Posts Tagged ‘progressive’
Sunday, August 8th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that If the nations of the world are stupid enough to give taxation rights to the UN they do not deserve to exist as nations… and soon will not.
Once the UN has the right to tax individuals in sovereign nations then the governments of those nations become redundant. The services and functions can be easily moved to the higher level of government. The power that the UN will gain will be an even more corrupting force on them.
The UN is already profoundly corrupt. To it’s core. The putrefaction drips from it’s every word. From the self serving Ban Ki Moon to the corrupt Kofi Annan the UN is a entity that exists to perpetuate the power of the corrupt Elite.
But why shouldn’t they be utterly corrupt? There is no oversight of them. They are not held to any standard of personal action. The list of infractions that UN diplomats have committed are enormous. They have been let off Scot free on the most heinous of charges. Diplomatic immunity.
To fight global warming is the reason given to tax us. Then the UN can pass climate legislation that will slow economic progress for the rest of our lives. Regulation that will require ever more taxation to enforce. Increasing the power of the bureaucrats at the UN. The Elite will argue that it is redundant for nation states to exist. The UN can handle the world’s problems. It only needs more money and more power.
For the UN to seize power under the guise of a hoax is elegant. Those that seek to lower the lot of Mankind have at their disposal a perfect hoax. Global warming. They are using it to move sovereignty from the individual in some States and the nation state in others to a world state. World tyranny.
They defend manmade global warming like a religion. Because it is. Like the cigarette companies defending the healthy aspects of cigarette smoking. The fact that there are none is irrelevant. It is the same to global warming proponents. Self interest whether individualist or egoist trumps community interests. Look at the money trail. Who wants your money and to do they what to do with it.
To them the dishonorable means of gaining the world state is acceptable because the ends are so good. They honestly believe that the philosophical progress made in the last few centuries is a bad thing. They believe that the masses are living outside their station in life. Like the precedes of the modern Elite (aristocracy) arguing that such luxuries as sewing needles are too much for the average person to have. It only makes them want more.
Once government is moved farther away from the people it governs the less responsive it is to their concerns. Like all bureaucracy government has great moment of inertia. That moment of inertia protects the bureaucrats from having to actually do anything. They are busy all the time but accomplish nothing.
Because if government solved a problem there would be less need of government. It is not in bureaucrat’s interests to solve problems. It is in their interests to create problems for them to fix. The larger the government the greater the propensity.
The larger goal is to take capital from those that would use it to produce an ever expanding standard of living for the people of the world and squander it by redistributing it. Government projects and lavish vacations for the Elite will be commonplace . Bureaucrats will find more and more uses for money they did not earn. Don’t have the intelligence to earn, but have the hubris to want to control.
If this passes, the lot of the average person in the world will go down but, the lot of the Elite will go up… dramatically. If you think it is a good idea to lower your standard of living so the elite can raise theirs you simply have to back this proposal. But if you think that merit has some standing in the way money is spent you are adamantly against this proposal.
Either way the Elite back it one hundred percent. They are self interested. Does that make them individualists or egoists?
Tags: climate, corruption, economy, elite, government, incentive, International Capitalist Party, meritocracy, progressive, Sophistry, tax, tyranny, UN
Posted in International Power, Law, Mercy, economy, philosophy | No Comments »
Thursday, July 29th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that when a millionaire ten times over says he or she will hurt the rich and help me… I know I am being lied to. Because for a rich person to hurt the rich violates human nature. They would have to hurt themselves. No one hurts themselves… No one. Unless they are mentally deranged. I hope not many of our lawmakers are mentally deranged… but their actions an the other hand…
John Kerry is a perfect example. He went to New Zealand to buy a 7 million dollar yacht. (Apparently he doesn’t like union workers in Massachusetts). Then he moored it in Rhode Island to avoid paying the five hundred thousand dollar sales tax bill and the seventy thousand dollar a year excise (luxury) tax, (that Kerry supports). Here is an example of a man who claims to help the poor by hurting the rich. I.e. Raising taxes on the rich. Apparently he doesn’t believe himself rich… People who have exponentially less money then him are rich. Their taxes are going up. But the billionaire is not.
The best part of this story is that a reporter asked Kerry; if he docked the boat in Massachusetts would he have to pay the Massachusetts tax then. Kerry responded, “It depends on who owns the boat.” [A very rare example of honesty in a lawgiver.]
The premise of this statement is that some people are subject to taxation and others are not. I ask you… What incentive does this set up in society? Where the people who set tax law are not held to that law? Is it likely, self interested, human beings will keep tax law fair if they are not subject to it? Of course not.
It is not human nature to hold the interests of others as high as one hold’s his or her own. In this instance Hsun Ching is correct that the congenital nature of Man is evil… Self centered. Philosophies that hold human nature to be wrong and force whatever the Elite believe, today, is “virtue” are flawed. To have at the core of a philosophy of ruling people a premise that is diametrically opposed to human nature is like building a gasoline motor and trying to run water in it. It is flawed. Not the motor… or the water… just that they will not work together.
Over and over we have examples of why people cannot self police yet we staunchly believe that the Elite will violate human nature. I.e. be un-self-interested. Even when we have grievous examples like the one above before us many say; “so what.” To them tomorrow is a white fog. Impossible to predict and mysterious as a Stephen King novel. I dare say too many people are of this persuasion. When the fruit of their nonchalance is visited on them they will lament that it was unforeseeable.
“How could this possibly have happened? I voted for the same people over and over but things never got better. They only got worse and worse.” is the lament of the willfully ignorant.
Another sophist argument that I hear and am dumbfounded at is that I personally have it ok now so why worry about the future. To make this argument and believe it a person must live in a one dimensional world. A point in time with no past no future, and no other possibilities then what is.
I love the way de Tocqueville called American individualism as opposed to egoism; “The doctrine of self interest rightly understood.” What a beautiful way to explain the truly civilized person. Someone who understands that sometimes we have to subordinate immediate gratification for long term gratification. To understand that self interest is intricately tied to societal interest. And that safe streets are in our own best interests. Of course the progressives are working to undermine this character trait in the American ethos.
The Elite are not held to the law in most places and times on the Earth. Their self interest need not be rightly understood. If they are not subject to a law will they give it the same scrutiny that they would if they were subject to it?
The modern Elite (progressives) seek to change people from individualists to egoists. Then the egoists will willingly forge the chains for the Elite and even bind themselves with them. Egoism is stupid self interest. It requires that one not think critically about our leaders. An egoist lives in a singularity. Egoism makes a person think a job flipping burgers is beneath him but being on the public dole is honorable. An egoist believes that the world owes him or her. An egoist calls another greedy because he doesn’t want to give more of his hard earned money to the lazy egoist but the egoist will scream like a scalded cat if a dollar of his money is missing.
By the way… did you hear about Barney Frank flipping out over not getting a senior citizens discount that he was not entitled to?
It cost him an extra dollar for the ride.
Tags: corruption, de Tocqueville, egoism, elite, evil, government, Hsun Ching, incentive, individualism, International Capitalist Party, Law, marx, progressive, socialist, sophist
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, philosophy | No Comments »
Sunday, July 25th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the environmentalists always look at everything as a zero sum game. They couch every choice as an either-or. In doing so they always overlook alternatives that would enhance both sides. Instead of destroying the interests of landowners in the name of the environment. In doing so they ensure the destruction of that which they seek to save.
When the market system was first being debated. Some argued that it would smooth out the differences among men and lower their disposition to violence. As I have said before, the guy who sells sofas doesn’t care what color your skin is… all he cares about is the color of the money. Hobbes and Voltaire was of this persuasion. Others argued that some lost while others gained. Rousseau took this side. The argument has raged from then to now. It lands in our laps with Rousseau’s side ceding some ground.
Most educated people realize that the market system is not a zero sum game. When people are involved in the market system their wealth is much higher then if they participated in some other system. The caste system, Where distributed justice says that the goods of society are distributed to those according to caste. Or the feudal system where the goods of society are distributed depending on patronage and parentage. Or still the communist system where the goods of society are distributed by one’s political power. All these other systems have one thing in common. Their version of distributive justice has, at it’s core, that the goods of society go to those with power. And from those that produce. This sets up a pernicious incentive that feeds back and lowers the economic output of every person. While the market system distributes to those with, at least, an eye to their production.
This analogy can be applied to environmental science as well. It is becoming obvious that economic prosperity and a healthy ecosystem can go hand in hand. It is also historical truth that countries that have overly powerful Elite have a very poor track record with the environment. When a small percent of the people make all of the decisions they can simply order environmental disasters be created far from their homes. They have economic incentive to disregard environmental concerns and little incentive to protect the environment of their slaves.
But all the means the environmentalists propose move power from those that live near to those who live far away. From the people to the Elite. They claim if so and so project goes through an owl, ent or sage grouse will cease to exist.
There is a controversy of just this nature going on in the US Midwest. It is over wind towers to produce clean energy or a sage grouse that is loosing the ecosystem it needs to survive. The environmentalists are arguing that the sage grouse must be protected and the BLM land should be “protected” exclusively for them.
To me the obvious answer is to place as many towers as possible. Then replant sage brush around them leaving only access roads to the towers for maintenance. The more land that is taken by towers and replanted with perfect habitat for sage grouse that more you ensure the survival of the sage grouse. In perpetuity. The economic value of the towers will ensure the protection of the land.
The environmentalists way forces land to be “protected.” But they never think about the consequences. ( Or maybe they do). The incentive is set up for the locals to, at best, ignore the interests of the sage grouse. But people being people, when our interests are subdued for the interests of others, we resent it. Especially people who are used to being free. Outright hostility may even be shown. No matter the best or the worst the interests of the sage grouse will hurt under the benevolent “protection” of the overly powerful State. Just like family farms have languished under the benevolent “protection” of the State.
Eventually the “protected” land will be put to some other important use and the sage grouse will go extinct. By putting people in charge who have less and less direct impact from the consequences of their decisions, give them less and less oversight and, you have a recipe for environmental degradation… down the road.
The very policies of the environmentalists will destroy that which they seek to protect… Because the benevolent protection of the State is neither benevolent nor protection.
Tags: capitalist, clean energy, communist, Distributive Justice, elite, environment, Envornmentalism, government, habitat, interests, International Capitalist Party, midwest, progressive, regulation, sage grouse, society
Posted in Law, economy, philosophy | No Comments »
Thursday, July 15th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the Progressive Elite want to force the people of the world to reset our way living. They believe that we must move out of our large homes that require us to have cars and move into high density apartments. Within walking distance to amenities. In that way, even if we are too stupid to do it ourselves, we can just be pushed to it. How do I know this… they are saying it on WSJR today, Sunday July 11, 2010.
By using government to drive up costs for energy, housing, transportation, etc… forces people to move closer together… to cut down on those costs. Taxing carbon is one way to artificially force up the cost of energy. Regulating the economy of cars (CAFE standards) is a way to drive up the cost of basic transportation. Government policies that create high unemployment rates drive people to accept dependence on government. There are many ways government can force society to this “more sustainable” way of living. The key is enough government power and the right people in charge.
The American Constitution forbids such power in the hands of our elected leaders… but today the Constitution is a “living breathing document.” If five people on the Supreme court agree… Voila, the Constitution is re-interpreted. The barn wall probably needed repainted again. The people in charge are critical…
People who are willing to move society away from independence and comfort to discomfort and dependence. People who, if it is needed, would eliminate those that would stand in the way of the revolution (fundamental change). People who have no squeamish qualms about the means. A cabal with only the goal in sight. The progressive Elite.
The progressive Elite constantly remind us that it is not possible for everyone on the planet to live as Americans do… Comfortably. Lower class Americans live better than middle class Europeans. Europeans know it and are resentful. But are not willing to give up dependence on the State. They are willing to give up personal independence and personal comfort for the support of the State. For them it is a good trade. But when they see the positive effects of the other side of the equation they are resentful.
Resentment is a tool to the progressive Elite. They make people resent the wealth of the capitalist. But keep the people ignorant of the avarice of government in both money and power. “After all comrade, would you deny a pig a place for his head?” People who are resentful are in a fog. Overwhelming emotions have that effect on us. People in a fog are easy to herd and then marshal into an army.
Like the Brown Shirts. They were resentful of the wealth of the Jews. (Wealth the Jews earned from being Capitalists).The National Socialist Party turned that resentment into hate and used the hate to herd the whole of Germany into one camp. Then the faction that controlled the camp marshaled the Germen people into a killing machine that visited great sorrow on humanity. Hate and resentment are bread and butter to progressives, communists and socialists.
But today capitalists are called racists, haters, bigots and everything that is an anathema to a capitalist. The progressive Elite tell us we should hate the greedy racist capitalist. While to be a true capitalist is to be the exact opposite of a bigot. Bigotry is bad for business. Bigotry is a luxury that is reserved for progressives, socialists and communists. When you sell a guy a sofa you don’t care about the color of his face… only the color of his money. The market system is the greatest eliminator of racism there has ever been.
The progressive Elite like to use bigotry to “fight” bigotry. After all, isn’t “affirmative action” a form of State sponsored bigotry? The means taints the ends. The progressive Elite don’t care if it does. The ends are so glittering. They are certain they are right… “So personal is their knowledge.“
Isn’t that the definition of a zealot though? Someone who looks at the end and disregards the means. The means being subservient to the end. And the end is total power… Thrasymachus would applaud.
Tags: bigot, capitalist, communist, elite, government, incentive, International Capitalist Party, poverty, progressive, racism, racist, reset, standard of living, Thrasymachus
Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »
Thursday, July 8th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the stance of the Federal government as stated by Eric Holder is idiotic. To say that state authorities have no ability to arrest people found to be in violation of federal law opens a whole can of worms.
Is this a blanket statement? If it is then what about machine gun laws? They are federal. If a local law enforcement officer comes across a person brandishing a machine gun, that officer wouldn’t be allowed to even notify federal law enforcement about it… according to Holder. Let alone arrest him or her for it. Does this make sense to you?
If it is not a blanket statement then why the constitutional carve out for illegal immigrants? What legal basis could there be for it? So, if Mr. Holder claims that there is a carve out of federal law for illegal aliens, then is it because, there is a clear need for them in the US. One that is so important that it outweighs the mass of legal precedent. Legal precedent that is… all people are equal, under the law. Or has it changed to… all groups, are equal. There are some that are more equal then others. Illegal Aliens for example…
But if the administration is right, that local and State law enforcement cannot enforce Federal law, then I expect people will be getting out their printing presses and printing up $100 dollar bills. Only the FBI can enforce Federal law under the Holder leadership. A person could knowingly pass a printed counterfeit $20.00 bill and the Federal government would frown on a local police officer taking notice.
Slavery is another example. Does it make sense for local and State officials to turn a blind eye to a slavery ring operating in the US? Say…Trafficking in young girls? Under Holders assertion local and State police would be barred from reporting Human traffickers to federal authorities. To do so would make it less likely that people would report crime to the police. Using Holder’s logic.
What if Local police came across a treason plot that was about to be hatched? Holder would argue that it isn’t local police authority to intervene. If the government was overthrown and a communist regime set up, that then murdered twenty five million Americans, according to Eric Holder, that would be the price for liberty…. Or something. All to overturn a law Mr. Holder has not read.
No… Holder and the administrations want to use illegal immigration as a lever. A lever to use to move the American people to accept “comprehensive” reform. The law, as it is written, is “unsustainable.”
The definition of “comprehensive” is making all the illegal immigrants citizens… again. It had such a negative effect on illegal immigration the last few times it was tried it should definitely be tried again, and again, and again… Government loves to re-try things that have failed in the past. The bigger the failure the more it must try again.
The definition of “unsustainable” is anything the government wants to take over and control. If the government wants to take over and control health care they call it unsustainable. A word that, I am sure, has been thoroughly polled and tested… for it’s public palatability.
The real issue is that a faction of the American political Elite see an opportunity. They believe, if they make millions of poorly educated people who can’t speak English citizens, then the new citizens will reward that faction with their political support. It is not totally unfounded. Most of the poor and uneducated in South America vote reliably for communist governments. The faction of the American Elite that want to make them citizens agree with communist philosophy… they just call it progressivism. Their (illegal immigrants and the Elite’s) interests seem to be aligned.
Of course this would make a true underclass in the USA. Something the progressives have wanted for years. Real inequality… Not the ginned up, pretend variety they have been claiming is in the US. Real poverty, enforced by a language barrier and an education ceiling. Trapped in poverty and ignorance the Elite believe the Latinos will keep them in office forever…
Forever trapping the “undocumented workers” in poverty. Because to ever let them get up would undermine the power of the Elite… And if the power of the Elite is ever threatened… The Elite become dangerous even to their old allies.
Tags: arizona, Arizona law, communist, constitution, elite, government, health care, illegal immigration, immigration, incentive, International Capitalist Party, jobs, politicians, poverty, progressive, socialist
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »
Thursday, July 1st, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the inevitable outcome of the judicial philosophy of Aharon Barak is an oligarchy of judges. There is no other possible outcome of such a philosophy.
Elena Kagan, Obama’s newest supreme court nominee, says Ahron Barak is her judicial hero. To say such a thing implies, at the very least, some sympathy to the judicial philosophy of the man. To be sympathetic to such a philosophy is to be ignorant of the inevitable outcome or to sympathetic to the outcome. Neither is a resounding attribute for a Supreme Court Justice.
His philosophy, that I find so onerous, is;
Judges should be able to decide if the people can change the Constitution, Judges should have the final say in all matters relating to the government, Judges should be able to change the meaning of laws (a dynamic new power), Judges should be removed by other judges only, and that no human action whatsoever is outside the discretion of the law.
In other words, Judges should decide what the Constitution means, the meaning being dynamic, they should re-interprets the meaning of the constitutions they felt necessary, they should rewrite law to suit their needs and be unaccountable to no one for anything except themselves. I ask… Why bother with the expense and trouble of the other three branches then Aharon. Simply the convenient bureaucracy? Or the illusion of freedom?
I cannot believe that everyone on the planet including Aharon Barak cannot see the inevitable outcome, the fruit if you will, of the type of philosophy. Absolute power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable, flawed human beings without limit to their time in office. Hey, The military junta that rules Myanmar should start calling themselves the Supreme Court of Myanmar. Then Aharon Barak and the rest of the Progressives would have to, logically, turn their disdain to admiration. What the tyrant calls himself effects public opinion.
I am a great admirer and follower of the philosophy of William James. His philosophy of Pragmatism is a terrific guide to understanding the good and bad in a given ethos. In his method you look at the fruit of any philosophy to determine if it is “truth” or not. If the fruit is bitter… it is sophistry. If it bears sweet fruit for humanity it is, at least a form of, truth.
Under the philosophy of Aharon Barak, the fall into the tyranny of, a faction (Lawyers) that rule for it’s self serving interests will accelerate. Within a generation that faction will have seized control in perpetuity. (After all, who is more qualified to enact law, prosecute law, control and protect the Constitution, be commander and Chief and run the lives of the people… than an attorney). Democracy will mean (like it did in ancient Rome before the overthrow or Tarquinious), that the people will get to vote for the people who install their oppressors.
The US Constitution gives too much power to Lawyers. As a result lawyers have become a defacto oligarchy. Today they control all three branches of government. Every court ruling that awards someone millions of dollars for cutting himself while breaking a window to rob some people the result is more power for the faction (Lawyers).
Putting in a person who claims Aharon Barak as a hero on the Supreme Court is dicey at best. To do it without having seen sufficient jurisprudence to show temperament from Mrs. Kagan is just plain stupid.
I expect she will win overwhelmingly… Such is the caliber of our leaders.
Tags: constitution, Elana Kagan, International Capitalist Party, Lawyers, Nomination, progressive, regulation, supreme court
Posted in Group Politics, International Power, Law, 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, March 21st, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the congenital nature of government is evil. But before we can consider that government is evil we must first consider what definition of evil we will use.
In this instance we are not arguing that government is demonic. Or that it is controlled by some supernatural malevolent force. In this instance we are using secular definitions of evil only. The malevolent force is human.
Hsun Ching argued the congenital nature of Man is evil. His definition of evil was that evil is chiefly characterized by profound selfishness and self centeredness. He went on in his logic to claim the goodness in us is a learned trait. His definition will work quite well for our usage. In the case of the congenital nature of government we will define evil as pure self centeredness. Without regard to others.
How is government born? Almost every government that has ever come into existence has done so by violent means. Non violent revolutions are very infrequent and often are short lived before some strong man takes over… violently. People not used to liberty quickly vote it away for mere baubles.
Government is born of violence and government exists by violence. That creational violence is always followed by reprisals for past violence. Government uses violence so much we don’t even notice. Every police action is violent at it’s soul. Government sponsored violence. Violence done to the individual for some perceived societal good. Seldom are other enticements offered by government. Violence is the main tool in government’s tool box.
What if you or I refuse to pay taxes? If we are adamant about it we will have our homes assaulted in the middle of the night by armed government agents. Like in New Hampshire. Violent means will be used on our person to extract money for government to use to some other evil end. Committing violence on some people on the other side of the world.
Even when government seems to be benign… it is evil. Government will “help” this or that group that the Elite want to garner political favor. How does government do this? By violently taking the property of one and giving it to another.
If it is wrong for an individual to put a gun in my face and force me to give money or property… why is it good for government to do worse? One black dot being seen as black but many black dots seen as white. Are our collective eyesights that bad?
Those that advocate for total government, progressives, communists and socialists, always want a draft. They love the idea of coerced servitude to government in the form of military service. They decry a volunteer force. Because a general requirement for military service gives them colossal powers. Power to defer politically connected sons and daughters from service (to political ends). Power to threaten anyone with forcing their son or daughter into military service if they don’t do as ordered. There is no end to the mischief that can be done when the Elite have a general draft.
Moreover I never understood and still don’t, how a person can have a pitifully low opinion of his fellow man. Such that they believe that he should not be trusted with arms. His free speech should be limited by a fairness doctrine, his decisions should be made for him by government, and that he is so corrupt he cannot be trusted in any way without government oversight… can possibly believe that people in government can be trusted at all? How does that jibe? If all people are corrupt, stupid and menacing, how can you believe that people can be trusted with unlimited power in government? These people always protect the caprice of power. They defend corruption in government but decry it in the private sector.
Government holds others to a much higher standard then it does itself… in every way. Not only in outright corruption but in personal behavior as well. Politicians daily get away with personal conduct that would land you or I in jail. Running a prostitution ring from one’s apartment for example. Ignorance is no excuse under the law… unless you write that law.
What is more selfish than holding others to a much higher standard than oneself? Therefore, what, is more evil?
Tags: communist, Congenital Nature of Government, elite, evil, government, group, Hsun Ching, International Capitalist Party, progressive, socialist
Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »
Monday, March 15th, 2010
Dear Friends,
It seems to me that all legislation that makes the citizen get services from government are like poison ivy in our economic and legal gardens. It takes up space but produces nothing of value. It is intractable and very hard to eradicate. And whenever anyone brushes against it they sustain injury.
The faction in power in the USA today follow Machiavelli’s maxim that, “The wise Prince makes his people depend on him for everything and in every way, thus he will insure the loyalty of the people.” As the Elite make more and more people dependant on government they make more people dependant on their benefactors in government. The vote of a dependant is assured. The democratic system can and has been, (many times), undermined buy this very tactic. Many people have happily voted in their tyrants.
The legal system is under attack in such a case. Government does not allow itself to be sued unless the Elite have a political agenda and allow it. So if government does not deliver on planned services there is no legal recourse. Moreover if those that need the services that by legislation only government can provide, but government is not providing, have no recourse at all. Unless they find a political patron. Those that run afoul of bureaucracy find it increasingly stubborn as they place more pressure. There is simply no leveraging a bureaucrat. Except with a political patron.
The unwise politician who correctly sees the natural weaknesses in government delivered services, that dares threaten the gravy train, is always wounded… sometimes badly. All government programs set up current flows. Like water current these capital currents form a channel. It forms to the level of the capital and then simply moves funds along it‘s course. Trying to change the course of water… or largess, is difficult and dangerous.
Anytime any legislation that moves government in that direction is dangerous and should be though through very carefully. Stopped if possible. Especially under a government that has no NUMA. As we have mentioned above, when government delivers services, and they are delivered poorly or not at all, there is no recourse. Couple this with the fact that, like poison ivy, this type of legislation is very hard to get rid of, anyone who wants to spread this must be nuts.
The Healthcare legislation is the worst manifestation of this principle possible. It is nothing but two thousand pages of seeds to be planted in everyone’s backyard. They will have ten tears to sprout and grow before we will reap their real fruit.
Trying to get healthcare will be like mowing a lawn infested with poison ivy. The results will be similar. Elevated blood pressure. Elevated temperatures, Elevated pulse rate, a stinging rash and time spent with sticky ointments (bureaucrats).
The Elite keep trying to convince us that it will be great when the government runs our lives. Healthcare is the narrow end of the wedge. Let it in and there is a whole wedding party behind. The mess will be left for our children and grandchildren to clean up.
We need to ask ourselves… How much closer do we want to get to 1984? Or are we already there and just don’t know it?
Tags: economy, elite, government, health care, International Capitalist Party, Lawyers, Machiavelli, poison ivy, progressive, redistribution, socialist
Posted in Law, economy, philosophy | No Comments »