What we say:
I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; One Nation under God, with liberty and justice for all,
What we do:
I submit fealty to the Stag, of the Federated States of America, and to the fascist Autocracy for which it’s destined, a world Dominion beyond restraint, with retribution, terror, and death upon all.
A century ago the world was plunged into a terrible human conflagration, threatening to destroy the underpinnings of human solidarity, by governments and businesses seeking enlargement of their dominions without restraint. It culminated in unheard of homicide, poverty, the scapegoating of a feudalistic culture, propagation of disillusionment and superfluity, diminishing moral judgment and devotion to justice. A quarter century later the world was enveloped again in greater conflict, fueled by piety, patriotism, paternalism, and obsession with the consolidation of power. It culminated in the birth of annihilative technology, imminent death of moral judgment and devotion to justice, festering suspicion, mistrust, and trepidation across mankind. A half century later the world is consumed with terror, vengeance, sanctimony, fascist greed, and colossal vanity. Our governing institutions are saturated with petty power mongers, profligate spendthrifts of wealth and virtue. Our national leader is an elected tyrant. Our moral institutions are suffused with Zionistic zeal and millennial salvation, invoking God as their vanquisher of the heathen for justification of their atrocities. Spiritual impotence and the disappearance of natural affection defines the soul in the chapel, mosque, temple, and synagogue.
Hannah Arendt, Jewish refugee and expatriate studied this human malignancy at the birth of the Cold War. She characterized in her essays the forces behind Totalitarianism, tracing them to their root, only to find Man is engaged in the gratification of personal confidence and purpose with substitutes. This feeling of impotence and superfluity is the fuel of domination in all its manifestations. It reaches its apex in the Totalitarian engine bent on the demolition of the autonomous, juridical, and morally sagacious soul. Once this state of diffuse identity and moral boundlessness is achieved by the oppression begun with mass movements, terror is instigated against the unresisting, indifferent, and innocent. The sole objective is the Mein Kampf declaration of being Right, through the elimination of all opposition to its supremacy.
“The aggressiveness of totalitarianism springs not from lust for power, and if it feverishly seeks to expand, it does so neither for expansion’s sake nor for profit, but only for ideological reasons: to make the world consistent, to prove that its respective supersense has been right.” (The Origin of Totalitarianism p458)
What Hannah missed was that Totalitarianism is not the end-game. It, like the propaganda of anti-semitism, racism, and imperialism of the previous century and the destruction of humanity it produced, are all tools to one end--the establishment of an elite group of people left to inherit the earth in the wake of mass annihilation unwittingly self-consummated. It is the very conspiracy she denied, and only grudgingly conceded which created the ideologically driven extermination of the last century. No, there was not a world-wide conspiracy on the part of the Jews, but there was and there remains, a world-wide conspiracy which used the Jews both as scapegoats and as implementers of the fascist/communist revolutions. The conspiracy was documented as early as 1798 by professor John Robison, (Proofs of a Conspiracy), by investigative journalist Douglas Reed (The Controversy of Zion) in the mid 1950s, by Benjamin Freedman, business associate and protogé of Bernard Baruch, also in the 1950s and early 60s, and numerous authors who chronicle the continuing debacle.
But this post is not intended to belabor the existence of this Conspiracy, which incidentally, is no longer secret at the level Hannah knew it. Today Congress is in session, bickering over scraps of power in the form of concessions to the opposition, holding hostage the Federal government and 90% of the populace. The end-game is the same--the collapse of our economy and wholesale destitution on a wider scale than Germany ever endured. We have cooked our own goose, feathers and claw, by petitioning the Federal government to solve our domestic and economic difficulties. Whether the Fed continues to debauch the currency, or Congress immediately fails to pay its bills, the debt for our collective and individual profligacy is about to come due. I'm not convinced that having been apprised of Hannah Arendt's works would have made any difference in my political or economic choices. But they have enlarged my understanding of the world I inherited, and I am a pariah in my own generation.
While intellectualism is obviously missing in large segments of the world's population, Hannah is not so dismayed by it as she is of sheer stupidity:
“Stupidity has become as common as common sense was before; and this does not mean that it is a symptom of mass society or that "intelligent" people are exempt from it. The only difference is that stupidity remains blissfully inarticulate among the non-intellectuals and becomes unbearably offensive among "intelligent" people. Within the intelligentsia, one may even say that the more intelligent an individual happens to be, the more irritating is the stupidity which he has in common with all.” (Essays on Understanding p314)
Actually I think this is an eternal condition of Man. All generations consider their predecessors more moral than themselves. It is an universal lament that corruption today is worse than it ever was. And yet we can observe through our own records the decline of the ability to reason and analyze. A decline in the ability to make discerning moral judgment. Education and knowledge is more wide-spread than ever. But that education and knowledge is the indoctrination and inculcation of meaningless facts. All one need do is behold the spectacle of Miss America pageants to discover how little wisdom and sagacity exists in the minds of these Americanese dolls. Endowed with the physical emoluments of external beauty, we have a representation of a growing class of brainless prospective mothers. What is to be done when women debauch themselves through such female operated corporations as Madmoiselle, Playboy, and Barbie? The cerebral vacancy is not restricted to feminine chromosomes.The spectacle of male physiognomy infests the media and art platforms with productions of pre-adolescent rap by performers twice that age. Every boy dreams of being an athletic or musical superstar. Despite the technological tools to assist reading, spelling, and writing skills, their performance standard is decreasing. The shift from the hard sciences as majors in education is dropping to lows of a century earlier. With the pervasiveness of technology we see a concomitant disinterest in its innovation. The rising generation of engineers are focused on games. Communication hardware and services belie a reduction in verbal and writing communication skill.
One would think that stupidity and immaturity is the contrivance of affluence. But this is nothing new. Anyone well acquainted with the history of aristocracy during the Age of Reason knows it was just as bad among them then. The difference is, it is spreading, seemingly at the same rate as technological innovation. The more of it we have, and the higher the standard of living, the less we find in the population those possessed of the intellectual acumen of our ancestral pioneers.
Some hope manifests with the growing interest among the youth of this nation in libertarian principles and free market economy. But I fear their power of change will be confined to the rise of the Phoenix. Perhaps some salvation lies in the Web and the effect it is having like the printing press of Luther's day.
SethSmee
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The Illustrious Age of Torpidity
There has always been a faction of people who are convinced Man must be governed for their own good. Inspect the annals of political history and it is ever present. This obsession in certain people extended its shadow over the public during the Revolutionary War. People of this persuasion are opportunists, and often True Believers. Benjamin Franklin declared the drive for American independence was rooted in the Colonists inability to control their own money, without the interference of the British government. But we are taught it was over the cause of freedom, taxation without representation being the primary cause. But that in itself becomes a ruse over time. It wasn’t the issues of taxation that caused the rebellion. It was financial losses on the part of businessmen that drove the Federalist movement for political consolidation and stronger Federal government. We have beheld the orgiastic peak in recent years of what businessmen will do to extricate themselves from their folly. It is government they turn to for advantage and ease of restriction, and government the source for financial redress. They’ve been doing this to the populace in this country the same as what has been done in others back through the ages. The Revolutionary War didn’t grant the public freedom of self-determination. It merely granted power-mongers here the privilege to do what their counterparts in England were doing to them. If there is anything to be learned from politics, it is that the nature of human beings is to grope toward fascism and despotism.
The truth of the matter is Man is the only specie on this planet capable or regulating itself by cognitive action, and has regulated itself over countless millennia, with or without imposed supervision. Speaking of supervision, there is no such action performed by governing bodies—they’ve never possessed SUPER vision. This is oxymoronic, and if anything, it’s been super-myopathy where hierarchies are present. From a psychological perspective, those who seek to define themselves through the regulation of the public welfare are universally least capacitated to do so. Our very own American grass-roots philosopher, Eric Hoffer, eloquently elucidated this character defect, as has numerous doctoral dissertation beggars attempting to categorize the human psyche in predictable patterns. Such obsessed people acquire substitutes for what is lacking within themselves—at the expense of others.
The spiral of retrograde amnesia however, is not due to the presence of this and numerous other human behavioral defects. My contention is that such behaviors are more pervasive and subtle the more complex our civilization becomes. The more pyramidal and stratified we become in our attitudes, associations, and business ventures, the worse the amnesia, and more imminent the collapse. The natural bonds that hold families, communities, and ad-hoc associations together tend to dissolution if not inhibited. More is not necessarily better. Faster is not necessarily earlier. Riches and power derived from them do not necessarily grant freedom, serenity, and certainly not happiness. Such solutions to life’s impediments to those goals in fact tend to the opposite result. Despite this cognitive recognition, the pursuit of “getting ahead” permeates business, news, sports, virtually every aspect of Western life.
The more technologically oriented we are, the more buffered our relationships become. When I was a child, neighbors still chatted from adjacent yards and joined in ad-hoc neighborhood activities. A grievance was addressed through face-to-face communication. Formal politeness and honorifics in speech were used to convey respect and friendliness. These behaviors are disappearing. The irony is that where they do exist, it is in organizations like the military. Such organizations depend on these honorifics to survive. They cannot perform their intended purpose without the camaraderie and trust such treatment engenders in their members.
Evidence of buffered relationships is most obvious with Facebook, Twitter, and other Internet based communications. Direct contact between communicants is virtually non-existent. In fact, virtual in all its social permutations is where our “advanced” society is headed. Good science fiction writing (the style that started the genre) has always been prognostic. The movie Surrogates released in 2009 is a representative theme in science fiction material, brought up to date with current technology and social patterns. Social interaction is mechanized, facilitated by complex hardware and software apps. In the last month I have witnessed more than a dozen emails among the Amateur Radio community about how there is an app for this or that function. The need for interactivity between persons is pacified with the substitute of machine tools for the sake of expediency, speed, convenience, or fear of non-acceptance. What is invented to grant more leisure time for direct social interaction of families or communities is transmuted into methods of asocial interaction. The closer we become in time and space the less we want to deal with the realities of social intercourse. We prefer to experience our relationships through virtual reality mechanisms—movies, video clips, sound bites, stage performances, and entertainment. Persons enmeshed in these mechanisms to the exclusion of regular and productive social interchanges become insipid and ethereal.
The explosion of reality and criminal justice TV shows over the last few decades follows a path similar to Harry Benson in Michael Crichton’s Terminal Man. The Media in this country, obsessed with ever higher ratings and market share, scour anything that can be made sensational. Vulgarity and crass apparently is their watchword with spectacles like the Trayvon Martin court proceedings. Of course this is not new; O.J. Simpson’s trials dominated the “news” in their time.
The consequences of this is a decrease in patience not only with the technology, but with people for small affronts or failure of expectation. Americans as much as, and perhaps more than any other culture today, will have their pound of flesh for infractions against their repose. We see it in the news repeatedly. The Boston Bombers, the Tucson Triggerman, Pompous Posters on You Tube and Facebook. There is hardly an exception to those interviewed on the evening news, being victim of some violent crime, who speak out for justice when what they really mean is retribution.
The top news stories are trivial and disgusting. They’ve become minibite emulations of Days of Our Lives, Dallas, Peyton Place, and reality shows like Survivor in their press releases, as if the news media must compete with the entertainment industry. Who cares about the personal problems of Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, or Reese Witherspoon, or Randy Quaid? How do their personal difficulties become the subject of headline news? Are people that petty, vulgar, or half-witted? Apparently so judging by broadcast content.
Who turns the TV on to get the latest top stories because of the graphics used in television production? Are people so easily manipulated by the agenda of media moguls, or is it both? Evening entertainment takes the form of Bevis and Butthead or South Park type humor. To out perform The Simpsons with its parody of family dysfunction, we get cartoons depicting and exalting the lack of intelligence, foresight, and wisdom. On the opposite channels we have game shows of every kind reflecting Frederic Bastiat’s 1873 observation: “The Lottery is the poetic vision of the poor.” And the technology to watch this drivel keeps pace with bigger and bigger LCD view screens, and iPads with their WiFi connected intravenous narcotic drip.
In concert with these banal media productions idolizing fatuousness, we’re getting graduates who not only cannot spell, but don’t want to spell correctly. In the parking lot of Sam’s club I observed a sign concerning their expansion project: “We thank you for your patients.” And another: pure filtered water. Nobody caught these before they were retrieved from the sign-making press. With all the technological aids and tutorial services today, public school graduates are not concerned with the excellence of the basic communicative skills: reading, writing, arithmetic competence, nor analytical thought. They don’t see any value in it, and we’re seeing a commensurate decline in technical competence and interest by undergraduates.
Contrast this with the African tribes who confront the social offender not with their misdeed, but with the name and song they were given at birth, or recitations of the all the good the person had accomplished. The offender is confronted with positive reflection, reminded of who they were before they committed their offense. Which people are the more civilized?
How is it this younger generation largely abhors the technical professions that brought them the gadgets and instant communication and gratification they depend on? Eric Hoffer observed of my generation it was due to the rise of affluence in the middle-class. They have so much affluence they have little to strive for but venal self-indulgence. Today the middle-class is not much larger than the working poor. The median age in America is close to middle age. When I was a burgeoning youth, I looked forward with great anticipation for the future of exploration and discovery. Today’s youth are looking forward to the maintenance of a geriatric population supported by broken political programs and economic policies. Their nation is being run by a gaggle of cronies that can’t agree on anything but plundering the last vestige of civil liberty. Children today are not in pursuit of an education that increases their perspicacity, but to find employment in a rapidly declining marketplace for the professional, and increasing demand for the common laborer or soldier. In my youth an education represented the door not only to prosperity, but new frontiers in discovery. Today’s youth view education as a lifetime of debt and destitution for all but the elite.
More people can read, but literacy remains a small percentage of the population.
More people are taught arithmetic rules and algebraic relations, but analytical skills remain fairly low.
More people are taught the concepts of artistic composition, but music and art remain blasé.
Network and broadcasting information channels have exploded, but the content is uniform and repetitive.
American media peddles the Paint Factory mystique. Europe had more leisure time in the 90s than Americans. Here there is a frantic 50+ hr/wk pace to obtain economic stability all the while escalating work place burnout, and on a larger, longer scale corporate burnout. Everywhere people bemoan the loss of business enterprise, the loss of large corporations that comprised the backbone of American manufacturing and personal affluence. The big name corporations of a century, and half-century ago are disappearing in consolidations and bankruptcies. The unemployed and uninformed cite corporate officer greed as the motive force behind the exportation of their jobs. But few if any, realize that the loss of productivity in America is not about where the jobs have gone, but why. Corporations are living entities composed of a symbiosis between the worker and the patron. Corporations have a life cycle and ultimate economic impotence just as people do. Bemoaning such losses, Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee referred to the development and exploitation of the Great Lakes as a commodity rather than a natural resource to be managed and conserved for the preservation of all life. Jobs have left the northern continent not because of corporate officer greed, but because world affluence has obviated the need for a working middle-class American.
Where have we come to when we view our world in terms of economic stability and affluence, measured against the spendthrift business practices of the last two centuries?
This morning I discussed with my wife the negativity that exudes from the news channels, which are relentless in asserting their supremacy at accurate weather forecasting, breaking news stories (I abhor broken news), and the fine sifting viewers must perform to find something truly noteworthy, informative, and uplifting. Because our communication organs are largely insipid, I quit watching TV news, listening to radio news, and the banality of their programming across the modulation spectrum. Shows like Dancing with the Stars, and American Idol is like watching Sesame Street on steroids. Not that there isn’t value in supporting people in the quest for artistic excellence. It’s the system of extreme sensationalism that permeates the whole of communication networks. In the last decade there has been an unending line of movie productions escalating the computer graphic depictions of movie remakes. But where is the art? The only useful portion worth remembering in Iron Man III was Tony Stark’s introductory commentary on the hazards of hubris. Man of Steel is loaded with high tech and magic, but the characters are mostly wooden, particularly the hero who spends the majority of the 150 minutes bashing it out with his father’s enemies (who by the way loses his life to a moment of petty distraction capstoning a life of cunning preparation). Kal El can’t seem to outwit these idiots at their own game and triumphs only by assistance of his mortal counterparts. Superman was originally possessed of higher intelligence as well as morals. The appeal of the original story was traded for CGI.
The previous century was loaded with theorists who were completely off their rockers, theorizing cause and effect that had nothing to do with observed reality. Men like Freud, Chapman, Einstein, Gammow, Geovanelli, Sagan, Hawking, Hubble. The list is quite large. The best analytical research was accomplished by their predecessors whose discoveries were largely ignored. There were, and still are some physicists and astronomers who pay attention to their observations and its connection to reality. But these are largely held incommunicado by an entrenched and corrupt peer-review process. Those that manage to self organize and produce their own publicizing organs fall prey to the same traits as their opposition; rigid, intractable, pertinacious, opinionated, closing ranks on any who may wish for open discussion or debate of their research and creating the Peter Principle atmosphere in their hierarchy.
In the late 60s, philosopher Eric Hoffer observed a trend that has become the general state of the current world economy: “it is doubtful whether a non-middle-class society can be modern. Domination by aristocrats, intellectuals, workers or soldiers results in a return to the past—to feudalism, the Middle Ages, or even the ancient river-valley civilizations. It is not as yet certain whether it is possible to have a freewheeling science, literature and art, or even a genuine machine age without a middle class.” With all the advancement in technology and its affluence, we do not see a return to the Golden Age, but a further decline into stagnation and depravity. It isn’t the advanced society of Star Trek NG we see on the horizon, but the world of Blade Runner and Cherry 2000 with its cyborg counterparts.
Seth Smee
REFERENCES
First Things Last Things p45 Hoffer
The Ordeal of Change Hoffer
Economic Sophisms p264 Frederic Bastiat
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Down the Rabbit Hole
In 2008 John Stossel produced a video piece on Greed. In my estimation it was no documentary, too much was left out germane to the theme of corporate greed. While covering some very salient points, he left the viewer confused about what actually was corporate greed, and never really got to the heart of the definition.
I tend to like John's coverage of our nation's liberty issues, but this one left me exceptionally dismayed. It is indicative of what journalism has come to. It wouldn't take much to fit portions of his work into the evening news. And does anyone with an ounce of intelligence pay attention to the news? Journalists today are a gaggle of talking heads, all competing to entertain the public with what they consider news worthy. And I am certainly less interested in their opinions on whatever they dig up. But that's what the world planners want sheople to know, which is a chief factor in what is behind civilization's retrograde descent.
Back when business in the USA was optimistic I worked for a venture that rose Phoenix-like from the chapter 11 demise of another company I had worked for. The people who formed this new company founded it upon a different paradigm: share the wealth. Not entirely equal in monetary reward structure, it did provide profit sharing, and medical coverage was 100% of company cost. No employee premiums. Their view of time off and sick leave were similar to medical coverage expense. Everyone's intellectual input was respected and valued. At the weekly status meetings the vice president presented an updated status of the company, asked for our reports, and then asked each person in the various departments what was needed of him to facilitate achievement of the next week's objectives. As for the CEO, his attitude was he was the least technically qualified, and remained the figurehead who represented the company's business image where needed. I felt like I was running my own company within this venture. Because of this business paradigm, I grew more personally and professionally than I have before or since. We became a cohesive, interactive group where all had an equal interest in the success of the venture. It was a very heady experience. The venture failed primarily because of inadequate market diversity, underfunding, and investor fraud.
Compare the business philosophy of TJ Rodgers, founder and CEO of Cypress semiconductors, with Joe Leuken, founder of Leuken's Village Food chain. When John asked Rodgers about his millions in profits being greed, he defended himself saying that he started the company by himself, in debt, and that he had worked for it and deserved it. Deserving of profits? Rightly so. But he is also a hard man to work for. Completely willing to fire a good worker who was seeking a $2,000 increase, rather than consult with the individual (or so John insinuates in his video). And in my estimation when a CEO works 15 hours a day while his hired help works the regular eight, he does not understand his function, which is in part to delegate duties to those with specific skills. He is not empowering his staff.
Joe on the other hand, acknowledging his success as a food merchant due to the contribution of his 400 employees recently announced turning the chain over to employee ownership, rather than selling out to his competitors and leaving his faithful hired help to the wolves of corporate take-overs. I have to agree with Stossel's thesis, greed is the operative for Rodgers, who seems to think his wealth was built in a vacuum. His employees are getting what they deserve: a paycheck for assisting him in his personal venture for his own aggrandizement. Never mind what the personal ambitions of his employees might be, or what the effects of termination might mean to them. He is not providing a service to them (greater wealth), they are provided with the opportunity to serve him.
Is this the philosophy of capitalism? Rodger's form of capitalism is how to foster disloyalty. Leuken's not only generates loyalty, everyone thrives. I understood capitalism to be a system of wealth to be used to create greater wealth. The wealth is not in the financial return. The financials are incidental. Wealth is the combined business acumen of the people who form the cooperative. When corporations value their people rather than the stockholder returns, the company thrives and profits and stockholders both increase. It is in the team of the cooperative where the real potential for monetary wealth lies. Napolean Hill expounded on these principles of the Mastermind in his book Think and Grow Rich.
Since the late 80s, corporate officers have been running business in this country like fast-food chains. Get in, grab all you can, and move on (a la Gerber's Emyth). In the mid 80s the CEO of TRW received $2M in bonus money (a paltry sum compared to compensations today) while simultaneously laying off 200 employees. Rather than being the skilled CEO who could turn an extra $2M by expert management of his human resources, he got a pat on the back for keeping the investor folios looking good, at the expense of liquidating TRW's greatest assets. At the least, everyone of those terminated employees could have been thanked well by a severance package that included an additional $10K of the CEO's bonus for his failure to preserve and expand the business.
You can take it as an axiom; when a business must lay off its hired help, it is directly due to the managers failing at their duties. In Japan, during that period when a CEO could be found pushing a broom and participating in the company wide fitness events, nobody was laid off in tough times. Everybody pulled together, tightening their collective belts if necessary, to keep the business going until product restructuring or development was implemented. Doing otherwise was considered dishonorable.
Honor is part of what is missing in US business today. Everybody has shifted their focus to what is happening on Wall street, just like a century ago. Too many people have been seduced by the "American Dream" happening overnight. Just last week the Powerball lottery exceeded ¾billion, which Frederic Bastiat said "is the poetic vision of the poor." I haven't met an honest, honorable, unpretentious CEO in twenty years. We have learned nothing in a century, although we have developed the science of wealth acquisition to a level unknown in the annals of world history. George Soros, Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and all their fellow corporate barons aren't practicing capitalism. They're practicing avarice. Instead of giving away a paltry 1% to charity, they could easily and very comfortably live off 1% of their financial sack. The balance could be reinvested in other ventures that put people back to work, the kind that empowers the poor in third world nations rather than enslaving them to international debt, the kind that puts the US back into the world leadership position of know-how, opportunity, and success. With such an approach, watch the need for charities gradually disappear. As has been pointed out many times, poverty and population automatically become self-limiting when the standard of living rises.
When a person has met the challenges of wealth creation the only challenge left is power. When avarice meets power the cliff of civilization's demise is a deceptive precipice on the horizon. Henry Kissinger admitted openly how intoxicating power is; how utterly irresistible once experienced it becomes. Repeatedly through the millenia, world planners, conquerors, dictators and their sycophants who, having acquired vast wealth at the expense of the populace, have sown the seeds of civilization's collapse. Students of world history will observe this with the demise of each and every one. Yet this cadre of self-exalting elitists return, empire after empire, civilization after civilization, determined to achieve that Nirvana and Utopia of a mythical Golden Age, convinced that this time it will be achieved. In this episode at least, the objective is to stamp at all religions but Pantheism. In so doing any philosophical or moral restraint to cause them a twinge of conscience is erased. A young Rabbi having declared the moral Golden Rule (not the Wizard of Id's version), went on to explain how much easier it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, which Kingdom he said is within the soul. The love of money, not it's making, IS the root of all evil, and leads to total corruption just as surely as total power corrupts totally.
No John Stossel, a little greed is not required in the pursuit of comfort, or financial security, or wealth. Little does not enter into the process. Greed is required, commensurate with the scale of covetousness. And those who engage in such ambition lose touch with the value of life, with their own humanity. Witness the testimony of Warren Buffet disowning his grand-daughter, or Jamie Johnson of Johnson & Johnson, or Foster Gamble of Proctor & Gamble. Real wealth has always been in man's humanity to his neighbor.
SethSmee
I tend to like John's coverage of our nation's liberty issues, but this one left me exceptionally dismayed. It is indicative of what journalism has come to. It wouldn't take much to fit portions of his work into the evening news. And does anyone with an ounce of intelligence pay attention to the news? Journalists today are a gaggle of talking heads, all competing to entertain the public with what they consider news worthy. And I am certainly less interested in their opinions on whatever they dig up. But that's what the world planners want sheople to know, which is a chief factor in what is behind civilization's retrograde descent.
Back when business in the USA was optimistic I worked for a venture that rose Phoenix-like from the chapter 11 demise of another company I had worked for. The people who formed this new company founded it upon a different paradigm: share the wealth. Not entirely equal in monetary reward structure, it did provide profit sharing, and medical coverage was 100% of company cost. No employee premiums. Their view of time off and sick leave were similar to medical coverage expense. Everyone's intellectual input was respected and valued. At the weekly status meetings the vice president presented an updated status of the company, asked for our reports, and then asked each person in the various departments what was needed of him to facilitate achievement of the next week's objectives. As for the CEO, his attitude was he was the least technically qualified, and remained the figurehead who represented the company's business image where needed. I felt like I was running my own company within this venture. Because of this business paradigm, I grew more personally and professionally than I have before or since. We became a cohesive, interactive group where all had an equal interest in the success of the venture. It was a very heady experience. The venture failed primarily because of inadequate market diversity, underfunding, and investor fraud.
Compare the business philosophy of TJ Rodgers, founder and CEO of Cypress semiconductors, with Joe Leuken, founder of Leuken's Village Food chain. When John asked Rodgers about his millions in profits being greed, he defended himself saying that he started the company by himself, in debt, and that he had worked for it and deserved it. Deserving of profits? Rightly so. But he is also a hard man to work for. Completely willing to fire a good worker who was seeking a $2,000 increase, rather than consult with the individual (or so John insinuates in his video). And in my estimation when a CEO works 15 hours a day while his hired help works the regular eight, he does not understand his function, which is in part to delegate duties to those with specific skills. He is not empowering his staff.
Joe on the other hand, acknowledging his success as a food merchant due to the contribution of his 400 employees recently announced turning the chain over to employee ownership, rather than selling out to his competitors and leaving his faithful hired help to the wolves of corporate take-overs. I have to agree with Stossel's thesis, greed is the operative for Rodgers, who seems to think his wealth was built in a vacuum. His employees are getting what they deserve: a paycheck for assisting him in his personal venture for his own aggrandizement. Never mind what the personal ambitions of his employees might be, or what the effects of termination might mean to them. He is not providing a service to them (greater wealth), they are provided with the opportunity to serve him.
Is this the philosophy of capitalism? Rodger's form of capitalism is how to foster disloyalty. Leuken's not only generates loyalty, everyone thrives. I understood capitalism to be a system of wealth to be used to create greater wealth. The wealth is not in the financial return. The financials are incidental. Wealth is the combined business acumen of the people who form the cooperative. When corporations value their people rather than the stockholder returns, the company thrives and profits and stockholders both increase. It is in the team of the cooperative where the real potential for monetary wealth lies. Napolean Hill expounded on these principles of the Mastermind in his book Think and Grow Rich.
Since the late 80s, corporate officers have been running business in this country like fast-food chains. Get in, grab all you can, and move on (a la Gerber's Emyth). In the mid 80s the CEO of TRW received $2M in bonus money (a paltry sum compared to compensations today) while simultaneously laying off 200 employees. Rather than being the skilled CEO who could turn an extra $2M by expert management of his human resources, he got a pat on the back for keeping the investor folios looking good, at the expense of liquidating TRW's greatest assets. At the least, everyone of those terminated employees could have been thanked well by a severance package that included an additional $10K of the CEO's bonus for his failure to preserve and expand the business.
You can take it as an axiom; when a business must lay off its hired help, it is directly due to the managers failing at their duties. In Japan, during that period when a CEO could be found pushing a broom and participating in the company wide fitness events, nobody was laid off in tough times. Everybody pulled together, tightening their collective belts if necessary, to keep the business going until product restructuring or development was implemented. Doing otherwise was considered dishonorable.
Honor is part of what is missing in US business today. Everybody has shifted their focus to what is happening on Wall street, just like a century ago. Too many people have been seduced by the "American Dream" happening overnight. Just last week the Powerball lottery exceeded ¾billion, which Frederic Bastiat said "is the poetic vision of the poor." I haven't met an honest, honorable, unpretentious CEO in twenty years. We have learned nothing in a century, although we have developed the science of wealth acquisition to a level unknown in the annals of world history. George Soros, Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and all their fellow corporate barons aren't practicing capitalism. They're practicing avarice. Instead of giving away a paltry 1% to charity, they could easily and very comfortably live off 1% of their financial sack. The balance could be reinvested in other ventures that put people back to work, the kind that empowers the poor in third world nations rather than enslaving them to international debt, the kind that puts the US back into the world leadership position of know-how, opportunity, and success. With such an approach, watch the need for charities gradually disappear. As has been pointed out many times, poverty and population automatically become self-limiting when the standard of living rises.
When a person has met the challenges of wealth creation the only challenge left is power. When avarice meets power the cliff of civilization's demise is a deceptive precipice on the horizon. Henry Kissinger admitted openly how intoxicating power is; how utterly irresistible once experienced it becomes. Repeatedly through the millenia, world planners, conquerors, dictators and their sycophants who, having acquired vast wealth at the expense of the populace, have sown the seeds of civilization's collapse. Students of world history will observe this with the demise of each and every one. Yet this cadre of self-exalting elitists return, empire after empire, civilization after civilization, determined to achieve that Nirvana and Utopia of a mythical Golden Age, convinced that this time it will be achieved. In this episode at least, the objective is to stamp at all religions but Pantheism. In so doing any philosophical or moral restraint to cause them a twinge of conscience is erased. A young Rabbi having declared the moral Golden Rule (not the Wizard of Id's version), went on to explain how much easier it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, which Kingdom he said is within the soul. The love of money, not it's making, IS the root of all evil, and leads to total corruption just as surely as total power corrupts totally.
No John Stossel, a little greed is not required in the pursuit of comfort, or financial security, or wealth. Little does not enter into the process. Greed is required, commensurate with the scale of covetousness. And those who engage in such ambition lose touch with the value of life, with their own humanity. Witness the testimony of Warren Buffet disowning his grand-daughter, or Jamie Johnson of Johnson & Johnson, or Foster Gamble of Proctor & Gamble. Real wealth has always been in man's humanity to his neighbor.
SethSmee
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Spiral of Amnesia
Today in the news:
And so forth. Doesn't anyone see a trend here? A trend that has escalated like the dollar devaluation against gold in the last half century? One group of people after another are attempting to impose control over another. The divisiveness taking hold of this country threatens to rip the foundation of liberty in our society to shreds.
Take the issue of marriage. Pastors are on opposing sides of this issue. Archbishop Nienstedt asserts no harm is intended by passage of the amendment defining marriage. Apparently the archbishop did not learn anything in his Catholic education. Something about the road to hell...?
This last month I have been reading in the three volume set, A History of Matrimonial Institutions by Dr George Elliot Howard, published in 1904. Dr. Howard recounts in volume one the history of various marital arrangements around the world as reported by several researchers of varying credibility back to pre-Roman Empire times. Volume two covers the changes that took place in England and America beginning just prior to the Colonial era. Volume three completes a detailed account of marriage and divorce proceedings in the United States up to the date of publication. I started reading this set because I wanted to understand what truly is "traditional marriage" that the religious force in our nation has based their crusade against homosexuals upon.
So far what I discovered is, there isn't one. There are hundreds, if not thousands. Virtually every kind of marital arrangement conceivable to man has been practiced on this planet. And this includes divorce. Before I finished volume one the message came on very strong and clear: the Catholic Church in its attempt to regulate and "sanctify" marriage created a terrible morass of religious and civil legislation that follows us today. Where once marriage was a private contract between husband and wife, and consummated by the family of the bride (usually her father), it is now completely out of private hands and dominated by the State at every level. And what is pushing this domination? Religion. Never mind the morass of problems created by St. Augustine, or Luther, or King James, or the Stuarts of England as they produced by their meddling some of the worst abuses of marriage and divorce the world has ever seen. Religious piety is still in there slugging away in the Congress and the Courts, striving to impose moral rectitude in the name of God.
Before the Roman Empire, marriage had nothing to do with religion or God, or morality. It was a bond between two people, merging their resources and talents in creating another family, which had always been the basis upon which governmental power was derived. Marriage was largely considered a private act, sanctioned by the community not legally, but festively. In some instances there were some moral taboos or tribal edicts with regard to the separation of a married couple. But these almost always were centered around the disposition of property, the disposition of underage children, and debasing of the marriage relation where more than one spouse or infidelity was concerned. Marriage and divorce was largely a voluntary contract made and broken by those who entered into it, and no one had much control of it.
Since the Catholic Church invaded the Teutonic Empire problems with marriage and divorce have escalated to the unmanageable levels we have today. One does not need to investigate Christian history very far to discover it is composed of some of the worst hypocrites the world has produced. If one considers Jesus' words concerning marriage it is clear it belongs to this world alone. (Mark 12) It is well known among scholars of ancient religious texts that Paul was considered an heretic by the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. This is why he was sent away from Jerusalem. He attempted to teach a different code of conduct than what had been given to Peter and James. The Christianity we have today is a derivative of the self-persecuting Saul of Tarsus, who continued going about dictating to all who would give ear, what was moral, and what was the mind of Jesus, even though he never sought tutelage at Jesus' feet as did His fervent disciples. It is in Paul's disquisitions we see the departure from the teachings of Jesus on the matter of marriage. And it is aberrations of the Church at the peak of the Roman Empire we see building upon the doctrines of Paul, the ex-persecutor. But Christians today do not perceive any hypocrisy in what they are attempting to impose on their fellow Americans against the backdrop of an ancient Hebrew custom. They insist the entire world must conform to their modern interpretation of this ancient and little nation's marriage customs!
It is little consolation to be reminded Thomas Jefferson foresaw this trend. Few people today know anything about what Jefferson wrote or his concerns for the survival of what they so laboriously sought to create. Listen to America's real "prophet":
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself .... The way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution of heresy, or three years' imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is that spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless .... From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights."
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia" (1781)
The danger in this constitutional amendment is not so much the damage done to marriage traditions. It is the further widening of the door of State intervention. Intervention that will ultimately and inevitably backfire upon the religious institutions of this country, just as it did upon our ancestors of Western Europe over 400 hundred years ago. Friends and countrymen, you haven't seen anything yet with regard to the demise of the family and the solidarity of children with parents. The State already has total and unequivocal control over our children (or haven't you been in juvenile court lately?), and they will soon with this foolish legislation fueled by well-meaning but spiritually impotent priests find the State dictating who may marry whom, when, the duration, and the obligations. Or did you not pay attention to Michael Straczynski's portrayal of the Telepath Corps in Babylon 5: They are mother. They are father.
This is where we are headed. We are the ones who have created Orwell's 1984 society. The Fahrenheit 451 government. The tyranny of a One World Order. It's what you want, because you haven't learned the first lesson of a patriot of Jeffersonian government:
Mind Your Own Business and leave your neighbor's practices and beliefs alone.
SethSmee
- Netflix creates super-PAC to support SOPA laws
- The Internet Association just formed by Google, Amazon, and Facebook to lobby Congress for a free Internet
- President Obama threatens the Senate with a Cybersecurity executive order
- Predator drones start overflight in North Dakota
- Janet Napolitano claims drones will improve public safety
- Drones being sought by DHS, police, and television stations for public observation
- TrapWire secret affiliations revealed
- Minnesota about to become 30th state to pass Constitutional marriage amendment
And so forth. Doesn't anyone see a trend here? A trend that has escalated like the dollar devaluation against gold in the last half century? One group of people after another are attempting to impose control over another. The divisiveness taking hold of this country threatens to rip the foundation of liberty in our society to shreds.
Take the issue of marriage. Pastors are on opposing sides of this issue. Archbishop Nienstedt asserts no harm is intended by passage of the amendment defining marriage. Apparently the archbishop did not learn anything in his Catholic education. Something about the road to hell...?
This last month I have been reading in the three volume set, A History of Matrimonial Institutions by Dr George Elliot Howard, published in 1904. Dr. Howard recounts in volume one the history of various marital arrangements around the world as reported by several researchers of varying credibility back to pre-Roman Empire times. Volume two covers the changes that took place in England and America beginning just prior to the Colonial era. Volume three completes a detailed account of marriage and divorce proceedings in the United States up to the date of publication. I started reading this set because I wanted to understand what truly is "traditional marriage" that the religious force in our nation has based their crusade against homosexuals upon.
So far what I discovered is, there isn't one. There are hundreds, if not thousands. Virtually every kind of marital arrangement conceivable to man has been practiced on this planet. And this includes divorce. Before I finished volume one the message came on very strong and clear: the Catholic Church in its attempt to regulate and "sanctify" marriage created a terrible morass of religious and civil legislation that follows us today. Where once marriage was a private contract between husband and wife, and consummated by the family of the bride (usually her father), it is now completely out of private hands and dominated by the State at every level. And what is pushing this domination? Religion. Never mind the morass of problems created by St. Augustine, or Luther, or King James, or the Stuarts of England as they produced by their meddling some of the worst abuses of marriage and divorce the world has ever seen. Religious piety is still in there slugging away in the Congress and the Courts, striving to impose moral rectitude in the name of God.
Before the Roman Empire, marriage had nothing to do with religion or God, or morality. It was a bond between two people, merging their resources and talents in creating another family, which had always been the basis upon which governmental power was derived. Marriage was largely considered a private act, sanctioned by the community not legally, but festively. In some instances there were some moral taboos or tribal edicts with regard to the separation of a married couple. But these almost always were centered around the disposition of property, the disposition of underage children, and debasing of the marriage relation where more than one spouse or infidelity was concerned. Marriage and divorce was largely a voluntary contract made and broken by those who entered into it, and no one had much control of it.
Since the Catholic Church invaded the Teutonic Empire problems with marriage and divorce have escalated to the unmanageable levels we have today. One does not need to investigate Christian history very far to discover it is composed of some of the worst hypocrites the world has produced. If one considers Jesus' words concerning marriage it is clear it belongs to this world alone. (Mark 12) It is well known among scholars of ancient religious texts that Paul was considered an heretic by the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. This is why he was sent away from Jerusalem. He attempted to teach a different code of conduct than what had been given to Peter and James. The Christianity we have today is a derivative of the self-persecuting Saul of Tarsus, who continued going about dictating to all who would give ear, what was moral, and what was the mind of Jesus, even though he never sought tutelage at Jesus' feet as did His fervent disciples. It is in Paul's disquisitions we see the departure from the teachings of Jesus on the matter of marriage. And it is aberrations of the Church at the peak of the Roman Empire we see building upon the doctrines of Paul, the ex-persecutor. But Christians today do not perceive any hypocrisy in what they are attempting to impose on their fellow Americans against the backdrop of an ancient Hebrew custom. They insist the entire world must conform to their modern interpretation of this ancient and little nation's marriage customs!
It is little consolation to be reminded Thomas Jefferson foresaw this trend. Few people today know anything about what Jefferson wrote or his concerns for the survival of what they so laboriously sought to create. Listen to America's real "prophet":
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself .... The way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution of heresy, or three years' imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is that spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless .... From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights."
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia" (1781)
The danger in this constitutional amendment is not so much the damage done to marriage traditions. It is the further widening of the door of State intervention. Intervention that will ultimately and inevitably backfire upon the religious institutions of this country, just as it did upon our ancestors of Western Europe over 400 hundred years ago. Friends and countrymen, you haven't seen anything yet with regard to the demise of the family and the solidarity of children with parents. The State already has total and unequivocal control over our children (or haven't you been in juvenile court lately?), and they will soon with this foolish legislation fueled by well-meaning but spiritually impotent priests find the State dictating who may marry whom, when, the duration, and the obligations. Or did you not pay attention to Michael Straczynski's portrayal of the Telepath Corps in Babylon 5: They are mother. They are father.
This is where we are headed. We are the ones who have created Orwell's 1984 society. The Fahrenheit 451 government. The tyranny of a One World Order. It's what you want, because you haven't learned the first lesson of a patriot of Jeffersonian government:
Mind Your Own Business and leave your neighbor's practices and beliefs alone.
SethSmee
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Indulging Stupidity
There is considerable lament in the apocalyptic arena of American society concerning the dumbing down of our citizens in the public schools. Indeed, I have my own despair when I repeatedly see writing composed of improper words, words that could be considered homophones through sloppy speech.
Your/You’re
Seen/Scene
Affect/Effect
Weather/Whether
Ad nauseum. Sorry kids if you weren’t introduced to Latin. Actually I wasn’t formally, but not only did I read a lot and make frequent reference to the most ancient of dictionaries available, I endeavored to learn three foreign languages in my youth, and again, referred to the dictionary a lot. To do such a thing by the time of public school graduation was quite rare in those days. But I shortly found out three languages were required throughout Europe, in addition to their native tongue. I started with Russian for nearly three years, moved into Spanish for four, and then Norwegian for a couple of years, living within the culture of my ancestors. Since then I have explored German and French to a small degree since they are connected to Spanish and Norwegian. Learning another language not only improves one’s native language skill, but broadens the perspective. Thinking in a foreign language immerses one in the culture that spawned it, presenting a view of the world’s customs unobtainable in any other way.
I lament the formal education I received. For one, there was no emphasis on public speaking. That was an elective removed from high school curriculum by the time I attended. Public speaking skill is the kind exhibited by such people as Christopher Monckton, who can eloquently and quickly articulate his ideas as well as debate an issue with agility. Such a skill was once valued around the world as an expression of a civilized person. Today we are burdened with celebrities who cannot express a simple idea without lacing their sentences with “you know” and “like” until one is tempted to scream at them: Just say it!!! They speak as though they are choking on an egg. Writing skill goes hand-in-hand with speaking. Today there are far too many kids writing the way they speak. Because they are not taught to speak well, they cannot write well either. Too many are of the notion that writing is the same process as speaking. But it is not. If you write the same as you speak, then you are communicating far less than when speaking. And of course, it follows as night to day, anyone who cannot write well cannot read well either.
I was impressed in the fourth grade by my no-nonsense teacher that an education was not what was dispensed at school, but what the student obtained on their own initiative. She said teachers in public education only presented the basics. It was up to each student to be exactly that—a student. She quite eloquently pointed out that the law requiring children to attend school did not make them students, nor did it deliver to them an education. School was the resource provided by their parents’ taxation, and becoming a student was up to each of us. If we did not take advantage of that opportunity, we were robbing our parents of their labor on our behalf. When was the last time anyone heard such admonishment in public schools?
The heart of the problem of education lies in the conflict of inquisitiveness as opposed to indulgence. Public school in America is an environment of indulgence, and that is by design. Those industrialists who built up the backbone of our economy, making America the most productive nation on earth during the last two centuries, imposed their desires upon the education system. What they wanted was a populace who served in a production environment and performed their duties without objection or invention. Those who showed extraordinary capability among the elite families were sent to academies and ivy-league schools to cultivate leadership skills and scientific capacity. Those who wanted to be indulged tended to wash out, while those who were invested with the thirst for learning and excellence obtained higher learning.
However, even though public schooling does not accommodate well those of inquisitive mind and striving for excellence, they are not consigned to ignorance nor ineptitude. Numerous people have made themselves a success in this world without the benefit of a formal education. But they taught themselves a great many things concerning business, finance, marketing, and technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are obvious examples. Not so obvious is Jesse Ventura, Jim Williams (applications engineer at National and Linear Technology), or Eric Hoffer.
Eric was an itinerant laborer until he moved into longshoring. Eric had the most rudimentary formal education (blind during most of his youth), but spent all his free time as an adult between jobs in the local library. If he was in a location long enough he would check books out to read during his leisure at the end of a back-breaking day in the field. Eric became America’s foremost philosopher in modern times, wrote several books, and taught courses at the university level. Of all his books, The True Believer and The Ordeal of Change are the most noted. Within them in concise, clear detail he lays out the human condition, and the characteristics of human behavior in mass associations. Eric was not interested in wealth with its attendant vain leisure. Leisure he had all he could desire. Eric thirsted for understanding the human condition. If you want to know what makes people tick, especially within a mass setting, Eric Hoffer is the man to read. Then look into the works that he studied to enlarge his world view.
What bothers me today is not the state or agenda of public education. Actually, the term is a misnomer, for it should be called State indoctrination. Never before in the history of man has so much knowledge been made available to those who desire it. Never before has there existed such a plethora of assistance programs to help those who struggle with their public indoctrination. Never before has there existed so many private foundations dedicated to learning. In the last decade the technology to provide information beyond one’s wildest dreams has been thrust upon the world. A medium so astounding in its revolutionizing life as man has known it for millennia sometimes leaves me speechless. In the midst of this cornucopia of available information we are beset with a level of ignorance and communicative skill found in the backwoods of America’s frontier three hundred years ago.
The problems we see manifesting in society, politics, religion, and the economy are all tied to indulgence. We have seen exceptional performance in the Olympics this year, but hardly anywhere one travels in this country is a person found of exceptional communication skill and intelligence. The value of education more than anything else is knowing when and how one is being manipulated and taken advantage of. The best slave is the person who does not realize he is. The task master’s greatest fear lies in the person who awakens to their slavery—when they realize that it is all being carried out with his consent.
To stop the corruption of Wall Street, the warring in Washington foreign policy, the Federal oversight into every detail of American life, all that needs be done is to cease the sale of indulgence, to cease consent in being told what to do. Tyrants are always appointed by the people who sell indulgences. When the people cease giving their consent to tyranny, the entire structure collapses and peace, prosperity, and true happiness take root. Eric wrote about it. So did a lot of other students of the human condition.
But first, one must be able to read, to write, to communicate effectively. Only then will there exist enough intelligence to recognize when and how the megalomaniacs have taken over the destiny of Man to turn him back into the brute of ages past.
SethSmee
References
"People dream of making the virtuous powerful, so they can depend on them. Since they cannot do that, people choose to make the powerful virtuous, glorying in being victimized by them. After their secular savior-their Robespierre or Stalin-is safely in his grave, then the people glory once more in denouncing him as a betrayer of their trust. Then they repeat the cycle." Dr. Thomas Szasz Untamed Tongue p155
Your/You’re
Seen/Scene
Affect/Effect
Weather/Whether
Ad nauseum. Sorry kids if you weren’t introduced to Latin. Actually I wasn’t formally, but not only did I read a lot and make frequent reference to the most ancient of dictionaries available, I endeavored to learn three foreign languages in my youth, and again, referred to the dictionary a lot. To do such a thing by the time of public school graduation was quite rare in those days. But I shortly found out three languages were required throughout Europe, in addition to their native tongue. I started with Russian for nearly three years, moved into Spanish for four, and then Norwegian for a couple of years, living within the culture of my ancestors. Since then I have explored German and French to a small degree since they are connected to Spanish and Norwegian. Learning another language not only improves one’s native language skill, but broadens the perspective. Thinking in a foreign language immerses one in the culture that spawned it, presenting a view of the world’s customs unobtainable in any other way.
I lament the formal education I received. For one, there was no emphasis on public speaking. That was an elective removed from high school curriculum by the time I attended. Public speaking skill is the kind exhibited by such people as Christopher Monckton, who can eloquently and quickly articulate his ideas as well as debate an issue with agility. Such a skill was once valued around the world as an expression of a civilized person. Today we are burdened with celebrities who cannot express a simple idea without lacing their sentences with “you know” and “like” until one is tempted to scream at them: Just say it!!! They speak as though they are choking on an egg. Writing skill goes hand-in-hand with speaking. Today there are far too many kids writing the way they speak. Because they are not taught to speak well, they cannot write well either. Too many are of the notion that writing is the same process as speaking. But it is not. If you write the same as you speak, then you are communicating far less than when speaking. And of course, it follows as night to day, anyone who cannot write well cannot read well either.
I was impressed in the fourth grade by my no-nonsense teacher that an education was not what was dispensed at school, but what the student obtained on their own initiative. She said teachers in public education only presented the basics. It was up to each student to be exactly that—a student. She quite eloquently pointed out that the law requiring children to attend school did not make them students, nor did it deliver to them an education. School was the resource provided by their parents’ taxation, and becoming a student was up to each of us. If we did not take advantage of that opportunity, we were robbing our parents of their labor on our behalf. When was the last time anyone heard such admonishment in public schools?
The heart of the problem of education lies in the conflict of inquisitiveness as opposed to indulgence. Public school in America is an environment of indulgence, and that is by design. Those industrialists who built up the backbone of our economy, making America the most productive nation on earth during the last two centuries, imposed their desires upon the education system. What they wanted was a populace who served in a production environment and performed their duties without objection or invention. Those who showed extraordinary capability among the elite families were sent to academies and ivy-league schools to cultivate leadership skills and scientific capacity. Those who wanted to be indulged tended to wash out, while those who were invested with the thirst for learning and excellence obtained higher learning.
However, even though public schooling does not accommodate well those of inquisitive mind and striving for excellence, they are not consigned to ignorance nor ineptitude. Numerous people have made themselves a success in this world without the benefit of a formal education. But they taught themselves a great many things concerning business, finance, marketing, and technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are obvious examples. Not so obvious is Jesse Ventura, Jim Williams (applications engineer at National and Linear Technology), or Eric Hoffer.
Eric was an itinerant laborer until he moved into longshoring. Eric had the most rudimentary formal education (blind during most of his youth), but spent all his free time as an adult between jobs in the local library. If he was in a location long enough he would check books out to read during his leisure at the end of a back-breaking day in the field. Eric became America’s foremost philosopher in modern times, wrote several books, and taught courses at the university level. Of all his books, The True Believer and The Ordeal of Change are the most noted. Within them in concise, clear detail he lays out the human condition, and the characteristics of human behavior in mass associations. Eric was not interested in wealth with its attendant vain leisure. Leisure he had all he could desire. Eric thirsted for understanding the human condition. If you want to know what makes people tick, especially within a mass setting, Eric Hoffer is the man to read. Then look into the works that he studied to enlarge his world view.
What bothers me today is not the state or agenda of public education. Actually, the term is a misnomer, for it should be called State indoctrination. Never before in the history of man has so much knowledge been made available to those who desire it. Never before has there existed such a plethora of assistance programs to help those who struggle with their public indoctrination. Never before has there existed so many private foundations dedicated to learning. In the last decade the technology to provide information beyond one’s wildest dreams has been thrust upon the world. A medium so astounding in its revolutionizing life as man has known it for millennia sometimes leaves me speechless. In the midst of this cornucopia of available information we are beset with a level of ignorance and communicative skill found in the backwoods of America’s frontier three hundred years ago.
The problems we see manifesting in society, politics, religion, and the economy are all tied to indulgence. We have seen exceptional performance in the Olympics this year, but hardly anywhere one travels in this country is a person found of exceptional communication skill and intelligence. The value of education more than anything else is knowing when and how one is being manipulated and taken advantage of. The best slave is the person who does not realize he is. The task master’s greatest fear lies in the person who awakens to their slavery—when they realize that it is all being carried out with his consent.
To stop the corruption of Wall Street, the warring in Washington foreign policy, the Federal oversight into every detail of American life, all that needs be done is to cease the sale of indulgence, to cease consent in being told what to do. Tyrants are always appointed by the people who sell indulgences. When the people cease giving their consent to tyranny, the entire structure collapses and peace, prosperity, and true happiness take root. Eric wrote about it. So did a lot of other students of the human condition.
But first, one must be able to read, to write, to communicate effectively. Only then will there exist enough intelligence to recognize when and how the megalomaniacs have taken over the destiny of Man to turn him back into the brute of ages past.
SethSmee
References
"People dream of making the virtuous powerful, so they can depend on them. Since they cannot do that, people choose to make the powerful virtuous, glorying in being victimized by them. After their secular savior-their Robespierre or Stalin-is safely in his grave, then the people glory once more in denouncing him as a betrayer of their trust. Then they repeat the cycle." Dr. Thomas Szasz Untamed Tongue p155
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Blood Must Flow
Recently my son wrote to me, more than just a bit befuddled, about a discussion with some of his co-workers. They claimed that a third party candidate, a libertarian no less, would become a dictator. Said they, power must be dictated from the bottom up, not the top down. A libertarian would want to turn the entire world of government upside down. So ergo, a libertarian would become a dictator.
Speaking of third party electoral candidates he asked, “Is it the offshoot that becomes the dictator? Could a third party in the US political system really be the devil in savior clothing?” I am confident he knew the answer to that, but wanted the benefit of my having read a little more into American and ancient history than he has.
I’m caught between crying and packing my bags. Nicaragua isn’t sounding so bad at the moment.
These are precisely the people who, when they finally obtain the tyrant they so desperately seek, will turn upon him and blame for all the evils they endured under his reign. Perhaps my response led him astray somewhat, for there are numerous examples of tyrants having been installed by action of our CIA. Many of the modern-day dictators that come to mind have their roots in CIA sponsored overthrows. Nevertheless, monopolies are sustained by those who favor the monopoly, whether of foreign or domestic influence, not by those who run them.
My exposition to my son on the case of tyrants began with a simple summation: A real libertarian as President is likely to be a) assassinated, b) neutralized by Congress, c) resign. Tyrants are given power, usually by the representatives of the people. It isn’t until this power is delegated that they begin their reign of terror and depredation upon minorities. Those overlords who are installed by the rulers of an Empire are not usually called dictators, simply because they are appointed lackeys in the regime. I presented my case that we already have a dictator in the White House, long before Bush Baby. We know his “secret” works as Emperor, although we nostalgically continue to use the term Mr. President.
Like some barnyard animals, some people need a solid thwack between the horns to get them to wake up to what they are thinking. Libertarianism is not a political party. Libertarianism is an ideology. Libertarians who are compelled by the present system to combine into a party, like Republicans or Democrats, are interested in minimizing the intervention and influence of government. A libertarian, true to his ideology, by definition cannot be a tyrant. The conflict of partisanship is irrelevant and counterproductive to their objective. When President Washington chided Congress about party spirit in his Farewell Address, he was reminding them that our experiment in government wasn’t promoted by partisanship, but by following their own rules laid down in the Constitution.
Alas, not even Washington followed them, and installed as Secretary of the Treasury a man who did more damage to the Constitution than all the bickering during the Convention. By this decision, Washington opened the door to the devolution of the newly created Republic into a Democracy. Franklin should have marched right back into the Convention and charged the delegates with preserving the Republic. Why? Because they are the first line of defense against all enemies of the Constitution, foreign or domestic. If they don’t, it is tantamount to the horse getting out of the barn. A great deal of effort by the people is required to put everything back in order as intended.
Mark Kelly in his book Gabby laments the spirit of violence infesting our Democracy, and perverting our political process. One would think that such a highly educated and experienced astronaut would understand what a gaffe his lament was. Contrary to what some Internet swamis assert, we do not have, and have not had for over two hundred years, a Republic, although the present form somewhat carries the label. We have a Democracy (manipulated by an oligarchy), and those who proposed the Republican form knew that democracies are always turbulent. Violent. Taiwan’s political representatives pugilating their differences in chambers is not the first example. We have our own exhibits of violence in Congress. Violence in fact, as Jefferson stated, is the last resort of the people when re-establishing their will over that of their appointed representatives, even to demolishing the structure and starting over. In the story of Dune all one needs do is substitute blood for spice wherever it is asserted the spice must flow, and that is the sum and essence of what we have in government around the world.
My son’s co-workers, and indeed even astronaut Kelly just don’t get it: The intent of the oligarchy running the world is for the blood to flow. A world population of a half billion will not change that policy. It is how they operate, and have always operated, and will continue to operate until the people wake up to their manipulation, choosing the peace of self-government and abandoning government sanctioned Entitlement.
SethSmee
Speaking of third party electoral candidates he asked, “Is it the offshoot that becomes the dictator? Could a third party in the US political system really be the devil in savior clothing?” I am confident he knew the answer to that, but wanted the benefit of my having read a little more into American and ancient history than he has.
I’m caught between crying and packing my bags. Nicaragua isn’t sounding so bad at the moment.
These are precisely the people who, when they finally obtain the tyrant they so desperately seek, will turn upon him and blame for all the evils they endured under his reign. Perhaps my response led him astray somewhat, for there are numerous examples of tyrants having been installed by action of our CIA. Many of the modern-day dictators that come to mind have their roots in CIA sponsored overthrows. Nevertheless, monopolies are sustained by those who favor the monopoly, whether of foreign or domestic influence, not by those who run them.
My exposition to my son on the case of tyrants began with a simple summation: A real libertarian as President is likely to be a) assassinated, b) neutralized by Congress, c) resign. Tyrants are given power, usually by the representatives of the people. It isn’t until this power is delegated that they begin their reign of terror and depredation upon minorities. Those overlords who are installed by the rulers of an Empire are not usually called dictators, simply because they are appointed lackeys in the regime. I presented my case that we already have a dictator in the White House, long before Bush Baby. We know his “secret” works as Emperor, although we nostalgically continue to use the term Mr. President.
Like some barnyard animals, some people need a solid thwack between the horns to get them to wake up to what they are thinking. Libertarianism is not a political party. Libertarianism is an ideology. Libertarians who are compelled by the present system to combine into a party, like Republicans or Democrats, are interested in minimizing the intervention and influence of government. A libertarian, true to his ideology, by definition cannot be a tyrant. The conflict of partisanship is irrelevant and counterproductive to their objective. When President Washington chided Congress about party spirit in his Farewell Address, he was reminding them that our experiment in government wasn’t promoted by partisanship, but by following their own rules laid down in the Constitution.
Alas, not even Washington followed them, and installed as Secretary of the Treasury a man who did more damage to the Constitution than all the bickering during the Convention. By this decision, Washington opened the door to the devolution of the newly created Republic into a Democracy. Franklin should have marched right back into the Convention and charged the delegates with preserving the Republic. Why? Because they are the first line of defense against all enemies of the Constitution, foreign or domestic. If they don’t, it is tantamount to the horse getting out of the barn. A great deal of effort by the people is required to put everything back in order as intended.
Mark Kelly in his book Gabby laments the spirit of violence infesting our Democracy, and perverting our political process. One would think that such a highly educated and experienced astronaut would understand what a gaffe his lament was. Contrary to what some Internet swamis assert, we do not have, and have not had for over two hundred years, a Republic, although the present form somewhat carries the label. We have a Democracy (manipulated by an oligarchy), and those who proposed the Republican form knew that democracies are always turbulent. Violent. Taiwan’s political representatives pugilating their differences in chambers is not the first example. We have our own exhibits of violence in Congress. Violence in fact, as Jefferson stated, is the last resort of the people when re-establishing their will over that of their appointed representatives, even to demolishing the structure and starting over. In the story of Dune all one needs do is substitute blood for spice wherever it is asserted the spice must flow, and that is the sum and essence of what we have in government around the world.
My son’s co-workers, and indeed even astronaut Kelly just don’t get it: The intent of the oligarchy running the world is for the blood to flow. A world population of a half billion will not change that policy. It is how they operate, and have always operated, and will continue to operate until the people wake up to their manipulation, choosing the peace of self-government and abandoning government sanctioned Entitlement.
SethSmee
Friday, June 29, 2012
Born on the Wrong Planet
Americans for the most part (and this goes for the world at large), are insane. No question about it. In forty five years I have not seen any regression from the entitlement attitude that permeates our society.
If the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing in the hope of realizing different results, then there is no question about my declaration. America is filled with a lot of insane people.
My neighbor declares that mankind does not care enough about each other to see to it that healthcare is extended to every person. He is convinced it ought to be FREE. He of all people, who is older than I and just as well educated should know better. How can a person get healthcare free? For thousands of years man's societies have been based on private enterprise. (Oh Please! Feudalism and every other -ism is merely the plundering, legal or not, of the basic element of private enterprise--the person works to survive.) This is the basis of capitalism--what seems to be considered the dirtiest of words these days. The only place I know of where a person can be freely treated for illness is in the aboriginal tribes of backwater third-world nations. Let's go back to that shall we?
Since our Western civilization is based on private enterprise, and a system of money for exchange of service rendered, there are only two ways that healthcare can be obtained "free"--charity, or contract. I don't know of any doctors who last long as charity providers, simply because they must compensate those who provide them with the necessities of life, and their medical materials. A communal society such as the aborigines operates on a principle different than profit. What my neighbor believes is free, is not free at all. When the government taxes the people in order to give to one, it isn't free, it is plunder. Plunder of not only the taxed person's property, but plunder and corruption of their moral values. This is not contract, it is fraud. If one of us were caught taking from our neighbor without their express permission it is a commission of theft. But if several of us get together and vote in favor of taking from our neighbor in spite of their objection, it is termed a "benefit" to which any of the group's voters have now entitled themselves. If the plundered neighbor objects, they are penalized, ultimately with imprisonment. Great system of charity, that. Falls right in line with the kind of theft Wall Street Bankers do each and every day.
You can try to explain this form of legalized plunder to fellows like my neighbor next door and their brain shorts out. They insist this is freedom. But it is only the kind of freedom that exists in an aboriginal society which is not based on property, and therefore profit. Is my neighbor being compassionate and charitable in supporting such a scheme for funding healthcare for all? In my book he is a thief. This isn't charity or compassion for his fellow citizens at all. His entitlement ethic has blinded him to the destruction he is causing to his friend's and neighbor's wealth, and ultimately his own.
"Think positive, things will get better as the system is fine tuned," he says. What a G.D. short memory he has! This kind of government meddling in the citizen's life has been the source of the devaluation of our hard-earned labor for over 200 years in America. Whenever government regulates or makes an edict, the result is the loss of more wealth than if the individual had managed things himself. Government has no incentive to be frugal, and further, in order to supply the cost of its multiple departments to provide the "service", MUST take more in legalized plunder than the actual cost of the "benefit", to cover it's own costs. Government does NOT produce wealth. It only consumes and redistributes it.
Get this through your heads, you insane Americans: Government does NOT produce wealth. It only consumes and redistributes it.
Anthony de Jasay wrote that "non-unanimous politics is redistributive (unanimous politics being an oxymoron and redundant), not just by taxes (wealth), but burdens and obligations imposed by collective choice (majority rule) do also, which necessarily atrophy conventions of civility, mutual support, respect for promises, contracts and property, self-maintenance of order, and the sanctioning of violations." Once these are shifted to the domain of government, Entitlement fills the vacuum, spurring ever wider redistribution of property and diminution of personal accountability. The result is a reduction in morals to its lowest operation, and a near communitarian state. This being the case, religion in its effort to reinvigorate moral behavior by legal edict administers the coup de grace of morality. But let us not here bequeath conventional religion with the entire disgrace. At its fundamental root lies the principle of the Mote and the Beam no matter what dogma you adhere to.
Alas, but this is futile. For there is no hope for a nation of insane citizens who are duped into thinking anything one gets from the Government is free, and everyone is entitled to every comfort of life.
Indeed, if there ARE any aliens on this planet, it is people like me who were wrongfully born here to live among such nutcases.
SethSmee
References
Anthony de Jasay Against Politics
Frederic Bastiat The Law
If the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing in the hope of realizing different results, then there is no question about my declaration. America is filled with a lot of insane people.
My neighbor declares that mankind does not care enough about each other to see to it that healthcare is extended to every person. He is convinced it ought to be FREE. He of all people, who is older than I and just as well educated should know better. How can a person get healthcare free? For thousands of years man's societies have been based on private enterprise. (Oh Please! Feudalism and every other -ism is merely the plundering, legal or not, of the basic element of private enterprise--the person works to survive.) This is the basis of capitalism--what seems to be considered the dirtiest of words these days. The only place I know of where a person can be freely treated for illness is in the aboriginal tribes of backwater third-world nations. Let's go back to that shall we?
Since our Western civilization is based on private enterprise, and a system of money for exchange of service rendered, there are only two ways that healthcare can be obtained "free"--charity, or contract. I don't know of any doctors who last long as charity providers, simply because they must compensate those who provide them with the necessities of life, and their medical materials. A communal society such as the aborigines operates on a principle different than profit. What my neighbor believes is free, is not free at all. When the government taxes the people in order to give to one, it isn't free, it is plunder. Plunder of not only the taxed person's property, but plunder and corruption of their moral values. This is not contract, it is fraud. If one of us were caught taking from our neighbor without their express permission it is a commission of theft. But if several of us get together and vote in favor of taking from our neighbor in spite of their objection, it is termed a "benefit" to which any of the group's voters have now entitled themselves. If the plundered neighbor objects, they are penalized, ultimately with imprisonment. Great system of charity, that. Falls right in line with the kind of theft Wall Street Bankers do each and every day.
You can try to explain this form of legalized plunder to fellows like my neighbor next door and their brain shorts out. They insist this is freedom. But it is only the kind of freedom that exists in an aboriginal society which is not based on property, and therefore profit. Is my neighbor being compassionate and charitable in supporting such a scheme for funding healthcare for all? In my book he is a thief. This isn't charity or compassion for his fellow citizens at all. His entitlement ethic has blinded him to the destruction he is causing to his friend's and neighbor's wealth, and ultimately his own.
"Think positive, things will get better as the system is fine tuned," he says. What a G.D. short memory he has! This kind of government meddling in the citizen's life has been the source of the devaluation of our hard-earned labor for over 200 years in America. Whenever government regulates or makes an edict, the result is the loss of more wealth than if the individual had managed things himself. Government has no incentive to be frugal, and further, in order to supply the cost of its multiple departments to provide the "service", MUST take more in legalized plunder than the actual cost of the "benefit", to cover it's own costs. Government does NOT produce wealth. It only consumes and redistributes it.
Get this through your heads, you insane Americans: Government does NOT produce wealth. It only consumes and redistributes it.
Anthony de Jasay wrote that "non-unanimous politics is redistributive (unanimous politics being an oxymoron and redundant), not just by taxes (wealth), but burdens and obligations imposed by collective choice (majority rule) do also, which necessarily atrophy conventions of civility, mutual support, respect for promises, contracts and property, self-maintenance of order, and the sanctioning of violations." Once these are shifted to the domain of government, Entitlement fills the vacuum, spurring ever wider redistribution of property and diminution of personal accountability. The result is a reduction in morals to its lowest operation, and a near communitarian state. This being the case, religion in its effort to reinvigorate moral behavior by legal edict administers the coup de grace of morality. But let us not here bequeath conventional religion with the entire disgrace. At its fundamental root lies the principle of the Mote and the Beam no matter what dogma you adhere to.
Alas, but this is futile. For there is no hope for a nation of insane citizens who are duped into thinking anything one gets from the Government is free, and everyone is entitled to every comfort of life.
Indeed, if there ARE any aliens on this planet, it is people like me who were wrongfully born here to live among such nutcases.
SethSmee
References
Anthony de Jasay Against Politics
Frederic Bastiat The Law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)