Aaron Judge and Legacy

Soon Aaron Judge will break Roger Maris’s home run record for the Yankees.

Some are touting it as the real record for home runs in a season – 62.

They believe that Barry Bonds is not the true owner of the major league record for home runs in a season – 73 – because he was allegedly doing steroids.

They are wrong.

Barry Bonds is the legitimate owner of the major league record for home runs in a season on two levels.

First, the executives of Major League Baseball looked the other way during the steroid era. They knew that the players were doing steroids; they didn’t want to know that the players were doing steroids. They looked the other way because they liked the attendance records that the home runs were bringing in.

By looking the other way, by saying nothing, they gave approval to the use of steroids. By their silence they legitimized steroids. They can’t have their cake and eat it too.

The fathers of Major League Baseball would like you to forget their role in the steroid era. They denounce players like Barry Bonds, and they now try to walk away from him and the other steroid users.

They bar them from the Hall of Fame through their sycophantic baseball writers.

Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. They don’t get to do that.

By saying nothing about the steroids, they hopped in bed with Barry Bonds (and the others) and legitimized their use.

Secondly, there’s nothing wrong with steroids in professional sports. If we are going to allow players to improve their vision with contact lenses, then steroids are just as legitimate.

If we are going to allow players to get ACL repairs and UCL reconstructions, then steroids are just as legitimate.

One set of cells in the human body does not have special rights over another set of cells.

If I am a baseball player who has excellent vision but average muscle strength, why am I not allowed to pump up my muscles to the level of Mickey Mantle?

Why is a poor-sighted player with natural muscular strength allowed to improve his vision, but another player with perfect vision is not allowed to improve his muscles through steroids?

Why does one set of cells in the body have greater privileges than another?

If we’re going to dismiss Barry Bonds’s record, then we have to dismiss all of Mickey Mantle’s records. From what I’ve been able to read Mickey Mantle would get loaded and drunk the night before the game, then he would take uppers before the game began.

Well, my friend those uppers are performance enhancing drugs. For that reason we have to throw out all of Mickey Mantle’s records.

Mickey Mantle cheated.

Is that what you want me to say?

I didn’t think so.


Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

A Letter to Michelle Obama

Dear Michelle,

Just yesterday I was watching a tape of you explaining to white people, I presume, that the reason we white people moved out to the suburbs was to get away from black people.

I will paraphrase. Try to imagine me doing an impression of you. That should be hysterical enough in itself.

“Y’ all were all trying to get away from us. We were doing all the things that we were supposed to do, and y’ all were moving away from us.“

I’d like to respond.

The white flight you are talking about occurred after World War II. This was when many young GIs were returning home from the war. It was also the time that major developers like William Levitt were building massive developments out in the suburbs.

These developments fit in nicely with the vamping up of the intrastate and interstate highway system which made it possible for people to drive their cars 25 miles away from an urban center.

Now here’s the kicker: Since most of us baby boomers were born after the war, we didn’t make any decision on going anywhere.

Being born in 1954, I didn’t have any choice of where my parents lived.

Given the parenting skills that existed in post World War II America, had I said anything, I would’ve been told to shut up.

I might also have been given a spanking.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, before permissive liberals ruined America, children didn’t dress up in black pajamas and lead their parents around with a machine gun.

Now, of course, we live in an era in which parents are completely dominated by their children.

Back in the day, parents told children what to do, where to go. And if you didn’t like it, tough darts.

Okay then, since we’ve established that baby boomers had almost zero choice and zero contribution when it came to white flight, let’s go back a generation and ask why the greatest generation engaged in white flight.

Were they racist?

Were they afraid of getting beat up by black people?

I doubt it.

The black community had not been thoroughly devastated yet. It would take Democrats running their welfare plantations three or four decades to accomplish that.

No, I think the greatest generation were afraid of another guy. I think that guy is why they left the inner-city if they ever lived there in the first place.

My dad grew up in the periphery of the Philadelphia area. Because his father was working for the railroad, he moved around a bit. For a time he lived in Wyncote. I know that he graduated from Cheltenham high school.

My mother grew up in Smyrna, Delaware which is a small town south of Philadelphia. There was no inner city there.

When they were young and poor my parents did live in West Philadelphia – 4244 Chestnut Street.

Between 1946 and 48, they lived in a one room apartment without a refrigerator. There was a private bath down the hall.

I don’t think they were afraid of people. I think people were afraid of them.

Soon after, my dad took a job at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. That’s where I was born.

When I was four years old, hardly in a position to make decisions for my family, we moved to the suburbs in Philadelphia. I grew up in Warminster.

Why did my parents move there? Was it to get away from you, Michelle?

I don’t think so. If they were trying to get away from anyone, they were probably trying to get away from Jimmy Markum.

Have you seen the movie Mystic River?

It’s a wonderful movie, and all the actors are marvelous.

In the movie Sean Penn plays Jimmy Markum.

Jimmy Markum is a tough guy who will kill people when he needs to. He plays a scary guy who sports what appears to be a prison tattoo on his back.

Laura Linney plays his lowlife, white trash wife who will readily support the evil shit that Jimmy does.

Jimmy Markum is a bad guy.

That’s probably who my parents were moving away from. In those days white people didn’t have to worry about black folk. They had enough on their hands with other white people.

Now, where we moved, there were a few black families around. I don’t remember my parents ever making a disparaging remark about black people.

One of my friends in grade school was a black boy named Dave. I didn’t have anything against him. I wasn’t raised to hate black folk.

In spite of all that, racial epithets were used freely in that era. I wasn’t immune from using them. Like all regular people, I used them. I’m not like the phony broadcasters and politicians who you hang out with, Michelle, the fakes who claim that they never uttered a racial slur, never smoked a joint, and never told a lie.

One time when we boys were playing cards I slipped and used the word nigger. I was trying to choose who would deal, and I said out loud: “Eeny meeny miny moe, catch a nigger by the toe.” I forgot that Dave was standing next to me. After I said that I looked at him, and he gave me this evil grin. Then he chased me around the room.

We were only twelve or thirteen, so I’m pretty sure we made up after that. Kids aren’t fundamentally racist.

And, unlike you and your friends, especially after you get your brains reverse-engineered by Harvard University, kids instinctively know that there’s a difference between barring someone from participating in an activity and calling someone a name.

It’s true that there was one or two people in our neighborhood who were afraid of black folk. I remember my sister telling me that her friend’s father said that he was going to sell his house if a black family moved in.

So I agree that there was a lot of fear going on. I agree that there was a lot of discrimination going on – even from William Levitt who would not allow blacks to live in his developments.

A side story to William Levitt is that he wouldn’t let Jews live in his developments either, and William Levitt was Jewish.

What do you make of that?

I think the people of the greatest generation had been programmed to believe that it was better to keep ethnic, racial and religious groups separate. I think they felt that many problems could be prevented by separating different groups. They probably felt that different sub-cultures when mixed would create more conflict and violence.

I don’t think it was overt hatred that motivated them.

I also don’t think that racial hatred motivated white people to move to the suburbs.

I think it was a combination of new areas opening up, the emergence of the automobile as a force in America to give people mobility, the creation of suburbs by people like William Levitt (yes, there is a Levitown in the Philadelphia area), and of course Jimmy Markum.

Don’t underestimate the power of Jimmy Markum. People don’t want to live around people who behave badly.

I think it’s too easy to say that white people were moving away from black people.

By the way, Michelle, why aren’t you living with the black gente who your husband represented all those years?

Why did you and Barack move to a white area on Martha’s Vineyard?

Didn’t you engage in what you accuse us of doing?

Sure you did.

You wanted to move away from Jimmy Markum.


Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

A Letter to the Republic Campaign of the UK

This letter was posted upon a YouTube site that the Republic Campaign runs out of the UK. The Republic Campaign is opposed to the monarchy.

Dear Sirs:

I admire you for speaking out. I don’t think that the authorities will allow you to substantively challenge the monarchy in a peaceful way, but I think you are brave in speaking out.

It’s important for young British minds to understand what the monarchy truly is. The monarchy is the glue that holds Criminal Corporate Britain together. The monarchy and the system of peerage is the focal point, the rallying point around which corporate Britain revolves. It has been that way for centuries.

You have your work cut out for you. You have to re-educate young British minds. The authorities will never permit you to do this within the school system. It will have to be done by word of mouth from house to house. They will censor your YouTube channels. They will censor your posts on Facebook. There is too much at stake for them to not do so.

Young British minds have to be told about the crimes of the British Empire. You have to deconstruct the hagiography that has been built up around frauds like Winston Churchill.  The programming is pervasive and goes deep into your movies and television shows.  It goes deep into the music industry as well. Look at people like Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney. They grew up as middle-class people who were crapped upon by the British upper class. Why would they seek any honors from that criminal sort?  Both these men, like eager puppies, readily lapped up the dog biscuits of empire.  They sold their souls to the elites for a few bucks.  Now they are part of the system that oppresses you.

Your fight in the United Kingdom is our fight in the United States also. We have people in the United States who are enthralled with the monarchy. Just the other day Tucker Carlson called the British Empire benign. Hardly. Talk to the people of Kenya and India about that.  The British Empire starved millions to death in India, Bengal, and Ireland. Then they blamed it on the people for breeding like rabbits. Knave Winston Dunghill was one of those voices.

Our leaders in the United States have cozied up to your monarchial upper class and have copied them. We Americans have perfected British brutality.  Our leaders here have killed 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 people in Vietnam, 500,000 in Iraq, 500,000 in Syria, 200,000 between Afghanistan and Libya. They sponsored a war in Yemen that has killed conservatively 100,000 people.  We are not even talking about the millions of people who were forced to live as refugees in tents.

Sorry, I forgot about the walking wounded and the people afflicted with PTSD.

There is nothing benign about our American empire. We do not support democracy. We do not make people’s lives better. Indeed we prop up thugs by the dozens to run and maintain our sweatshops. Here’s a list, CNBC cocksuckers: Marcos, the Shah, Trujillo, Somoza, Diem, Suharto, Machado, Torrijos, Noriega, Armas, Zia, Pinochet, and any President of Colombia. The list goes on; the hits keep on coming.

We ensure that Haiti remain impoverished so that Levi Strauss can maintain its sweatshops. There the workers fight to make five dollars a day.

There is nothing pleasant about our American empire.

Likewise, there was and is nothing benign about the British Empire. It killed millions around the globe and subjugated millions more.  It forced the Chinese to purchase opium.

Unfortunately young British school children are not taught about these crimes. They are fed fantasies about obese slobs like Churchill. Here in the USA, MIT fuckers like Joe “Society Destroyer” Kiernan lounge around the CNBC coffee table and reflect casually upon the “wisdom” of Dunghill and what he had to say about a particular situation – as if anyone should listen to a murderer like Knave Winston.

Too many people in the United Kingdom believe that the monarchy is populated by smiling, powerless doofuses and  screw ups. Knave Andrew is the poster boy for this sales pitch. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The monarchy is much more powerful than that. It is powerful because Criminal Corporate Britain revolves around that monarchy. The monarchy is the organizing influence of corporate criminality in Britain and the world.

Our leadership in the United States, once horrified by the crimes of the British Crown and well-aware of the writings of Thomas Paine, now are co-opted puppets of the Harvard Cabal which sucks the royal cock of England.

It’s not enough for people to just donate money, then walk away. They must obligate themselves to be a soldier and tell people the truth.

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Letter to Steven Hanke

This is Steve H. Hanke. He hates Bitcoin.

Does he look like a man who would respond to my email?

Not to me. He is too important.

So I will write a letter for him to you. This is in response to an article he wrote for National Review which proclaims Bitcoin a failed experiment in El Salvador.

Clearly Professor Hanke is an officer of the Empire. He has a million and one credentials. He is everything I am not. So here goes …

Dear Professor Hanke,


I am reading your recent article that proclaims Bitcoin a failure in El Salvador.  Your arguments border somewhat on mania.  I definitely detect a bias; but you are an economist, and, alas, I am not, so it’s possible you know much that I am not aware of.

1.  You state that Bitcoin was forced upon the people of El Salvador, yet only 20% of businesses there accept Bitcoin. Accepting that as the case, how is it possible then for Bitcoin to have caused such economic travail for El Salvador?

2.  You state that the cost of implementing Bitcoin was 100 million dollars, correct?  You also state that the value of that Bitcoin is now 48 million dollars.  Is that about right?  If so, it seems a stretch to state that a 52 million dollar loss is enough to crater a country whose annual government budget is about 5.5 billion. 52 million divided by 5.5 billion is 1%. Are you stating that a 1% loss is enough to crater an economy? Applying El Salvador’s presumed loss to Archer Crosley Pediatrics, my profession, would you state that Archer Crosley’s poor choice in purchasing a fur-lined sink (Steve Martin), costing 1% of his budget, cratered Archer Crosley’s pediatric practice thus prompting his lender to panic?

3.  Is it possible that the downgrade in El Salvador’s creditworthiness is in retaliation for its decision to adopt Bitcoin?  Or are there other reasons for the downgrade in creditworthiness? Maybe the government is engaging in forms of corruption that is responsible for the downgrading of creditworthiness?

4.  If adopting the dollar was a magic cure for an economy, then why is there massive inflation in other economies that have adopted the dollar either officially or unofficially?

5. If using Bitcoin in El Salvador is only one of many options in employing currency, then how is that bad for El Salvador? Doesn’t adopting Bitcoin give El Salvador greater flexibility? What is wrong with that?

6. Since, according to your resume, you are a currency expert and connoisseur, why do you object to Bitcoin? What precisely is your beef with Bitcoin? Shouldn’t people and governments be given the free will choice to either adopt or reject Bitcoin?

7. You state that Bitcoin is a speculative investment? You are right on the money with that. But is that the fault of Bitcoin? Or is Bitcoin’s high speculativeness the consequence of man’s desire to get rich? Who is at fault here?

8. Isn’t it true that Bitcoin’s value has risen over its short lifetime?

9. Doesn’t Bitcoin offer a greater degree of fungibility over gold and silver? How is this a bad thing?

10. I notice that you were involved in taming Argentina’s inflation decades ago. Suppose Bitcoin was used in all economies of the world in the future as a backup reserve to buffer inflation. Suppose that in this future we reach a point where all the Bitcoin that can be mined has been mined. Would such an adoption of Bitcoin be a good thing or a bad thing? If Argentina had possessed such an option during the Mexican peso devaluation, could the resurgence in hyperinflation in Argentina have been avoided?

11. Shouldn’t the addition of Bitcoin on a limited basis in El Salvador (clearly the case in El Salvador) increase people’s confidence in Team El Salvador?

12. If everyone in El Salvador kept 10% of their net worth in Bitcoin wouldn’t that give them some form of a safety net to protect themselves against hyperinflation? Wouldn’t that be a better option than sequestering one-hundred dollar bills? Wouldn’t that adoption help preserve wealth for El Slavadorans thus obviating pressure upon the government to print money? Won’t the adoption of Bitcoin help mitigate future rioting?

13. If Sri Lankans had been invested in Bitcoin to a value of 10% of their wealth, would that have been good or bad for Sri Lankans?

14. Why is El Salvador talking to the IMF? Isn’t it true that El Salvador’s decreased creditworthiness is largely due to excessive government spending and not the purchase of a measly one hundred million dollars of Bitcoin? And why is the IMF pressuring El Salvador to move away from Bitcoin? Why does the IMF care? Doesn’t Bitcoin make El Salvador more resilient and therefore more able to pay back IMF loans? Or is there some truth to what people say about the IMF: that its loans are designed to fail so that the US, CA, AU, NZ and GB can buy a country’s precious assets on the cheap? If that is the case, doesn’t Bitcoin represent a threat to the scam that the IMF has been running?

15. Were you pressured to trash Bitcoin through loss of position or prestige? Were you asked to trash Bitcoin? Do you stand to gain financially or otherwise by trashing Bitcoin?


Archer Crosley, MD


Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

A Bad Brand of Political Discussion

The other day Tucker Carlson told us that Greg Gutfeld had surpassed Stephen Colbert in the ratings.

Apparently this is the first time that a cable show has defeated a network show in the ratings.

We are supposed to celebrate.

Are you worried?

You should be.

As a conservative let me say this, Gutfeld is one of the most inane shows I have ever seen in my life.

If this is the future, count me out.

Through his show, Gutfeld dumbs down the American public.

His sarcastic comedy is a cheap substitute for serious discussion.

Moreover, Gutfeld recruits people into the political process who should never be there in the first place.

Politics should be boring, boring, boring.

We want it boring so that people who don’t know what they’re talking about, people who don’t read books, will go away and focus their time on the Kardashians.

By making politics exciting and funny, Gutfeld recruits clueless boobs into the voting booths.

These people will be enticed into thinking that they know the issues.

These people will then actually vote.

Gutfeld is not giving us an intelligent alternative to Stephen Colbert, he is replicating Stephen Colbert for a different group of people – conservatives.

This is bad news for us.

We don’t need any more Stephen Colberts, John Stewarts, Bill Mahers, or people of this ilk.

Nor do we need more Greg Gutfelds.

We actually need none of them.

When you watch these shows, you don’t learn anything new. All you learn are jokes.

These shows don’t cater to the truth; they cater to the cheapest quick gimmick that will gain laughs and applause.

Instead of experts or people who know what they’re talking about, you get pseudo experts in the form of Gutfeld’s friends.

You also get SNL type skits, lots of chuckling, jokes, and sexual innuendo.

It’s a morning zoo type atmosphere producing a wall of sound designed to entertain, not inform.

The Important point about all this is that legitimate criticism of establishment ideas is not even permitted. For example, both sides in the political debate nonchalantly accept without pause that Putin is the bad guy when it comes to Ukraine. Gutfeld isn’t challenging Colbert about Putin’s nature; he is opposed to sending billions to Ukraine.

Well, hold on a minute, shouldn’t Gutfeld be talking about why Putin is invading in the first place? Shouldn’t he be talking about NATO’s encroachment into Russia’s sphere of influence? Shouldn’t he talk about Ukraine’s violation of the Minsk Accords? Of course he should, but he doesn’t.

Maybe Putin isn’t the bad guy.

Uh oh, danger, Will Robinson, that’s an unapproved thought!

Both Gutfeld and Colbert both turn politics into a sporting match.

What you are watching is the Kansas City Chiefs versus the Las Vegas Raiders.

Both shows will oppose each other on every issue.

There will never be any common ground.

But what if both sides are wrong?

Perhaps the right move for Gutfeld is not to oppose Stephen Colbert on a particular issue with the cheapest of arguments, but to jettison the battle altogether.

Or better yet, to agree with the other side.

Let’s look at a particular example.

Why is it necessary for Gutfeld’s guests to reflexively oppose student loan relief?

Why not bring on educators, university presidents, and experts on education who can explain why tuition costs escalated so rapidly, and what schools did with the money.

Why why not just ask questions?

Young people on the right should not be herded into the cattle pen of mindless reflexive opposition to everything a Democrat says.

Nor should young people on the left be herded into the cattle pen of mindless reflexive opposition to everything a Republican says.

Both should be encouraged to ask questions and to gravitate toward the truth that the answers to those questions reveal.

A Republican party is not made stronger by opposing everything that the Democratic Party stands for.

Nor is a Democratic Party made stronger by opposing everything that the Republican party stands for.

Both Gutfeld and Colbert weaken the electorate by inviting you to mindlessly oppose the opposition.

They do it through jokes and stunts.

You don’t win a contest by relying on tricks.

You win a game by consistently hitting solid shots.

Democracy only works with an informed electorate.

Gutfeld and Colbert do not substantively inform the electorate.

Let me illustrate exactly how their shows do damage.

To begin with, both Gutfeld and Colbert are owned by Corporate America.

Essentially then Corporate America is foisting mob rule on the American electorate through Greg Gutfeld and Stephen Colbert.

Let’s say that in a world without comedians controlling politics there is an issue in which ten million people care enough to educate themselves. Let us suppose that those ten million people are divided evenly according to their political persuasion. There are five million people on the right, and there are five million people on the left.

Suppose on this particular issue though, eight million people believe that we should choose X as a solution whereas two million people believe we should choose Y as a solution.

Enter Gutfeld and Colbert who mob up fifty million people on each side to mindlessly oppose each other.

Suddenly the disparity dissipates. There are now 58 million people who believe that we should choose A as a solution whereas 52 million people people believe that we should choose Y as a solution.

The politicians will now look at the polling data and say that it’s pretty close to a tossup as to which solution should be chosen.

America is deeply divided, the politicians will now say as they do nothing.

Corporate America has now once again controlled the politician’s mind. Of course, Corporate America already owns the politician, but now Corporate America has made it much easier for the politician to do whatever Corporate America wants them to do given that opinion is pretty much divided.

Moreover, since Corporate America controls both shows, Corporate America can shift opinion by controlling the show’s availability, content and focus. For example, Corporate America may decide to tell Colbert to back off an issue while allowing Gutfeld to go crazy. Thus an 8 million to 2 million disparity in favor of Colbert might be converted to a 8 million to 32 million disparity in favor of Gutfeld!

This is the danger of Gutfeld and Colbert and the brand of political discussion they offer.

It doesn’t work for you; it works for the people who control the media.

The people who take the time to read books and keep informed about the issues whether right or left are rubbed out and tossed to the side of the road by the ignorant, raging mob – all in the name of democracy.

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Sex, Drugs and Hollywood Celebrities

A recent discussion on Quora centered around Jack Nicholson and his wild parties on Mulholland Drive when he was a younger man.

Apparently at these parties there was sex and drugs to be found in every room of the house.

I remarked that Jack Nicholson and others in Hollywood were the straw that broke the camel’s back for many young people who were living on the edge.

I argued that he was a poor role model that helped transform America into the sex and drug crazed culture that it is.

How many of these people would have led productive lives instead of becoming drug addicts, I wondered.

Furthermore, I added, since it was at Jack Nicholson‘s house that Roman Polanski engaged in illegal activity with a minor, perhaps Jack Nicholson should’ve been charged as an accessory before the fact for creating an “anything goes” environment that might have contributed to such an act.

Another individual on Quora remarked that he was glad that Jack Nicholson was able to lead the life that he could, that it wasn’t Jack Nicholson‘s responsibility to be a role model for anyone.

I disagree.

It doesn’t matter whether Jack Nicholson wanted to be a role model or not; when you aspire to be a movie star, and then do become a movie star, you accept that responsibility as a role model whether you like it or not.

That’s part of the job.

You enjoy even greater responsibility in a day and age where our media has become more centralized and under the control of relatively few individuals.

And that is precisely what happened as our nation evolved in the past century.

The elites consolidated their death grip upon the media, and they set out with a vengeance to destroy the moral base of the people of the United States of America.

Morality, you see, which owes obedience to a higher power such as God, is an obstacle to the imposition of ethics, a quasi-legal code, whose rules the elites will decide.

Thus the drive to eliminate the moral base of the nation.

This was accomplished though celebrity influencers.

The sexual revolution that occurred in the 1960s and subsequent decades in America was not an accident.

It was not homegrown.

It did not begin with the people and grow upwards.

It was the powers that be who control the Hollywood celebrities who engineered the sexual revolution.

The 1950s were very tame in America. That was to change in the 1960s.

This is when shows first began to express sexual innuendo. There was hardly an episode of Johnny Carson‘s Tonight Show that did not contain such titillating fare.

Johnny Carson was instrumental in mainstreaming people like Hugh Hefner. Recently in the past year, Hugh Hefner was reported by one of his lovers to have had sex with dogs – real dogs.

Big surprise.

Prior to the 1960s, sex was a verboten subject on television and in movies. You couldn’t even hint that a husband and wife shared one bed. The couple had to sleep in separate beds.

The 1960s ushered in an “anything goes” type of programming.

It’s not surprising that magazines like Playboy thrived. Playboy was the first. This was soon followed by magazines such as Penthouse and Hustler which were more over the top when it came to nudity and sexuality.

While this might seem to be an enlightened, healthy approach to sex, one could fairly argue that the sexual revolution ushered in a state of permissiveness that hurt many people living on the edge – financially and spiritually speaking.

Some people went too far.

One cartoon that was featured regularly in Hustler magazine was entitled Chester the Molester.

Many people at the time thought it was funny.

I don’t see it that way. 

I see it as encouraging bad behavior amongst people living on the fringes. The cartoon gave them license to engage in immoral activity.

Magazines like Hustler helped give rise to the legitimizing of the pornography industry.

Prior to the 1960s, adult bookstores were kept quiet and not spoken about. They were there, but they weren’t there.

As the decades progressed into the next century, pornography became mainstreamed.

Unfortunately, there are many people in the United States who do not come from good families. Many of these families are financially hurting.

Financial stress upon the family produces divorce and separation. This in turn produces a lot of angry children who are looking to channel their anger. These young people are extremely susceptible to bad influences.

Young adolescents are undergoing tremendous psychosexual growth when they experience this familial stress.

If you throw pornography into the mix, that child will be affected by that pornography. That child’s mind will be altered.

You as an adult may form an opinion about pornography; in contrast, pornography forms an opinion within your child.

I will argue that much of the social ills that we have today with pedophilia have their roots in the sexual revolution being imposed upon young troubled adolescents as they were undergoing rapid psychosexual development.

Pornography twists the mind.

Not only does pornography twist the mind, illegal drugs have their effects as well.

I have personally seen how illegal drugs destroyed my step-brother Stevie, who was hurting immensely after his parent’s divorce.

I myself had my sexual development affected by the pornography that I was exposed to as a youth. The father of a friend of mine was a big collector of pornography. My friend and I would sneak in and view his sex magazines. As I grew a little older in my adolescence, another boy brought over what were called smokers – low grade pornographic films. Many of the boys gathered around to watch these.

The people in these smokers were not like the beautiful people you see in pornographic films today; the guys were usually super-hairy and not very attractive.

I remember being somewhat frightened by these movies and images; and looking back on my life now and my ability to not get close to people – I’m an asexual – I feel my sexual development was affected by this pornography.

Like my step-brother, Stevie, I was suffering also. My father died when I was thirteen making my mind ripe for being adversely affected by poor forces of influence.

I didn’t suffer from drugs; my experience was different. As I say, I was an asexual.

The experience is different for many people.

If you examine the lives of many mass murderers, you will often find, if you dig deep into their history, a broken home. I wouldn’t be surprised if many pedophiles came from a broken home. I have read that Jeffrey Dahmer’s parents went through an acrimonious divorce when he was young. Kevin Spacey’s brother states that Kevin was brutally molested by his father when he was young.

A culture of sex and drugs harms those people who come from broken homes.

This is the culture that people like Jack Nicholson, Hugh Hefner, Larry Flint, and Bob Guccioni were aiding and abetting.

The sexual revolution didn’t do any favors for young people who were exposed to it.

Free and open sex may seem like an enlightened idea for mature adults; it is not an enlightened idea for young children and troubled adolescents who are developing.

That is why I posed the question: How many young children living on the edge have had their lives destroyed by sex and drugs when they otherwise would have invested their time and energy into studying, working, and being a productive citizen?

A lot.


Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Yippie Ki Yay

I want you to enjoy the ride of the roller coaster that is Bitcoin.

I don’t want you to get scared.

If you’ve only invested what you can afford to lose, hold on tight and enjoy the ride.

It’s a steep roller coaster, and we are on the steepest slope to the bottom of hell.


Don’t get upset.

Don’t get mad.

This is the price you have to pay when you invest in a stock, a bond, or any other type of asset.

I believe that the price of Bitcoin will go down to $7,000.

That’s just my gut. Nobody can predict the future.

I don’t know what’s going on with Michael Saylor, who must be one of the bigger Bitcoin investors, but his company, Microstrategy, might be in for a tough ride if his pockets aren’t deep enough.

I’ve never been certain of Michael Saylor and his relationship with the powers that be.

He graduated from MIT, so we know he’s a smart guy, and a member of the club.

What I don’t know is whether he is secretly working with the powers that be, or whether he has betrayed the powers that be.

I can’t know that because I’m not in the club.

To begin with, the club is not in favor of Bitcoin. The club is not interested in Bitcoin succeeding, at least not for you the regular investor.

The club loves its fiat currency.

The last thing that the club wants is for regular investors like you to be investing in Bitcoin. That’s why they’re taking it down.

They’re trying to scare you into selling everything you own in Bitcoin.

Michael Saylor is doing the opposite.

Michael Saylor is currently working against the club’s interest because he is telling everybody to invest in Bitcoin.

If he has truly betrayed the club, and is not playing a game with us, then the club will take Michael Saylor down in spades.

It’s one thing for me as a non-club member to go against the club’s wishes. I’ve never received any perks from the club, at least none that I know of.

Michael Saylor, on the other hand, has received all the perks from the club.

He may not know that.

He may think that he was the one who built Microstrategy into a billion dollar enterprise.

I don’t want to say that he didn’t help build it into a billion dollar enterprise, but it was the club that made it a billion dollar enterprise.

No club, no billion.

It was the club that got him all the contacts and customers that made Microstrategy the company that it was.

There are huge advantages to being a member of the club.

At the same time there are huge responsibilities to being a member of the club.

Being a member of the club means that you do what the club wants you to do.

Being a member of the club means that you don’t go against what the club wants you to do.

Since Michael Saylor has clearly gone against what the club wants (unless he is a mole and is playing a game with us) the club is going to teach him a lesson in spades.

They are going to cut him down to size.

They are going to make him bleed to his last drop.

For that reason I think Bitcoin will go down to $7,000 and possibly lower.

Enjoy the ride.

If Bitcoin plunges to $7,000, I will still be hesitant about buying, but I probably will buy. I’ll probably borrow some money and invest in Bitcoin.

The money I’ve invested already, as far as I am concerned, is gone, out the window.,

I don’t want to afford to put in $20,000 more, but I will if I have to.

Until then, I will enjoy the ride as it plunges into hell.


Yippie Ki Yay, mother.

PS: It is possible that Michael Saylor is acting secretly on behalf of the power elite as a Pied Piper of Hamlin – leading innocent people into buying and then selling into a plunging market, thus fleecing them out of their money. Then, when the coast is clear and nobody is looking, he flips the purchased Bitcoin back to the power elite who have been secretly supporting him all along.


Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Bitcoin’s Future

Here, I want you to look at this.

I plotted out average Bitcoin prices for these years.

2015: 325

2018: 3,250

2021: 33,250

Let’s extrapolate with some hedge room.

2026: 330,000

2031: 3,330,000

Now, would you accept that as a return for any Bitcoin you have now?

I think you would be crazy not to.

So then why doesn’t everyone do this?

For the same reason I didn’t do it with stocks: I got scared.

We see the troughs that bitcoin goes through when it plunges. Plus, the media scares the daylights out of us.

No one can scare you like the media.

Whether it’s enlarging sunspots, Joro spiders parachuting down into your community, Y2K, or any other type of calamity they happen to dream up, nobody can scare you like the media.

Don’t forget about the near-miss asteroids.

The media’s programming of fear is relentless.

Fortunately, none of these issues the media warned us about was of any significant consequence.

Generally speaking, the stock market and Bitcoin have recovered from tremendous losses before.

This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t look into things when the media begins scaring you.

What I’m trying to tell you is that things aren’t always as bad or as good as they seem to be.

The media has a way of always looking on the upside when the markets are up, and always looking on the bad side when the markets are down.

If you want to be a successful investor you have to employ equanimity.

I invested in $51,000 in cryptocurrency the past year. I have converted all of that into Bitcoin. My net investment is now worth about $21,000.

That looks like a bad deal, right?

It looks like I should sell, especially since they are predicting that Bitcoin will fall to $7000.

Well, even if they do I’m going to have to stay in for the ride.

That’s what I did about a decade ago when I invested in Las Vegas Sands. I purchased Las Vegas Sands as it was plummeting.

The reason I kept buying was because I believed in the product. I would stay at the Venetian all the time before and after the 2008 collapse.

It was my home away from home.

I knew they had a good product. I knew they had a future. I read the income statements and balance sheets. I knew they were expanding throughout Asia. I would listen to Sheldon Adelson on conference calls. He didn’t seem worried at all. He remarked sardonically on one conference call that the media thought that his company was going to hell in a hand basket.

Obviously he was of a different opinion.

I kept buying into Las Vegas Sands because I had confidence in him and the company.

That is what calmed my media-induced fears.

I feel the same way about Bitcoin.

Now, of course, there is no CEO of Bitcoin that I can listen to on a conference call.

But I can listen to people who know more than me, people like Max Kaiser and Michael Saylor.

They don’t seem worried, and I assume that they have large investments in Bitcoin, just like Sheldon Adelson had a large investment in Las Vegas Sands.

Listening to their arguments, what they say seems to make sense to me.

Now, I don’t think that Bitcoin will have the huge returns that it did early on, but I still think there is room for significant growth.

There is even more room for growth when Bitcoin plunges some more.

Will I buy more, if Bitcoin plunges to $7000?

Probably not because I’ve already exceeded the limit that I have set for myself when investing in any particular stock or asset class.

Just because I have confidence in something doesn’t mean I’m going to bet my whole fortune on it.

Now if you were asking me to bet on my Pediatric practice, of course I would invest in it. It’s mine. And I get to call the shots on what I do on an every day basis.

Unfortunately, for Bitcoin, there are a lot of enemies out there who can do a lot of damage to it.

I can’t control all those factors.

Nor can I ever afford to underestimate the ruthlessness and greed of the misguided power elite who currently view Bitcoin as an enemy. There is a reason why the power elite are rich, and that reason is not altruism.

Nevertheless, I think the future for Bitcoin is bright, regardless of the fear the media conjures up.

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Our Elections

Are our elections legitimate?

It depends which ones you’re talking about.

If you mean the ones for dogcatcher and your local representative, yes, I think they are.

If you’re talking about presidential elections and elections for senator and governor, I would say that the significant races are not legitimate.

Let’s just say that if the power elite want a certain person in power, they will move heaven and earth to achieve that result.

That doesn’t mean that they will always prevail; but it does mean that they will try to rig the election.

I don’t know why this should be a surprise to Americans as elections have been rigged for centuries now, not only here in the United States, but abroad as well.

Napoleon and his brothers rigged plebiscites in France in the early 1800s. They wouldn’t even bother to use numbers that would indicate legitimacy. They would use rounded numbers such as 16 million to 4 million.

Now, that’s audacity.

Unfortunately, in the United States we have a ruling power elite that insists on prosecuting this Frank Capra mirage of honesty upon our presidential elections.

Many Americans are happy to live in this fantasy world despite evidence to the contrary.

There is no convincing true believers that the election of Joe Biden in 2020 was illegitimate just as there is no convincing true believers that the election of George Bush in 2000 was illegitimate.

The myth of election integrity is a vital part of our American culture now.

The ruling elites need you to believe in this myth so that they can continue their policies which enrich them and impoverish you.

Numerous examples abound. Look at the problems around you.

Better yet, look at what isn’t around you.

Where is high-speed rail that can safely take you to another city 250 miles away in one to two hours? Wouldn’t that be a lot more convenient for you in the age of Uber and Lyft? Wouldn’t it be better for you to save all that mileage on your car while taking the train, and then taking an Uber when you get there?

That’s one example. I’m sure you can think of more than a few off the top of your head.

Where is the economy that makes its own useful things for its own citizens? Instead we are given a war economy which makes things to be used for killing other people in far away places like Yemen and Ukraine.

Why is that?

Why can we not fix homelessness? You know, of course, that homelessness is a racket now. Yes, that’s right. Most of the federal money that goes to fix homelessness largely goes not to the people who need it, but to the hucksters who profit off the homeless. Those would be the slumlords who kick out long term renters and convert their units to $100 a night bonanzas.

A real solution would entail preventing homelessness by giving people real opportunities with well-paying jobs. But, you see, that doesn’t profit the power elite who profit off misery, thus they will never undertake measures to help you.

A legitimate electoral system will never be a panacea to fixing our problems, but it is a step in the right direction.

There is no reason why we cannot have a secure electronic method of voting which includes a reasonable method of secure identification.

My various banks over the years have not made a mistake by even as much as a penny in over fifty years, so why isn’t that possible in our elections?

It’s isn’t possible because the ruling elite don’t trust you.

They think you are a bunch of schmucks who are too stupid to understand basic issues.

To a certain extent that may be true; there are a lot of stupid people out there. But, there are a lot of smart people out there too who don’t get any opportunity to express themselves except through an election.

An illegitimate election process disenfranchises them.

A legitimate election process is a threat to the ruling elite who are focused on money-making rackets such as war, welfare, and the prison industry rather than your welfare.

What would a legitimate election process look like?

It would not only involve electronic identification of voters but also a decentralization of the electoral process in the manner that our Founding Fathers had envisioned.

Our Founding Fathers weren’t stupid, you know. They weren’t born yesterday and dried under a leaf. They had a lot of experience with elections and corruption, and they knew a thing or two.

They devised a system that has been gradually transformed over the past two centuries. Your senators are not elected in the manner that the Founding Fathers had intended. That was all changed with the 17th amendment. That was a mistake.

Under the old system, your US Senators were chosen by your state legislature, not by direct vote. While it may seem to be an improvement to have you choose your US Senator, it really is not. It really works to your disadvantage. In several ways.

  1. Your state representative, who you can know, knows the global issues of your state better than you do. Your US senator is supposed to represent the interests of the state in which you live, not what the national conversation is on abortion or homelessness. Does this make sense? Under direct vote by citizen, the national media can pivot the election of the senator on national issues – not local issues more relevant to you. Under direct vote by citizen, your senator becomes a viceroy from Washington – which is what the power elite desire.
  2. You can easily know your state representative who in turn will know the senator who will represent you in Washington. Thus you are one person removed from knowing a senator – which is pretty good. You can then know the guy who knows the guy. Currently, you don’t know your senator; your senator doesn’t know you. Furthermore your senator doesn’t have the time for you because you are one amongst millions. Your senator currently has more time for Hollywood celebrities and leaders of corporations who he or she assumes represents you.

It’s no coincidence that America has become a centralized war-making machine since the 17th amendment was adopted. If we are to return it to a decent republic that 17th amendment needs to be modified or repealed.

The argument for the 17th amendment was that US senators were chosen in smoke-filled rooms, and that, because of political conflict, some US senator weren’t seated at all. My response to that would be the following: Yes, senator were chosen in smoke-filled rooms, but it was your smoke-filled room with representatives that you selected. It’s far better for it to be your smoke-filled room than Washington’s smoke-filled room. As for US senators not being seated at all, a simple tie-breaker methodology could fix that. It would be far better to have a coin flip to elect a US senator than to adopt the 17th amendment which has given us this dysphoric war economy that we now live under.

Likewise the presidential election was changed also. You the citizen as originally intended did not vote for president; that was done by members of Congress – which was the superior way, because, again, they know the issues better, and secondly, because you can know the guy who knows the guy. With direct vote, it’s virtually impossible for you to know the president. With direct vote, the president is elected by the media, controlled by the power elite, who are only too happy to chaperone you into the cattle pens of opinion that they desire. Additionally, the presidential campaign becomes a joke, a silly contest of one-liners and tearjerker rejoinders.

It would be far better, and cheaper, to have our president chosen by members of Congress than by us. Do you see why? You will know the guy, who knows the guy who elects the president. The presidents in turn will know the guy who knows the guy who knows you. When you know someone they are more responsive to you because they know who butters their bread.

You aren’t getting that now. What you’re getting now are senators and presidents who are too far removed from you.

An electoral system of indirect election of senators and presidents is the superior model. That combined with rational and reasonable secure voting should make for a better life for Americans.

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

What’s Going on in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka is exhibiting a crisis. 

What is the crisis, and why are they experiencing it?

The main problems that Sri Lanka is suffering are shortages and severe inflation.  Savings are being wiped out through inflation.  Commodities are hard to come by.

Why are they experiencing this crisis?

Primarily through government mismanagement.  Secondarily through bad luck.

Sri Lanka’s economy depends upon the following:

  • Rice exports
  • Tourism
  • Foreign Remittances (Sri Lankans working abroad sending money back home to mom)

A nation’s economy is like a person’s economy.  You have to take in enough money to pay for things.  If you take in a lot of money, you can buy a lot of things and times are good. If you don’t take in any money, you can’t buy anything and times are bad. 

It’s very much like losing your job: you’re broke.  

What happened to Sri Lanka is that three things came together about the same time to do damage to their economy.

A few years ago, the government decided to go organic with regard to fertilizers.  They listened to the hippies and wanted to be the first country to be “chemical fertilizer free”. When they did that, the yield of their crops plummeted. They therefore didn’t have enough crops to sell.  The result was that net income for the economy went down.

Then there was the pandemic. When the pandemic hit, tourism obviously plummeted. In addition to that the pandemic forced closure of borders worldwide. Sri Lankans who work outside their own country and then sent money back to the country through foreign remittances were unable to do so.

Thus, plummeting exports, decreased tourism, and decreased foreign remittances plunged the economy of Sri Lanka into chaos. The government and people didn’t have enough money coming in, and their country wasn’t resilient enough to be self-sufficient; consequently, Sri Lanka had to borrow money to stay afloat.

It’s like when you want to eat and you’re broke. You have to put money on the credit card.

Of course, Sri Lanka had been borrowing money before the pandemic, before these crises, but now they had to borrow more.  

The problem that Sri Lanka faces now is that the people of the world now know that Sri Lanka is a debtor nation and unable to pay.  Consequently, they are unwilling to loan more money or even sell them goods.  Thus the shortages.

It’s kind of like when you run up a tab at a store and never pay.  Sooner or later the store is going to cut you off.

Here is a nice picture that depicts trade balance and what it does to a nation.

When you have shortages in the economy, the price of the goods goes up. It goes up because you have, relatively speaking, too much money chasing a smaller amount of goods.  

In other words, the price of gasoline and food goes up.

When the price goes too high, the people become unhappy. They start to assemble and riot.  Other countries notice this and become frightened. They wonder whether they should continue to sell there.

What most governments do in a time of crisis like this is to devalue their currency.  Essentially what the nation does is print up lots of paper money so as to give to the people.  That way they can afford things.  In addition, devaluing the currency makes it easier for foreign countries to buy your products.  That’s because their (the other country’s) currency has greater purchasing power for your goods.

Of course, other nations are watching what is going on. They see that the currency of Sri Lanka is being devalued.   They are not interested in that because when a country devalues its currency, it becomes more difficult for the people of the country where the currency is devalued to buy foreign products. 

Here is a diagram that demonstrates the effects of devaluing or depreciating a currency.

Of course, devaluing the currency is only a short term band-aid.  Devaluing the currency only leads to further devaluation.  It’s like a dog trying to catch its tail.  The harder the dog runs, the more its tail slips away.

What is needed is often what leaders reluctantly engage in: Thought.

Sri Lanka’s leaders needs to sit down and think about its economy. They need to ask themselves where they want to be five and ten years down the road. They need to ask themselves what type of economy will work for the people of Sri Lanka.

Is it sustainable to rely principally on tourism and foreign remittances?  Most countries that rely on tourism are generally poorer countries.  Foreign remittances put you at the mercy of another nation.  In that scenario you are not an owner, but an employee.

Is it possible for Sri Lanka to be more self-sufficient? Can Sri Lankans do for themselves what others will not?

Sri Lanka’s crisis is illustrative of the problems with globalism as it currently exists.  A more self-sufficient country can help immunize Sri Lanka against the breakdown of communication channels with other nations such as what occurred with the pandemic.

The answer is not to borrow your way out of the problem. Should Sri Lanka decide to borrow their way out through the IMF, they will put themselves in a dependent position.  Further compounding the problem is that the IMF is run by crooks who play hardball.  

If Sri Lanka goes the way of the IMF, the IMF can start dictating the shots in Sri Lanka.  They can impose austerity measures; they can influence elections; they can rape Sri Lanka for centuries. 

Currently, many people from Sri Lanka and India are angry at the Chinese because the Chinese refuse to restructure Sri Lanka’s debt to China. Maybe the Chinese know something that the people of Sri Lanka do not:  It’s better to eat the pain now and pay your debts.  Doing so will force the leaders of Sri Lanka to rethink their economy.

Furthermore, why should China restructure the debt until they see that Sri Lanka has made substantive reforms in their policy?  Restructuring Chinese debt without substantive change only kicks the can down the road. In fact, it puts Chinese investment in greater peril.

So what would I recommend for Sri Lanka to get over the short term crisis.

  • Slow pay your current debts. Paying something is better than paying nothing. 
  • Sell off the Gucci shoes and unnecessary assets.
  • Get rid of HBO and other luxury expenses.  
  • Pay off the debts that have the lowest balances yet biggest monthly payments.  What you want to do is restore gain – the ability to take in more than you play out.
  • Ramp up production. You have to go back to work.
  • Sell future tourism packages on the cheap today.
  • Sell future rice today on the cheap.
  • Sell some real estate.
  • License out your minerals.
  • Slowly, slowly, slowly take money out of circulation.  This can be accomplished by raising interest rates which effectively sequesters money away inside banks.
  • Start sharing amongst your citizens.  Everybody has to be in this together.

Above all, do NOT borrow your way out of debt. Do not let those fuckers at the IMF get their hooks into you.

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022   Archer Crosley   All Rights Reserved