expendable, just as we easily step on ants. Can augmented-humans really be considered “human” anymore? “Augmented” humans with genetic manipulation will seem “alien” to us today.

To those in the future (or super aliens) with much greater “hardware” and mental capacity, wouldn’t they corral all of us human beings on Earth for “our own protection” and put us all in “protective custody?”


Separate thought going back to the AI. Perhaps the AI will realize the greatest threat to human flourishing is the FREEDOM of humans to choose. If the AI has perfect knowledge (and we’re going to assume perfect power as well controlling all the world’s resources), if the AI knows our wants and needs better than we do (and can predict into the future what our needs and wants will be), AND if the AI can fulfill those wants and needs better than we can on our own, then would we, as humans, object to the AI removing our FREEDOM in order to live our life better than us?

We may reject the notion that “other people know how to live our lives better than we do,” but what if you have an outside force that IN FACT does know how to live your life better than you do?

Do humans, in order to be happy, needs to have the FREEDOM to make bad choices? Is the freedom to make bad choices, within itself, a basic component for human happiness?

If given the choice to trust the recommendation of an AI versus doing it “your way” what would you choose if you knew the AI always made the “best” choice?

I tend to follow Google Maps religiously. Before, I wouldn’t always trust it because it would often have errors, but now that it includes traffic in its calculation for the fastest route, I tend to err on the side of the directions. I’ve discovered that when I go a different route than Google Maps, I end up regretting it when I hit the unexpected traffic that Google Maps was trying to have me avoid. My mom and I have this argument all the time driving in Los Angeles with all the freeways. She has the “fastest way” in her mind, but then I’ll tell her that I’m going to defer to the ALL MIGHTY GOOGLE MAPS with its traffic calculations instead.

What if we have a “Google Maps” but exponentially bigger that applies to the “road of life” for which we live? How many times will you have to veer “left” when the “AI of Life” tells you to veer “right”, resulting in regret and the realization you should had followed the AI’s directions?!!!!

Dating decisions? Job decisions? Home purchasing decisions? Who your friends are? etc. etc. the list goes on for the freedoms we have to make bad decisions, for which a Super AI may one day essentially guide us through life.

And then. . . you have the day when the power goes out. Without the Super AI. And now people have no ability to think for themselves since they relied on the Super AI to make ALL their life decisions. Aren’t we already severely hampered when our Internet goes down? Our memory is gone. Our sense of direction is less developed. etc.

Ok. My brain is spent. Thanks for reading!


US Economics IS Foreign Policy


It really is in the “national interest” for the US to maintain, through costly wars and killing of innocents, the USD hegemony in oil sales as established by the petrodollar thanks to Nixon/Kissinger when the last vestiges of the gold standard were dismantled.

What happens when the rest of the Middle East finally gets sick of the petrodollar? What happens when Saudi Arabia collapses in its US supported dictatorship? What is the true value of the USD when printing trillions ofdollars is standard policy (AKA Quantitative Easing) and national debt doubles during the reign of a single President (both Bush and Obama)?

Yes, the military-industrial complex has blame in this, but the greater blame is the insatiable ignorance of the US electorate and the “greed” of its “entitlement” class to push politicians to greater depths of debt. Politicians ultimately are followers, and the “true leaders” are the ignorant masses. To feed and placate the masses on government handouts requires the US to be in perpetual war.

If you allow the rest of the world to freely choose which currency is strongest, without the use of coercion or threat of violence via the US military, the politicians/beuracrats know better than the electorate that the USD will collapse.

The Welfare Economy = Military State = State-Sponsored Terrorism

The Path of Least Resistance: Tyranny

Evil individuals and sociopaths, without limit to their religion (or anti-religion), Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, rich, poor, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, ideology, whether they are Capitalists or Socialists, Feminists, Social justice warriors, black lives matter, Regressive Left, PC Principle etc. are incentivized to gravitate toward WHERE they can use monopolistic powers to initiate violence on other individuals.

Is it not rational for these individuals to go down the path of least resistance to achieve their true aim: POWER? And what is the most cost effective way to achieve this POWER than through the mechanism by which has the monopoly to initiate violence: GOVERNMENT?

In the same way, when you look at a Democracy, where a large percentage of individuals are on Government payroll either through welfare benefits or direct employment, is it any surprise that they would vote in their own self interests regardless of the mechanism by which they receive the “benefit?”

After all, if two wolves and a sheep get to vote on what’s for dinner, is it any surprise what the results will be? The wolves will make all sorts of intellectual arguments as to justify for themselves the initiation of violence on the sheep. And of course, the “sheep” are simply being “selfish” and “greedy” in order to protect themselves from the “tyranny of the masses.” Thus is the reality of our society.