Posts Tagged ‘good’
Wednesday, August 4th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that to hold another person to a higher standard of personal conduct than one holds himself is not human hearted. To be “not human hearted” in this way, historically, qualifies a person to hold public office.
For all of human history people in power have never been held to a standard of personal conduct that is close to the demands placed on the people. The ancient Greeks with the temporary ostracism, and Romans with the Censors made gestures in the direction of holding powerful people to standards. But those two systems were flawed in that they still hadn’t solved the problem of power of personality or cults of personality.
The ancient Greeks ostracism was a direct attack at charismatic power. If an aristocrat would get too powerful the people would call a vote. They would write yea or nay on a piece of pottery or ostrakon
and count the vote. If the ayes had it the person was sent away for a few years to let his partisans cool and his charismatic power to wane. His possessions were kept safe as were his family and slaves. When he returned he could participate in public life again. This practice visited any number of catastrophes on Athens. From Pericles (with the misshaped head) to Alcibiades the ostracism was a wash.
The Romans had the Censors. Powerful aristocrats that had draconian powers to look into the personal dealings of other aristocrats. Unfortunately with no effective public oversight the Censors used their offices to garner bribes and indulgences from the powerful people they were supposed to regulate. An early form of regulatory capture. Both pernicious and both inevitable if the conditions are right. Human nature being what it is.
Human nature is unchangeable. When faced with the choice of; Let someone burn you with a cigarette and they will give a million dollars, to charity the charity of your choice, for each hour of torture. No one would submit to it. Unless they were sadomasochistic. Despite the obvious societal good from the windfall to charity…. But give another that choice over someone else and the perspective is widened considerably. They would have no problem with this Faustian bargain. The fact that they feel no pain when the cigarette is applied is irrelevant. Or so they will say. It is universal and it is human nature.
To decry human nature is foolish as it is to decry gravity. Without it we could not exist as we are. The wise lawgiver looks human nature in the eye and works with it. Doesn’t try to change it in others while waxing his own.
That has been the problem with governments through the ages. The Elite try to force others to live as the Elite wish and the Elite live as they wish too. This sets up a fundamental tension in human governments. That tension is the underlying energy source for class struggle.
The ancient Chinese had it close. Despite their arguments and the internecine squabbles of the States the Chinese philosophers in classic times had it by the tail. That their governments ignored the good teachings and embraced the bad is just a function of human nature….
Perhaps, if some nation at some time held their leaders to the same standards they hold the people to, this fundamental tension would be relived. So maybe, to be not human hearted should disqualify a person from public office.
Tags: confucius, evil, good, government, Hsun Ching, Human Heartedness, incentive, International Capitalist Party, Law, meritocracy, society, Socrates, tyranny
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »
Sunday, July 18th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the time of the progressives, socialists and communists is coming to a close. With the wide dissemination of the internet and the dramatically enhanced access to information it offers people will increasingly be lifted from the ignorance enforced by the progressives, socialists and communists. Light will shine on their philosophy.
Today the power of that faction appears to be at it’s apex. The US is controlled almost exclusively by progressives. The President and both houses of Congress have sizable majorities of progressives. Most are democrat but some are republican. The Supreme Court is at the tipping point. A few more hard leftists and the job will be done there too.
But the power of progressives, socialists and communists lays in ignorance. Not of reading writing or arithmetic but in history, economics and current events. These are the ideas that undermine progressivism. People who have not been steeped in the tea of communism and the “benefits” to mankind that it offers see the world differently.
We have our eyes open. We are pragmatic not dogmatic. Progressives, socialists and communists are dogmatic. Even as they point the finger of dogmatism at every one who disagrees with them. But they fail to see their own dogmatism.
To follow a political philosophy that has at it’s core the fact that when it gains control millions of people will have to be murdered to “protect” the revolution requires quite a bit of faith. Those egoists, people who refuse to follow the tenets of social justice and communal salvation, will have to go. They have all done it. From Vladimir Ulanoff to Pol Pot. Moreover they will always to do it when ever they get power. It is ignorance of this fact that feeds the left. Ignorance of the atrocities that they have done and pledge to do if they ever get power.
But the ignorance that feeds progressivism, communism and socialism doesn’t stop there. Every modern event must be couched in just the right terms and in the right way. Until recently the progressives have controlled the unbiased media. The have controlled the horizontal, the vertical, they have controlled what we have seen. Welcome to the outer reaches of the progressive limits. (There are none).
US collages have a plurality of progressive, socialist and communist professors. They aim at convincing every student to follow their pernicious philosophy. The fact that most don’t is a testament to common sense. But it is also a testament to the power of knowledge. Those who know the history of progressivism in the US and it’s ties to Fascist socialism will recognize the parallels today. People who understand the difference between rhetoric and truth will see through the veil of half truths the unbiased media place in front of us. Folks that have access to the information to dull the blade of ignorance are less liable to be misled. Too many of us will refuse to sit in the cave and watch pretty shadows dance on the wall.
That is why it is imperative the progressive, communists and socialists control the internet. They must keep us ignorant, angry and dependent. Their power depend on it. The Elite that run the show on the left know this. If people knew the truth they would loose their power in a heart beat.
Fortunately people are waking up. The actions of the progressives are enlightening the people to the reality of who they are. The mask has been lifted a little. It should be totally removed. Then the people would recoil in horror at who they have voted for and supported in the past.
When that happens the progressives will have breathed their last breath, The socialists will have disheartened the last soul and the tyranny of communism will evaporate from the Earth. All this good from one thing… Light shining on reality.
Didn’t someone else say that evil grows in darkness and withers in the light?
Tags: capitalist, communist, constitution, corruption, education, elite, evil, good, government, group, information, International Capitalist Party, internet, light of truth, Socrates
Posted in Group Politics, International Power, media, philosophy | No Comments »
Thursday, June 10th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that when a nation pretends a crime was not committed by a leader because it would have to act… puts that nation in great peril.
If a powerful political leader was to commit a crime. Clearly and obviously… Like bribing another politician with a position in government for some favor. This is obviously not in the public good. Clearly it is (or should be) a violation of law. And it undermines the concept of meritocracy in government. Then that politician should be treated as the law requires.
To let that politician get away with some lame excuse like they are ignorant of the law or everyone does it is to guarantee that laws will be broken in the future with greater harm to the body politic.
To argue that the politician is ignorant of the law and thus cannot be held to it makes a mockery of law. If the person who writes the law and enacts the law cannot know it. And therefore cannot be held to it. How much more unfair is it to hold the average citizen to it? If the law is so complex and arcane that a lawgiver cannot know it then it is impossible for a citizen to know it. How then do you hold citizens to law they cannot know? Try playing a game where your opponent knows the rules but you don’t. Now don’t even hold them to the rules you know… how would that turn out?
To argue that everyone does it is to argue that everyone is corrupt. If that is the case society has profound problems. But no one who uses this argument, in government, ever gives examples. If they did then the other politicians would be prosecuted. Like a gang of drug dealers. If one is caught… would he get away with saying… “everyone does it.” If he did give examples, the drug enforcement unit will swoop down, and arrest them. But the first would still face prosecution. Why is it that we expect more from drug dealers than we do our leaders?
Some argue, “well, you have the vote.” Assuming the people in question actually have suffrage and it is fairly counted. So using an analogy, if a baseball player has a contract that expires every three years. He commits some crime in his first year. The team has the option, in three years, to fire him? Does that make sense to you? Again, in this case, we hold our leaders to a lower standard that we do someone who chases a ball around a field for a living.
When people in power misuse their power. We all suffer. But how much more egregious when a politician abuses his power in public? With no negative consequences?
So, given the profound negative impact of not holding our leaders to the law. Law that we are held to. Why do we withhold consequences from the actions of our leaders? Because we personally know our leaders. We may not actually have met them but we know them personally. We voted for them. We might have pounded pavement for them. We have sunk cost in them. So we have empathy for them…. Empathy that is not shared. For every act of mercy visited on a leader ten million acts of injustice are visited on the people.
Look at Tarquinius Superbus. Despite his arbitrary evils he was exiled not executed. In fact even in exile he visited evil on Rome. But still lived. The pattern has been repeated through history.
Shouldn’t we finally put a stop to it?
Or have we remained motionless in three thousand years… and are happy to remain?
Tags: corruption, education, elite, evil, good, government, International Capitalist Party, meritocracy, Superbus, tyranny
Posted in Law, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »
Sunday, June 6th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that you are what you think. The more a person dwells on a single subject the more their minds form to that subject. The mind being very plastic.
So when the German people in the 1920’s and 1930’s were inculcated that all their problems were the fault of the Jews and Gypsies… they dwelt on the subject. It was in the air all the time in that era and place. The German societal myth warped. Bringing about the conditions where the Gypsies were wiped out with no one left to remember them. Far worse than the Armenians or Jews. The Gypsies were annihilated.
This doesn’t mean that the German people were bad… The philosophy they followed was bad. Because they thought, to the exclusion of other things, on race.
Good intentions can be turned to bad results this way. When a person dwells on some injustice, to the exclusion of other things, it warps their minds. Their mind folds into compliance with the notion. It takes away their sense of magnitude and relativity. You and I feel that what we dwell on has more import than it actually may have. The simple act of thinking about a subject can make the subject more important to us than it really is.
So a person who is obsessed with the injustice to a group eventually gives this injustice godhood. It consumes them and they eventually can think of nothing else without extreme effort. What impact on their lives do you think this has?
When you feel this strongly about an injustice, even though it may have happened long ago, it is easy to believe that injustice must be met with injustice. Do to the former perpetrator that which he did. Even though the perpetrator may be long dead. If this is the case… find a suitable group to mete your injustice on. There is never a lack of suitable people to mete out injustice to. Look around the world.
Why do the Jews mete out injustice to the Palestinians? Why do the Palestinians mete out injustice to the Jews? Why did and do the Hutu’s mete out injustice to the Tutsi’s? And Vice versa? The pattern is repeated around the World in many forms and in many ways. The single common factor is that a group of people dwell on some injustice. This leads them to meet injustice with injustice.
So when we think about an injustice, A highly emotional thought, we tend to dwell on it. The more we dwell… Therefore it is in our best interest to try to keep balance. To meet injustice with injustice is to immortalize injustice.
Does anyone think that the annihilation of the Gypsies led to less injustice in the world? What about the Hutu’s annihilation of the Tutsi’s’? No it has only led to further injustice. Cambyses son of Cyrus the Great moved whole nations of people in forced migrations. To satisfy his sense of justice. Did this result in less injustice in the World? No it didn’t. And it never will.
Chuang Chuo the doctor of the Tao said;
“A Penumbra asked a Shadow, saying, “There are times When you are moving, times when you are at rest: times when you sit down, times when you stand up. Why do you not work out one method and stick to it?” The Shadow said, “Am I dependent on something else for being what I am? (if so) is the something else on which I am dependent… itself dependent on something else for being what it is?”
One cause leading to another in an endless stream of injustices. The only way to stop the results are to interrupt the causes… To meet injustice with injustice is never righteous.
If you dwell, on racism, you become a racist… What is the Cause in that sentence?
Tags: chuang chou, evil, good, government, injustice, International Capitalist Party, media, mete, righteous, society, tyranny, You Are What You Think
Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »
Thursday, May 20th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that government’s propensity to normalize deviancy threatens us all. Due to Government’s ability to deliver catastrophe on a society.
Normative deviancy is a sociological term that describes why some groups make catastrophically wrong decisions. It is a theory that takes into account the environment in which a decision is made. Basically, When a group of people are set up there is usually some thought put into keeping complexity low, keeping connections loose, ensuring rigorous debate, etc… but as time goes on small deviations become the norm. Then small deviations become larger then become the new norm. Until catastrophic failure of the group or decision-making process takes place. Catastrophic failure becomes inevitable.
The group could be the House of Representatives. Some of the deviations we see. (that have apparently become the norm) are, not reading bills before voting on them, protecting members that take bribes, reacting before sufficient facts are in, and putting a faction’s good over the good of society. These are not all the examples I can come up with but the list becomes tedious.
Not reading bills before voting. How could this ever go wrong? No potential for catastrophic failure of the decision making process there…
But seriously, lawmakers don’t even read ten page bills before voting. This has great potential to be used against an unwary congressman or congresswoman. People vote for a person because they believe that that person will make good decisions regarding government. How can a person make a decision about a bill they have not read?
When a lawmaker is so sloppy, about his job that they don’t read bills they are voting on, it says they don’t take their job seriously. When people see that the leaders in society don’t take their jobs seriously when their jobs are so important, lawmakers pay is over $174000 a year, with benefits better than anything in the private sector, so if a congressman has so little regard that he doesn’t even take the minimum effort in doing his job… why should we? Imagine the subconscious pernicious incentive this is to society… on top of the potential for abuse of the system.
Protecting members that take bribes, sexually bother pages and aides, are ignorant of tax law, ship horses through the US mail calling it official business, cashing in postal vouchers for cash to buy drugs, drunk driving leaving the scene of the accident death resulting, the list is endless. With this caliber of people running our government how can we go wrong? Blackmail is only one of the potential problems that could lead to catastrophic decisions that could result.
Jumping to conclusions before all the relevant data is in. Some examples are when rep. John Murtha, (God rest his soul), Accused the US Marines of war crimes. The facts came out that the US Marines were innocent. But the damage had been done. The war effort had been undermined. President Obama even acknowledged that he didn’t know the facts then attacked a police officer. Again wrong. Over and over members of our government publicly make statements without sufficient knowledge to make them. Over and over they are proven wrong. How many of you have read of heard the story of the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf? Being wrong over and over undermines one’s credibility. When it is an elected member of the government it undermines the credibility of the government.
Putting the good of a faction of society over the good of all of society. This is not a new problem. Madison wrote about it in the Federalist Papers, #10. Faction is pernicious because it is necessary for the political process. But even as the power of faction impels political power it undermines that power by corrupting it. Often putting the good of a faction of society over the good of all society is in the political interest of a party. Like illegal immigration. Everyone knows in their heart what is right. (fix immigration law to reflect the need, seal the boarder to prevent more illegal immigration and enforce the law) But every one in the political process wants to game the system. They want to reap the political favor of a potentially large faction. So the interests of society are stepped on. The result is that human beings in the USA are treated as subhuman… to enhance the political power of the Elite that are courting them. No irony there.
The private sector goes to great lengths to prevent these types of things from occurring. Perhaps because the threat of jail is ever present in the private sector but is totally absent the government. That problem is answered by the NUMA… Perhaps because the private sector must succeed or fail. (Unless it is politically favored. Then the taxpayers will bail them out. Even as the lawmakers, in the back pockets of those firms, vilify them… I think I hear Braer Rabbit, “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch.”)
Another possibility is that the dross floats to the top.
Tags: Catastrophic Desisions, congressman, congressman's pay, congresswoman, constitution, corruption, desision theory, evil, good, incentive, International Capitalist Party, Law, lawmaker, normalizing deviancy, normative deviancy, pernicious, pernicious incentive
Posted in Group Politics, International Power, Law, Mercy, economy, media, philosophy | No Comments »
Sunday, May 16th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the way our children are taught has a great influence on them in their adult lives. Education is a means to not only teach children to read, write and do arithmetic but is a means to civilize them.
American schools today have taken a new path. They have eschewed teaching reading, writing, arithmetic and logic and have replaced them with progressive propaganda. Anti American adjectives like imperialism are often used to describe the USA. These are definitions taken directly from the Manifesto of the Communist Party and anti American Soviet handbooks. The schools teach homosexuality and the mechanics of it. They teach that God is dead. One of their favorite lessons today is that the American Constitution is a living breathing document. What do all these new evil societal myths have in common?
They serve to demean the children. They all serve to make children believe that simply the color of their skin determines if they are good or evil. This is not a very inclusive philosophy. But it has always been the philosophy of the progressives. Propaganda to the contrary aside…
I watched a show on PBS today, Need To Know. The show had a long segment about the Texas school board’s revue of new textbooks. The thrust of the piece was that a few members are wrong and bad by trying to force their conservative view of society on the whole country. Because Texas buys so many textbooks that the whole industry caters to their needs and wants. The news story never mentioned if California or New York have a similar effect on the textbook industry… At least that angle was never explored. I wonder… Would California drag the industry further to the right or the radical left… And if that had any bearing on the coverage of California’s effect on textbook slant.
Of course a hit piece on a conservative in the unbiased media is proof of their lack of bias. The show, Need To Know, also talked about the Texas Freedom Network, an organization that monitors the right’s effect on school curriculum. Amazingly this progressive organization agrees with the unbiased PBS and thinks America should be characterized as imperialist. PBS didn’t mention if there are any organizations that monitor the left… Why would there be?
The unbiased media today use evolution as a straw man argument. They constantly hammer that people of faith are bad because they deny evolution. They equate evolution deniers to holocaust deniers. The argument is used to as a means to disqualify any argument made by the right whether or not evolution is brought up. If I argue that The United States has liberated almost as many people in the twentieth century as the communists have murdered… The left argues that I deny evolution. The unbiased media agree. And the argument is changed to whether or not I believe in evolution. It has become a tool of the progressives to change the argument.
Changing the subject is a underhanded way to keep an opponent in a debate off his feet. It is the job of a good moderator to keep arguers on point. But unfortunately with the media being so unbiased only the right is kept on point the left is given free reign to move the debate as they see fit.
What is the inevitable outcome of this? The lowering of debate. Which leads to keeping the people in the dark. Which leads to the lowering of the quality of decisions made by the American people. (Exemplified in the last election). Which leads to the lowering of the lot of the American people. Which leads to the lowering of the lot of all Mankind. Because, in this World, we are all economically connected .
As long as the progressives control, the media, education and both political parties, our fortunes will continue to go down. Only until we have a media that is actually unbiased instead of pretending to be unbiased will the cancer that is progressivism be exposed by the light…
Only foul things grow in the dark… Progressivism withers in the light…
Tags: capitalist, communist, constitution, curriculum, education, elite, eschew teaching, evil, evolution, good, International Capitalist Party, media, political parties, redistribution, school, socialist, society, sophist, straw man, unbiased
Posted in Group Politics, Societal Myth, media, philosophy | No Comments »
Thursday, May 13th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that most people are pragmatists. We have to be. To lack pragmatism is to ensure future insanity. Because when you live in an insane world you must either be pragmatic about it or go crazy.
Since most people are pragmatic we seek to get along in the world with as little interference as possible. As Thrasymachus said. Most people do not want to impose on others. But they are afraid of being imposed upon. That is why most people like the idea of justice… So by his measure most people are good. There are others who are bad. (I.e. They want to impose their will on others).
We are pragmatic in many ways. We add up the costs and benefits to most things we engage in. This is a form of pragmatism. We sometimes don’t fight the good fight because we have determined that it would result in diminishing returns.
To be the avatar of pragmatism one would have to be immune to all the pitfalls that await all of us. Like the sunk cost effect, group think, etc… We all vary in our pragmatism. (Or maybe we vary in our assessment of the cost benefit to a certain action).
Pragmatism breeds happiness. People who are pragmatic give up their anger quickly. They are less prone to hopelessness. These are the antithesis to pragmatism. Because to be angry has a very high cost both in health and relationships. The payoff is not as distinct. So pragmatism says, stop that which give us diminishing returns. To be angry for too long has such diminishing returns that the pragmatist eschews it. Hopelessness is the same. To be hopeless has great cost with no benefit. So why do it?
But pragmatism has costs as well. For example, take a good person living among those who are bad. Machiavelli says that a good man must necessarily come to ruin among so many that are bad. To be pragmatic in such a situation is to become bad enough to fit in. Mencius talked about this very thing.
Mencius said that the “Jen” man (gentleman, lord, Brahman, enlightened man, etc…) strikes the golden mean. When the jen man lives among many that are bad he doesn’t go to the extreme of bad. He seeks the middle ground in that bad land. When the jen man finds himself living among saints, again he looks to the mean of the society that he lives in. Mencius said that Mo Ti would run himself into the ground to help anyone. While Sang Yang wouldn’t pull a loose thread from his cloak although it save humanity. They went too far, claimed Mencius. Aristotle was curiously similar in his philosophy of the mean.
Pragmatic people do the same. Seek the mean in the society they live in. Pragmatic people look at their leaders today (and historically), and see people who make law to benefit their friends, making tax law and don’t pay taxes, regulating banks to make bad loans to people they know cannot pay back the loans then blaming the banks for the failures, have illegal aliens for maids, nannies, gardeners to save money but claim to be hard on illegal immigration, To name a very few examples. A pragmatists may not like what he or she sees. We may not want to emulate the behavior. But pragmatism, Machiavelli, Mencius, and Aristotle all say in unison, “follow the mean.” when the rulers are this corrupt society must be corrupt. Like virtue, corruption flows down from the leaders to the led.
Unfortunately the culture that we find ourselves in is a wretched as it can be. Corruption is endemic in the Elite in government, industry, entertainment and in society. They have been so corrupt for so long it has moved deeply into our society. Political corruption oozes out of government and onto everything government touches. Like a child, the grubbier the hands, the more they want to touch. They even have the gall to call evil good and good evil. Simply by changing the language, abortion becomes choice, freedom of religion becomes separation of church and state, freedom of speech is now too much information, the list goes on and on. I am sure you can think of quite a few I have left out… if you try.
This all adds up to an insane society.
How does this apply to the International Capitalist Party? Pragmatism is the cornerstone of our philosophy. Pragmatic in our view of humanity, pragmatic in our opinions about how to best effect positive change in the human condition, but, not pragmatic in our goal. To be pragmatic about a political goal is, not to fall into the status quo, it is to set a new status quo. Progressives, communists and socialists are pragmatic in their goal, total government, but not in their assessments of people… Unless most people do want to live under a tyranny, in poverty, with no voice or ability to change the situation…
Tags: aristotle, confucius, elite, evil, freedom of chioce, good, Machiavelli, mecius, mo ti, positive change, pragmatism, progressive, separation of church and state, socialist, society, Sophistry, Thrasymachus, too much information information
Posted in Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »
Thursday, May 6th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me, that there are three parts to a human being, Physical, Mental and Spiritual. These three attributes make up a human being. A brute animal, as far as we know, has no spirituality. A brute animal has physical and mental attributes though. So we can say that one of the things that differentiates humans from animals is human spirituality.
We all know on some level that when one part is ignored it becomes wasted. Lack of exercise makes muscles weak. Lack of mental exercise makes one dumb and a lack of religion makes a person susceptible to all sorts of negative ideas. Like moon worship or some other foolish idea. Out of the very human need for spirituality comes a worship of the created instead of the Creator.
These three attributes make up the person. Weakness in any lowering the sum total of the person. We all know someone who ignores one or more of these important attributes. And by this we see what the consequences are.
But as we have said above it is spirituality that separates human beings from the brute animals. So if that is the case we can also say that spirituality is, if not the most important of the three, at least no lesser then any of the others. If being human is the goal.
A person could theoretically evolve into a brain in a glass case. Only thinking great thoughts. But would this be a human end? Of course not. Another could devolve into a beast to rival the strength Hercules. But to regress to the beasts is not a human end either. What about spirituality? What if a person developed his or her spirituality to the point that they became a spirit. They would be an angel.
Which of the three outcomes seems to you to be the best for the actor? We can apply William James philosophy of pragmatism to glean the correct answer.
So why is it that spirituality is the most ignored? Our churches in many cases are full. We (Americans) have traditionally been a strongly religious people. But we seem to be moving the way of Europe. In Europe the most exquisite churches in the world are empty on Sunday morning. I wonder how many Europeans pray daily? I hope many but I fear there are few. Americans seem to be following the European example in more than just economics.
Part of the problem is that States have established State religions. Uniformly in the West the State religion is atheism. The Progressives in the USA have argued for generations, “separation of church and State.” They cannot abide the traditional, “freedom of religion.” Because if they can change the societal myth just enough they can legally codify atheism as the State religion.
Popular culture demeans Religion. Today it is popular, when asked, to claim to be spiritual but not religious. To say that is like saying “I eat… but not food.” It fails logically. But it sounds smart. All popular culture is, is foolishness that sounds smart… but if you think about it…
Of course the Communist Manifesto claims that religion is the opium of the people. Communists, and progressives more than socialists want people to revert to beasts. Beasts are easily herded, bridled and made into beasts of burden for their masters. Remove religion and you have removed that which separates us from the animals. Lowering us to the status of animal. What rights does a guinea pig have?
Probably the most insidious trouble that comes from lack of following an established religion is the threat of some mind bender like Jim Jones. The people who followed Jim Jones and drank the coolaid were people who disavowed established religion and followed a false prophet. There have been many false prophets and there will be many more. They seek to channel good intentions into bad actions. That is the surest way to spot a false prophet.
All these problems and potential problems as well as many more come from lack of religion. It is no more enlightened to be anti religious than it is enlightened to be anti science. Enlightenment involves looking at the world as it is… not as we want it to be.
Tags: communist, elite, evil, good, human, humanity, mental, physical, progressive, religion, socialist, Sophistry, spiritual
Posted in Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »
Sunday, May 2nd, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that there are no flawed people, there are only flawed societal myths, (philosophies or ethos).
Take any group of impoverished people. There is no deficiency in the people themselves. This has been proven by the fact that many impoverished people have been enriched when they change their philosophies. China for example. The people can be very industrious but languish under an unproductive ethos. Without a proper societal myth any people will falter.
The most destructive ethos a people can have is the mantle of victim hood. No matter the quality of the individual he or she is at a loss if their philosophy tells them that they are nothing but victims. It fosters inaction. Why act if you are only a victim? It fosters anger. Why be happy if you are a victim? It has absolutely no redeeming effects on a people but to make them slaves to their victim hood.
You can judge the ethos of a people by their prosperity. Not the people themselves but the ethos they live under. If they live under a negative ethos then they will live in poverty. Unless some external source of income temporarily disrupts the natural course of their lives. Like oil income for example. If a people cannot sustain themselves it is a sure sign that they labor under a societal myth that makes this so.
Look at the places people have flourished and the places people have floundered. The arctic is an extreme example. The Inuit and Eskimo people have thrived under the most inhospitable conditions the Planet has to offer. Temperature extremes and lack of easily accessible food. No shelter and high winds. Wind chills of over one hundred degrees below zero! No other people on Earth have, not only lived under such hostile conditions, but have thrived doing it!
Another example is Africa. The availability of growing season is unparalleled on the planet. Wild game, nuts and berries abound. There is no end to the opportunities in Africa for an enterprising people. But there is absolute poverty there… as well as no innovation. The problem is the ethos… not the people.
Examples abound of people that have risen in prosperity when they followed one societal myth but have fallen into poverty when the societal myth was destroyed. Rome is but the most obvious example. Ancient China is another example. Many times before and after the warring states period China went from prosperity to poverty then back to prosperity. Confucius explained this as, when people follow the philosophies of the sage kings, Yao, Shun and Yu. What Confucius basically said is that the philosophy of a people determines their prosperity.
So we can rest on the fact that if the same people have been both, impoverished and enriched, it is more dependent on their ethos then the people. To argue otherwise would require a advocate the likes of Daniel Webster.
Thomas Jefferson said in his book, Notes on the Sate of Virginia, that it takes a temperate climate it foster innovation. His argument went like this. If people have it too easy they will not innovate, it is redundant. If people have it too hard they do not have the time to innovate. They must spend every moment surviving. It is only where people have difficulties to force innovation and the time to think about and do innovation. If this is the case maybe innovation in societal myths is best at temperate climates as well.
Now lets examine the societal Myths that foster poverty and hopelessness. As we said before victim hood is one destructive philosophy. Another is decadency. It presaged the fall of every great civilization on Earth to date. Another is dependency of the State. Every time this has been tried it has resulted in the corrosion of societal cohesiveness. Another that has had bad ends is treating barbarians as equals. This has lowered many great civilizations. Groupism is a philosophy that results in the splintering of societies into angry factions. There are many more lessons that we can take from history about good and bad societal myths. The overriding point is that societal myths that reduce people’s reliance on themselves has always had bad results. While those philosophies that have greater reliance in individual actions have had good outcomes in the past.
With this as obvious as I can make it in such a small space, why is it so important for our elected leaders to change our societal myths from the productive ones to the unproductive ones?
Why do you think?
Tags: daniel webster, economy, ethos, evil, good, International Capitalist Party, philosophy confucius, poverty, socialist, Societal Myth, society, Socrates, Sophistry
Posted in Group Politics, Societal Myth, economy, philosophy | No Comments »
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that a parasite that does it’s host harm cannot be successful. Take a parasite that kills it’s host after a short time.
This type must quickly produce prodigious young. They will escape the dieing host and try to infect some other hapless victim. Necessarily most will die. Some times only one in a million young will actually infect another host. The life of the lucky parasite of this kind will be short and uncomfortable as the life of it’s host.
Parasites that kill their hosts are vulnerable to being too successful. If they infect most of the hosts available to them the hosts may go extinct. If that happens the parasite must jump to another host else it goes extinct. So, no matter how effective a parasite is at infecting it’s hosts, if it kills it’s host, it must necessarily not be too successful.
Take another parasite, one that imparts some advantage to it’s host, (establishes a symbiotic relationship). They take nourishment from the host and give the host some advantage in return. Many types of stomach bacteria are of this type. In the aggregate, hosts that are infected with this type of parasite, live longer and/or have a better life. Parasites that live in this host will have long comfortable lives. They will have more opportunities to reproduce and infect other hosts.
There is no danger of being too successful and infecting too many hosts. Infection with this type of parasite benefits their hosts. There is no danger of the host going extinct because of infection with this type of parasite. In fact if a population of hosts become uniformly infected they are more likely to sustain a larger population and therefore have more hosts for their parasites. One even could argue that this type of parasite enjoys a better standard of living than the first type of parasite.
Of course the reality of parasite host relationships vary and change. Some being benign and going to virulent. Others being virulent and becoming benign. But the most successful of parasites are the ones that impart some benefit to their hosts and are beneficial. If any parasite becomes virulent and start killing their hosts they run the risk of extinction if they are too successful.
It is economics. If a business or firm benefit the economy and society it is like the beneficial parasite. It takes sustenance from the economy and it imparts some benefit to the economy. Overmatching that which it takes. A business or firm that ruins it’s markets, the environment, workers, etc… must go from market to market, (location to location, etc…) ahead of it’s ruination. (But not it’s reputation). The first can be said to be successful, the second, unsuccessful. The only thing the second can do, is survive, but the first can thrive.
The logic can be taken further. Life should try, in as much as it can, to benefit life. Take a person walking down the road. He notices a worm, not yet desiccated, on the sidewalk. He bends over, picks up the worm, and throws it into the grass and walks on. The man was not harmed in any way. His interests were not damaged in any way. But the worm’s interests were advanced.
Outside of any environmental argument, about invasive worm species and their impact to the local ecosystem, life is also benefited. Life wants more life. Life is, in many ways, wasteful. That is the nature of life. Millions of krill are born… only to feed whales. (on the surface of it). But in the end, life seeks more life, and to fill every niche it can. This is empirically true.
So our worm, that we have invested so much time and effort in, is now enjoying the lawn. It has some young and most of them are consumed by song birds. Now our effort has not only helped the worm population… song birds have benefited. Song birds in the aggregate are benefited so there are more of them for hawks to eat… The list of those helped goes on.
Capitalism is the same way. When we benefit someone else, in a productive way, (alms for example). The benefit is passed on and magnified in every transaction there after. Just like the virtuous act, in tossing a worm to the lawn, the good is not only for the one helped but to society.
Not to mention the good to the who tosses the worm… A good that outweighs all the other goods combined.
Tags: Beneficial parasite, economy, free, good, society
Posted in Mercy | No Comments »