Archive for August, 2011

Fall of Libya

Sunday, August 28th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that people who are celebrating the downfall of Muammar, are foolish as they are ignorant. Muammar was nothing but, a glistening turd, freshly dropped from a dog’s ass, a ruthless tyrant, some say was clinically insane and perpetrated many evils on the people of Libya and Lockerby Scotland. But none the less, his overthrow will lead to much more chaos and bloodshed in the World, than if he had been allowed to stay. Glistening the whole time.

The most important reason it is stupidity incarnate to have toppled him is the message it sends to other Middle East Tyrants and tyrants the World over. Muammar, the glistened, was the only tyrant on the planet to actively give up his nuclear weapons program, put his chemical and biological weapons under UN supervision and pledged to the Non Proliferation Treaty. That is why Bush renewed diplomatic relations with Libya.

Now look at Obama’s reaction, to Syrian president for life, Bashar’s, killing of scores of his people. Only now, after months of bloodletting, has Obama applied any really stinging rhetoric to the situation. Syria sits in quiet comfort, that Obama will not attack unless Bashar is as stupid and ignorant as was Muammar… and publicly give up nuclear weapons. Remember the plant the Israelis shot up in the desert? It was quickly and quietly disassembled and stolen away before any International observers could get there.

What was Obama’s reaction to the uprisings in Iran, the country that is most openly in violation of the nonproliferation treaty. Iran has an ongoing ICBM program, medium and short range missile programs; with a focus on attaching a nuclear warhead as the payload. Iran was supposed to conduct an underground nuclear test with North Korea, (who sits safe from invasion or bombing in the knowledge of having a tested a nuclear weapon), but was supposedly postponed by the Japan Earthquake and openly threatens it’s neighbor with annihilation and tacitly the rest? Obama’s reaction was that the people should remain calm… in Iran.

When Iran tracked dissidents even into Europe and the US, threatening their relatives with torture and execution to keep them quiet, there was a resounding silence from the Obama administration. But when Riots erupted in Egypt however Obama was quick to call for Hosni to step down. Hosni did, and the violence has escalated, with the Moslem Brotherhood now in firm control of the military. Lately we hear of widespread calls for the annulling of Carter’s Peace Treaty with Israel in Egypt.

What message does all this send to all the other tyrants around the World? Keep your nuclear weapon program active, if you don’t have one, get one going, it is the only protection from the US military. Muammar gave them up and was being bombed within six years. Iran didn’t and is caressed by the Obama administration. Egypt was at peace and was overthrown by Obama and an anti Israeli regime set up.

Libya has been fighting a sixteen year Islamic rebellion. If, Muammar the glistened, couldn’t put it down, it must have deep root within Libyan society. Deep roots are what allow perennials to get a head start on annuals in the garden. Deep roots allow plants, that have them, to weather droughts and store up better from rain. It will be those deep roots that will give the Islamic radicals in Libya the upper hand in the upcoming political struggle. Well, that, along with their absolute disinterest the weak emotion of compassion.

Now that the US and NATO, have delivered Libya and Egypt into the hands of Islamic radicals and the tyrant of Syria wavering, the vultures of the World community are circling. All hoping to get a small bite before the Islamic radicals take over the carcass. Of course the Islamic radicals will stop there. They have no expansionistic intentions. No, they only want to live under Sharia… well them and everyone else the World over. All help along with your tax dollar, Euro, Pound, Dinar…

Yea, keep setting up pernicious incentives for tyrants. No way that could go wrong. Make it against their interests to give up nuclear weapons. Demonstrate it in Libya and then stand in bewilderment at the fact that every tyrant in the World runs to them as fast as they can. So yea, I call it stupidly ignorant to cheer at such idiocy! What help, to carefully remove a glistening turd that has been stepped on, from atop a pile, a mile deep, of glistening turds?

But, if actions be the true measure of a men’s intentions and rhetoric a mere reflection on a cave wall, then the intentions of the Obama administration and the leaders of the European Union are clear. If sociopathic…

Regulation and the Principle Agent Dilemma

Thursday, August 25th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Chief Executive Officers, COEs, of large corporations have many of the privileges as owners of large companies, but have none of the responsibilities. As we see empirically with teenagers, people who are given freedom, without responsibility, often run amok. Perhaps this is a large part of why the corporate structure of today’s firms show such a divergence from the will of the principles, (the stock holders). This is often described as the “Principle/Agent dilemma.” This question and the questions it brings up have great import to the economic well being of humanity.

Of course there are some responsibilities for a CEO but they pale in comparison to that of an owner. An owner is actually personally responsible for his or her company. But the CEO has many layers of responsible people under him or her. They sometimes get responsibility when a corporation is caught,. Enron and MCI are the only two I can think of readily, where the CEO was held responsible. But, wait, the CEO of MCI was the owner, and the CEO of Enron was also an owner… Goldman or JP Morgan?

The modern CEO, more often than not, is paid far higher than most owners… historically. So we can safely say some CEOs are paid more, as a percent of profit, then some owners. With higher pay and less personal responsibility, the modern CEO, (agent) has less incentive to meet the needs of the stockholders (principle). As the group of CEOs that fall within the some that make more as a percentage of profits than an owner then we can safely say, that the interests that those corporations are governed for, will increasingly be for the agents and not the principles. In fact the very actuality of a CEO getting paid more than an owner of a similar company in size, scope, profits and industry, prove that that company, at least, is governed in the interests of the agents not the principles.

Government could address this problem and many others by adopting a new paradigm for regulation. Take for example the modern incarnation of regulation, “A minimum 5/8 inch nylon braded rope must be used to lash. The lashing must be 6 turns per linear foot, with 2 inch spacing…” Regulated to the minutest detail. Now I have no problem with government researching best practices but regulating to the nth detail is absurd. One problem with it is It stifles innovation for better practices.

Maybe a better way would be to regulate outcomes. Instead of regulating how a thing is done regulate the results of it’s manufacture. Take the rigging industry. There is a common set of safety standards and well researched levels of injuries. We can say that there is a background level of injuries in any industry. This level of background of injuries would form the basis of outcome based regulation. Lets say for arguments sake, that there are 10 major injuries per 10,000 hours worked in Abc industry with 1 death. If we base regulation on an injury rate of 1/10,000 and regulate Abc industry accordingly, then if the rate of injuries exceeds that rate then the industry is drastically penalized.

But don’t fine the shareholders, fine the CEO and board of directors, threaten the top corporate brass with jail. If the injury rate goes up beyond a certain set point then the CEO would be held personally responsible for the increase in injuries. This is the only way to back off on some safety regulation. Otherwise, people being people, safety would immediately slack off and the rate of industrial accidents would skyrocket. But if outcome based regulation were enacted, first, (it exists in a lesser form today), and advertised it, the background rate of industrial accidents could be lowered while the productivity of our industries would be raised.

With the positive externality of better corporate governance. The potential of lower accident rates, or any other rate that regulation seeks to mitigate, allowing a greater percent of the workforce to remain productive throughout their lifetimes, and a better handle on the corporate principle agent dilemma make this an idea who’s time has come. Let us not forget that as the productivity of a society grows so does it’s innate wealth. No matter where you are on the societal ladder if the whole ladder goes up you rise too.

Animal or Human?

Sunday, August 21st, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, for a person to start a homestead, he must cut the trees, pull the stumps, kill anything that ventures on his land to take his vegetables, and fence in new animals that are alien to the area. He must do this else die; that is the nature of life. Moreover the immorality of it is lost on those displaced who are incapable of understanding the most basic moral concept. So to say that it is wrong for a human to live as a human must live is to say that morality should be eliminated from the world. To argue that morality requires the elimination of morality, is an absurdity because it in itself is immoral, but If someone intends to eliminate morality from the World, then we all are involved.

This is based on a similar quote from Einstein. He was speaking to the fact that humanity must survive and that our survival harms other creatures, just as the survival of a lion depends on the destruction of gazelles, or a beaver’s survival depends on it’s destroying a meadow and turning it into a marsh, we change the landscape to meet our needs. But our survival means the survival of the ability to make moral distinctions. It is in that, that we as a species, are singularly entitled to survive.

If our entitlement to survival, at cost to other species on the planet, is because of our ability to make moral distinctions, as Einstein averred, then to throw away the ability, for some political reason, would be utter insanity, wouldn’t it? Say for example if some extremely deluded person said we should hold all societies as equal, murdering a child is a choice, or that we should abandon our entire moral foundation and simply become a Brave New World?

The point being that if we eliminate our individual sense of moral consideration then we are lowered to the status of mere animal. Which is the goal of the anti capitalist, to lower mankind to animals, controlled animals to be sure… but animals none the less. The form they see as perfection is the ant. No sense of individuality and willing to die simply to be a footstool, that is what the anti capitalist wants for humanity. Us and our children but not them and theirs.

History is rife with examples of anti capitalist tyrants of the past trying to lower men to beasts. Lenin with his savagery in the years after the revolution, Stalin with his purges and famines, Mao with his cultural revolutions and imposed famines, in some cases, overtly, to turn the people’s belief away from God. Che and Fidel praised the willingness of youth to murder. They reveled in the blood they caused to be spilled.

The rhetoric that the anti capitalist uses whenever anyone stands up for liberty and freedom is freighting. They call such people war criminals and butchers. The unbiased media agree wholeheartedly with the anti capitalists, until they too are attacked, but by that time there is no one who can stand up for the duplicit fools. Venezuela is one such example of duplicit fools collecting their wages.

Since an anti capitalist cannot stand logically toe to toe with a pro capitalist, in logic, they must personally destroy their opponent, ad homonym, so they never have to argue, logically, their goals and means. Because who would agree that people should be lowered to the state of animals? Unless they too are deluded fools who seek the same wages as the unbiased media. Even though, they themselves may deny it, even to themselves.

In the end, if the anti capitalists win, and they create a Brave new World for us and our children to live in and we are actually lowered to the level of mere animal, then by what right, do we destroy and change such large swaths of the planet? Maybe, most of us, once reduced thusly, will simply be rounded up and eliminated. After all, don’t the anti capitalists always complain about population of us being too high (not them). If the population of deer become too high we just hunt them until their population is sufficiently lowered. An animal is an animal… right?

The only question really is… are you and your children animals, with all that entails, or human beings capable of making moral distinctions?

On Class Mobility

Thursday, August 18th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the real measure of the justice in a society, both hypothetical and existing, is to measure the level of class mobility in that society. Other devices and accepted wisdom, used now, like the gap between the rich and poor, should be discarded as the sophist notions they are. I believe that if we moved to a more accurate means of measuring the justice of a society, from a spurious one to a actual measure, our lives would be greatly improved.

There are several means already in use by economists to measure class mobility, they are all functional and so the choice is up to the observer. I would suggest a good way to rectify the disparate measures is to aggregate them into one number that takes all the existing measures into account. The method is already available but it is mostly disregarded.

The unbiased media constantly bring up the spurious notion of the gap between rich and poor. They never mention that the way it is measured differs from country to country. For example, in France government dole is taken into consideration but in the USA it is not. This makes the two measures entirely incompatible and useless. But they are cited in the press all the time. Erroneously as it turns out.

But what makes the sophist measure of the “gap” spurious is that it is a means to diminish class mobility and thus restrain true justice from a society. The “gap” is often cited as a reason for this or that income tax. The new or increased tax supposedly will address some inequity in society on the face of it. The real reason the truly rich like to raise taxes is that higher taxes are levied on the entrepreneurs not the truly rich. As a result, taxes, especially income taxes, are friction to class mobility.

Because income taxes are on income not capital gains. Capital gains is levied on the truly wealthy who’s income is almost entirely from capital gains. This puts the likes of Warren Buffet, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, among others, in the fifteen percent bracket, while the people who mow their lawns are taxed at twenty eight percent.

That is what is so laughable about Warren Buffet claiming he doesn’t pay enough tax, he doesn’t want taxes raised on him, he wants taxes raised on us. No one is holding him back from paying more taxes. The law only comes after you if you don’t pay enough. But he is smart enough to know that income taxes are a drag on class mobility. Those that are trying to get rich are taxed to death but those that are rich are protected.

Which is the argument of Joseph Schumpeter, that the entrenched wealthy seek to close the door to others lest they themselves move down the societal ladder. A worry of De Tocqueville‘s. But if you think of it, isn’t that the definition of a meritocracy? That those who’s personal virtue, (in the modern, capitalist sense of a virtuous person), raises them above the rest of us to become wealthy. While the corrupt and decadent wealthy fall from the heights their parents or grand parents placed them.

Is it really a good use of governmental power to keep certain people wealthy, generation after generation, at the expense of the whole of society? Does it make sense to wield the power of government to stifle economic growth because it threatens the powerful? No, those that wield government to the ends of oligarchs, are simply despicable. Those that are despicable use sophistry and spurious logic as their favorite tools and can be recognized by the tools they use.

Nothing is done better in the dark, from juggling chainsaws to Indy car racing, (that’s why cars have headlights),darkness is a deterrent to quality work. Using a defective measure for anything is similar to working in the dark. Self imposed dark but no less dark. So when we find that a measure we are using is defective it is in our collective interests to improve it or replace it with a better one and move out of the darkness into the light. In our case, to toss out the trite metaphor of the “gap” and replace it with a true measure of social justice, class mobility. If that is done it will be obvious what countries are just and how just they actually are socially or otherwise…

London Calling…

Sunday, August 14th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, I once heard a saying, it went like this, “You don’t defecate where you eat.” This saying, while more crudely stated the way I heard it, has many applications, not the least of which is the London riots. In the case of the rioters we see people who are clearly defecating not only in their kitchen but in their actual flour. Unfortunately most all of us eat from the same flour bin.

This violence is ginned up by anti capitalists. It is always in the interests of anti capitalists to have unrest in society. The anti capitalist feeds from violence and unrest like a vampire feeds on the blood of it’s victims. The vampiric anti capitalist draws sustenance from violence as the capitalist draws sustenance from harmony. Peace being a prerequisite for business to thrive.

Since absolute power is the aim of the anti capitalist or protyranist, it must create the environment where normal people, with a modicum of common sense, will choose a path that is obviously not in their self interest. There are two avenues that have worked in the past. One is hatred of some group, say the Jews, the other is to cause such violence and disquiet in society, that the common person will turn to a tyrant to enforce the peace. Machiavelli had a great deal to say on this subject.

So, if the anti capitalist – protyranist, finds itself in a benevolent society, it tries at first to pick some group that it believes will be easy to vilify, say for example the “rich.”. Then the protyranist, using the mechanisms of culture; art, media and rumor, turn society against that group. Once the vampiric protyranist believes that hatred is at it’s apogee, it will open the jugular of violence… and feed.

Violence and hatred combined, are a powerful force, enough to crack an opening in society, even a virtuous society, that will allow an oppressor to come into power. Hitler was just such a tyrant. He was vehemently anti capitalist, hated almost every other race of people and thrived by violence. In the end he visited ruination on the people of Germany and most of the rest of the World.

These children, rioting in the street, are just ignorant. They are ignorant because they have never been taught better. Perhaps because of political correctness, nothing is actually wrong, morality is perspective dependent and so forth…

No more corrosive sophistry has ever been taught. The total attack on God, by the protyranist anti capitalist faction, is incessant and culturally oppressive. The mere mention of the name, Jesus Christ, in far too many circles, sends shudders down the backs of the “enlightened”. Enlightened fools is what they really are, or as it has been put before, helpful idiots.

They are helpful to their future oppressors. Those that vomit into the culture the sophistry of political correctness and diversity, those who only seek to create the conditions to seize power, then political correctness will be extinguished, like Leon Trotsky, as it will no longer be of use. The US is the big prize though. If it can be destroyed, the best example of capitalism can be extinguished. Put out the light on the hill and everyone will be groping in the dark. That is where vampires feed best isn’t it?

How stupid is it for the rioters’ parents to allow their children to be so ignorant? But then again, the modern welfare state takes children away from the parents at as early an age as possible, to minimize parent’s civilizing influence from happening. The parents are marginalized in the modern welfare state. So we have no further to look than the accomplices in the government who have allowed the Protyranists to make the children so stupidly ignorant. They need only look in a mirror to see who abets the crime.

Helpful idiots are what these rioters are in the end. They are not destroying someone else’s property. They are destroying their own. Most of them live by the suffrage of the welfare State. As the ability of the economy in a welfare state is damaged, the ability of the welfare state to feed the indigent’s it creates, is eroded as well. So it is not out of reach to say that the Marxist rioter, who destroys the economy that he draws his sustenance from, is essentially defecating where he eats.

Kind of gross isn’t it?

Our Economic Witch Doctors

Thursday, August 11th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that a doctor, who prescribed only pain killers and did nothing to remedy (set) a broken leg, would be guilty of malpractice. That malpractice would be compounded if that doctor then told the patient with the broken leg to go jogging. The patient, or victim, would soon succumb to blood clots. The relatively minor broken bone would manifest into a truly life threatening condition due to the doctor’s negligence. Today in the sphere of macro economics we have “doctors” who prescribe painkillers in the form of Quantitative Easing Three (QE3) or ramp up the rate of inflation for a few years to 4% to whittle away at the deficit. Along with many other painkillers that will continue to compound the problem. We are all effected by this economic malpractice in our retirement accounts, job prospects and general well being. But our kids are really going to take it on the chin.

The pernicious effects of inflating away the deficit are many, I’ll just describe one, to save space. High inflation raises interest rates. The real rate of interest is simply interest paid, subtract the rate of inflation. If an interest rate paid is 5% and the rate of inflation is 4% the real interest rate paid is 1%. Now remember, that most if not all of the long term bonds sold by the US government recently, are paid at a rate of less than 4%. Coincidentally this will give every person or entity, that purchased them, a real negative interest rate. People will sell them at a loss to get out of them. This will cause fears to not only remain high but exacerbate them with evidence! This will lead to a slowing of the already anemic economy.

Quantitative Easing or QE as it is called, is nothing more then the Fed printing money and buying bonds with it. QE3 may involve some new and exciting play on the old theme but it will diminish every dollar you and I hold, as much as the value is printed. To put it simply, If we had a total money supply of 10 Gluknards, and we printed 10 more, the value of the original 10 Gluknards, would be halved. As the Fed prints money the value of your money diminishes. That is Quantitative Easing, easing money from your pocket to theirs.

The thing these schemes have in common is that they ease the pain and relieve politicians of the need to act. A thing loathed by politicians even more than a lipo appointment. Pain that the economy is supposed to feel to heal. The economy needs to heal from the impact of the housing collapse, the banking fiasco, and the Obama administration (Obamacare). These pain killers will only exacerbate the economic problems we have. The best historical example is Weimar Germany.

The real underlying source of economic friction is the level of regulation in the US at present. There is an example of a Walmart taking over 20 years and a Supreme Court decision to be built. Is this an environment that is conducive to business or not? One of the biggest tasks of a new businessman or woman is to learn the regulatory hurdle’s. The ignorant may jump right in and the diligent and tenacious will succeed, but then, they must also succeed in business…

The housing market has been supported by government mechanisms so it wouldn’t fall to the actual bottom. We see the effect it has had, home sales have slipped, and housing prices are being driven ever lower by the incessant foreclosure rate. Even that has been slowed by government intrusion. Government, in a misguided belief that slowing the rate of foreclosures would help some homeowners, has demanded perfection in paperwork and has caused a chock in the ability of the market to clear the delinquent loans. In doing so, government has kept the home equity problem going, and has even exacerbated it.

But our doctor says that clots are merely headwinds and that we should take more morphine and walk it off. There is no real problem that a few pills can’t fix. A few QE 80’s ground up and snorted and the economy will be running like a kid to a candy store! If that doesn’t work we’ll just find a vein and shoot up some inflation… Oooh that feels sooo good! Numb all over. Yea, walking will be no problem now, oh my, is it supposed to bend backwards like that?

Clausewitz on War… My Take.

Sunday, August 7th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me the opening page of Von Clausewitz book- War, Politics and Power, he states a maxim that has applications not only to war but to many other areas of politics. The quote is; “War is thus an act to compel our adversary to do our will… The use of force is theoretically without limits. Philanthropic souls may imagine that there is a way to disarm or overthrow our adversary without much bloodshed, and that this is what the art of war should seek to achieve. Agreeable as this may sound, this is a false idea which must be demolished. As the greatest use of force does not exclude the cooperation of intelligence, the ruthless user of force who shrinks from no amount of bloodshed must gain an advantage if his opponent does not do the same. Thus each drives the other to extremes which are limited only by the adversary’s strength of resistance.” The quote says more than it at first appears. But, since war seems to be coming, from many anti capitalist factions around the World, it is wise to examine some of them.

The more one side limits it’s scope of actions the more advantage it gives the adversary. The historical example is the Vietnam conflict. In Vietnam the US limited it’s scope of action in some cases not equipping the US forces with ammunition until they were fired upon. The generals making the judgment that violating some self imposed philanthropic regulation had greater import than the life of a human being, someone woke up in the middle of the night to breast feed, cleaned up his skinned knees and wiped up vomit from his first time drinking. No, that human life had less gravity, than a self imposed philanthropic regulation.

When engaged in an existential war, philanthropy should be given it’s due, but philanthropy, or civilization, is not a suicide pact. Lets take another historical example, that of WWII. If the allies had not used every weapon at hand, for philanthropic reasons, the World would have been plunged into a dark age of tyranny, warfare and socialism. The standard of living of the entire World would be much lower than it is today… with all the implications for famine and pestilence. If self imposed philanthropy results in the destruction of civilization and philanthropy’s elimination from the marketplace of ideas, then there will be no more philanthropy and no more civilization.

An adversary’s strength of resistance should be taken into account before the scope of action required can be logically contemplated. When attacked by an adversary, we must look at what level of discomfort he must be placed in, to get his capitulation. Once we have ascertained this, we can then consider the scope of action required to achieve the needed result. To begin action without taking these things into regard is largely why the US always needs to “escalate” some conflict or another. Escalating a conflict is what Stalin liked to do, feed the flames of the battle. The tinder for the flames of battle, are people, of course.

These maxims have their analogies in the political arena as well. When one political side limits it’s scope of rhetoric, but the other does not, the side that puts no limit has an advantage. Take political ad homonym attacks. We see the anti capitalists call the pro capitalists, terrorists, hostage takers, bombers of the economy, and every other vitriolic name imaginable to ensure the anti capitalists don’t have to engage in any real debate. The pro capitalists however call the anti capitalists, our friends on the other side of the aisle. Whenever the policies of the anti capitalist faction are called anti capitalist, (as they are in actuality), the speaker is vilified and such vitriol is heaped on him or her the term politics of personal destruction are made manifest.

Karl Von Clausewitz went on to reveal many more gems of wisdom in his book. It is a bit heavy the first read but it comes more clear as one ponders the text. We can learn a great deal from those that came many years before us. Their wisdom and knowledge of the nature of humanity and our foibles, I believe, were greater than our own. They lived closer to nature and in a world that produced the worst and best in humanity every day. It is best not to forget what they have set down for us lest we be forced to relearn the lessons…

Metric For Measuring Revolution

Thursday, August 4th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that one way we can tell the direction a revolution will take is how the former elite are treated. It may seem like a foolish metric to use but if we examine history and the results of historic revolutions we can glean some insight into the potential outcomes of present revolutions. No matter how far away a revolution may appear every revolution has consequences for the state of Mankind.

The most classic revolution is, of course, the American revolution. The Founding Fathers reluctantly, and some not so reluctantly, went to war with mother Britain. Due to a great number of transgressions by the crown the people became incensed to revolt from Britain and establish a confederation of States. The revolution was hard fought and narrowly won. The victors, in this case the Founding Fathers, were magnanimous to the defeated. There were no trials of British officials and certainly no executions of the former elite.

The results of the American Revolution are manifest for everyone to see. A republic that protected(s) the liberties of it’s citizens. After casting about for a few years the Founders decided upon a Constitutional form of Federal/National government with separated powers ala, Montesquieu’s judicial branch severed from the executive. The improvement in the lot of Man that has sprung from this font has been munificent.

Another classic revolution was the French revolution. In France shortly after the American revolution there was a revolt against the King and queen. The aristocracy was seen by the people as indifferent to their plight and in fact the very reason for their plight. So the people rose up, backed by the military, and established a democracy. The guillotine was the instrument of the French Revolution. After the revolution the aristocracy were executed daily. So much so that it became spectacle.

The results of the French Revolution were a trans European war. Napoleon, who has been called the first of Nostradamus’s three antichrists, invaded Egypt, Spain, Austria, Prussia, Poland, Russia, and fought with Britain the whole time. The French war machine was almost unstoppable. All of European aristocracy trembled at the name Bonaparte. In the end France was bankrupted, war torn and reduced for a generation.

Another classic example is the Russian revolution of 1917. Vladimir Ulyunov cheated in an election to determine the majority party in the new government of Russia and got the name of his minority party changed to majority party. The new “majority Party” then became part of the new revolutionary government. But Vladimir didn’t play well with others and soon executed everyone he could get his hands on. Sometimes, to make a political point, his people would open a person’s stomach, pull out a bit of intestine, nail it to a tree and force the person to run around the tree, winding his or her intestine around the tree.
The results of the Russian revolution were, generations of famine, tens of thousands were sent to the Gulags, the death toll of WWII was magnified, purges, wars of aggression against Finland, Poland and every former Soviet Republic. Generations of people were forced to serve their masters and lived as slaves. All these things, are still within the scope of political action of anyone who still clings to Marxism, as a viable ideology. Regardless if they consciously know it. But with all the power of the KGB and the blood thirsty attitude of Stalin the undoing of Communism was the example of Capitalism in action.

With these historical examples in hand we can examine the new revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa. They are still in their infancy but we can already see the direction of the Egyptian revolution. The country is controlled by a military junta that now has Hosni Mubarak on trail. He is on a stretcher in a cage at his trial. The penalty is… er, death. Members of his government await their trial.

This makes me worry about the direction the Egyptian revolution is taking. As we can see by history, if the victors are magnanimous, or at least not villains, the revolution has a better chance to turn out well for the people and the World. But as the new government turns increasingly violent and vengeful the outcome of the revolution becomes more cloudy. History doesn’t have any examples of a revolution that became violent after it was over that didn’t turn into a tyranny. The resulting wars, famines and pestilence should give pause to anyone who seeks to turn a revolution violent after it is over… Unless they want the outcome we have been discussing. But if that is the case… Should they be allowed to have any power at all?