The difference between conservatives and socialists, is that conservatives believe that the government was constructed so that the legislature makes laws, and the court overturns those that are unconstitutional. That is the purpose of the court: to guarantee that the laws that are made adhere to the constitution, and to guarantee that the adjudication of conflict is according both to the laws and to the constitution. But the constitution can be changed. There are methods of change in our constitution. These methods are the right to call a constitutional convention, which requires a majority, and legislation, which requires a majority. There are no methods of change that require a minority. That is not democracy. That is the abuse of our system, circumvention of the constitution. There are no methods of change that do not require legislative change. And legislative change must be obtained by the consent of the majority. Judicial activism on the other hand, is circumvention of our democracy. And judicial activism has been the means by which most of our constitution has been abridged. The general approach has been to tolerate judicial activism because a constitutional convention would expose the nation to too much risk. However, it does not state that judicial activism poses the nation to the risk of civil war, rather than constitutional convention. A constitutional convention would, almost certainly, return rights to the states and to individuals. The constitution is the set of rules that limits what a government can do. They are not the rules by which liberals agree to play. The county is, and always has been, center-right. The left does not want this constitution to prevail. It wants no limits on government. It wants to have an upheaval, a constitutional convention held by fiat – against the very document that gives them political power: the constitution. It wants to change the public hearts and minds to favor ‘compassion’ and democracy over the rules by which the nation was established. The constitution is the rules by which conservatives agree to play. By allowing the left to change the dialog to one of injustice rather than rules, we do not force them to use the rules by which our democracy operates. if however, the rules of the interchange are ‘whatever we can get away with’, or the rules are whetever rules one side chooses to adhere to, then we are not playing by the rules. if we don’t play by the rules then there are no rules, there is no constitution, and there is no need to refrain from violence, because the very premise of our non-violence is the principle of peaceful competition according to those rules. Since the constitution is being circumvented by the left, and by conspiring with an activist judiciary that acknowledges that the constitution is now unworthy of respect,and must be circumvented, then we cannot hope to call a constitutional convention. Since the left ignores the constitution, and the right respects it, we are no longer agreeing to play by the rules that we agreed to. We are simply fools clinging to a fantasy while our opposition abuses the document and processes by which we constrain ourselves to peaceful democratic politics.. We cannot restore our civilization. We can enumerate the changes we wish to make to our country, or we can break it into pieces. Given the size of our country, and the vast different cultures that inhabit the new england, the south, Texarcana, the great lakes, the River and Plains, the pacific northwest the mexican southwest, it may be best to come up with a new federal government in each of those different cultures, and substantially weaken the federal government so that it cannot oppress us. It may instead be better to simply update the constitution with greater protections. It may be better to simply return all power to the states. But this trend toward totalitarianism cannot continue. Freedom is the restraint of individual violence in return for property rights. There is no other form of democracy that is not Bonepartism. (Bonepartism means that the masses elect a totalitarian and are volunatarily made unfree.) I am advocating violence. I am going to continue to advocate violence. At first it must be civil disobedience. But it must grow to upheaval. Because if we do not play by the rules, then I no longer need to restrain my violence. Conservatives no longer need to constrain their violence. It is time for violence. Some men are capable of petty interpersonal physical violence. Some are capable of rabblery and protest. Some of us are capable of revolution and civil war. We are threatened by the myth of the general strike. We are threatened by the idea of revolution by the left, we are threatened with personal violence in order to institute change, by the left. We believe that these malcontents will simply learn. They will conform. That we are safe in our patience. We tolerate this abuse because we are confident in our system. But that system has failed. We must understand that we cannot hold onto pacifism and restraint. And that if we do we are not acting on conviction but convenience. We don’t need half the population to create change. We don’t need a quarter of it. We don’t need a tenth of it. We need one man in one thousand to be willing to take action in an organized manner, and we can restore our freedom. Under the rules of the civic republican tradition, a tradition you may not even be able to articulate, or even understand, except as habits and emotions, you agreed to restrain your violence as men, for the common good, in an effort to create a meritocratic society, as long as the rules were adhered to by everyone. Instead you find that you are sacrificing, that you may have to live in poverty in old age, that your civilization will become another Bonapartist state, so that the left can immigrate us out of power under the rubric of compassion and democracy. So stop confusing your complacency with conviction. You pay for government by forgoing opportunity to use your violence. YOu could, if you wanted, use that violence, use fraud, use deception, break the rules, for your own benefit. Each time you dont you pay the cost of building a society. You pay for whatever society you get. So you are paying for this one. EAch deposit you make pays for this society. Each time you forgo and opportunity. Each tax you pay. Each abuse of your freedoms you tolerate, pays for this society. Prepare to withdraw your deposit. You have been saving violence into a bank for most of your life. It’s time to withdraw it. To spend it. It’s a hefty sum. And with that violence you can buy your civilization back.
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Citi’s Prince Doesn’t Place Enough Blame On The Government
From Reuters, regarding today’s CITI testimony before congress:
Prince’s infamous comment that his bank was “still dancing” even as the subprime crisis worsened came back to haunt him at the commission hearing where he was asked about it. His explanation seemed to boil down to this: it was a race to keep up with competitors who kept loosening lending standards and Citi couldn’t afford to drop out.
Prince is too defensive. The correct response was that the government was madly printing money in an attempt to recover from the tech bubble’s crash. In this environment of cheap cash, Bankers must lend or be forced out of business by the actions of the government. The risk was compounded by the governments failure to regulate new financial instruments. And the government failed to regulate them because academic economists has proposed models and equations that promised risk, and many financial luminaries, of which Greenspan was a member, believed that these instruments had indeed reduced risk. THe problem is this: by printing money the government created a moral hazard, and the government is responsible for the outcome. A banker, with understanding or not, should not be forced into being uncompetitive or into insolvency because the state dumps the commodity we call money on the market. Bankers just protected their organizations from the government’s interference in business. Sure they profited from it. Because the only other choice was to go out of business. If capitalism fails, it fails because of government interference. Markets cannot solve all problems, in particular, they cannot concentrate a large volume of capital on long term projects such as infrastructure. But failures of capitalism are almost universally failures of government to refrain from those acts which cause long term harm for short term good. We are two years into this crisis and still the blame is on the wrong parties. Bankers are normal people, and few of them have all but the vaguest understanding of the economy. They are largely clerical workers and accountants who move the commodity money around our civilization. For all there terminology, graphs and formulae, for all their statistics and reports, the vast majority have little understanding of the impact of their decisions, the outcomes of their actions, or the limits of our conceptual technology in forecasting such things as risk. If the greatest minds in history have had trouble with such consensus, then why should we think bankers should? Furthermore, why do we think government is capable of doing any better than bankers? It’s hubris on the part of government. Practicality on the part of bankers. And foolishness all around. But the people who CAUSED this problem, are the people who have, at least since FDR, but likely since the start of the federal reserve, conspired to destroy our money, and with our money, our cautious behaviors, and with our behaviors our nation.
-
Violence Is The Source Of Freedom
Prior to an important meeting of prominent advocates of freedom, Mises stated roughly, that:
1) Laissez-faire means ‘let the consumer decide’, it does not mean chaos prevails.
I translate this more clearly and accurately as ‘a responsible parent forces her child to make decisions’ so that inter-temporal decision making becomes one of the child’s most adept skills. The civic republican tradition states that if a man is successful in life his duty is to help parent, ie: manage and govern, the society, thus spreading his wisdom to others in the community. This is quite contrary to the democratic religion of secular humanism that states that all men have equal merit in political actions.
2) Hayek’s plan relies upon the support of that segment of the population that is comfortable as they are, but not willing to muster the political effort to preserve the freedom that gives them that comfort.
I state this fact more simply: ‘Freedom is, has been, and will be, the desire of the creative minority.’
Civilizations are ruled by minorities willing to use violence or fraud to maintain their positions. Since fraud is expressly what the creative minority seeks to avoid, because trade without recourse to violence requires refraining from fraud, the creative minority can retain it’s freedom only by force, or be constrained by the force or fraud of others.
It is because violence is both meritocratic and epistemologically fruitful when combined with the need to enfranchise sufficient numbers of the minority to maintain rule. That is why the creative, competitive, and military class built western society. Secular humanism is simply a system of fraud that seeks to transform those costs for maintaining social order into a system of fraud or financial coercion. Violence that is used to defend the system of voluntary trade we call Laissez-Faire, is the most honest of human actions. Pacifism and monotheistic religion are simply a cost reduction effort on the part of the ruling class so that fraud can be supplanted for violence.
The purpose of the creative class then is to maintain sufficient capacity for violence that it can maintain sufficient capacity to rule, and as rulers, preserve their freedom.
The use of violence is necessary in order to create the freedom needed to unleash the societies’ creative forces while oppressing its tendency to corruption. Corruption is the normal human response to lower risk and labor in an effort to circumvent the market economy while forcing others to participate in the market economy.
Violence applied to preserve freedom, that is, voluntary trade and property, is not only honest, it is constructive, and it is the optimum method for human prosperity and cooperation.
One need not force all men to be free. One need only have sufficient force that he is free.
-
Hayek’s Renunciation Of Conservatism – A Failure Of His Own
Hayek is somewhat famous for his essay “Why I am not a conservative.” In that essay, he states that conservatism has no solution to offer us. But Hayek, along with Popper, Mises, Parsons, and the more sociological Pareto, Burkheim and Weber, all failed to provide us with that solution. They all tried and failed. Pehaps Hayek and Popper made the most theoretically valuable attempts. Perhaps, Pareto, Burkheim and Weber made the most valuable observations. But the movement failed. It failed to provide a scientific solution, or even a rational one. It failed because it could not produce a set of actions by which people, particularly the political elites. could adapt to new economic and technological circumstances, which was the rising influence of the prior peasantry due to economic participation, and education. THey had no counter to the Marxian Luddite world view. Unfortuately, although Hayek and Popper both emphasized the knoweldge problem, they still operated in ineffective terms – ineffective causality. Hayek, who got very close to the solution, relied on his work, the sensory order, and thereby made the same mistakes as did Hume, Kant and Mill – failing to sufficiently understand the nature of the human mind in terms of what is NOT possible for it to understand, as well as how it understood. At least Keynes came up with an abstract mathematical principle that would allow politicians to work with tools at their disposal. Mises came closest, by picking up after Weber’s statement that most social advancement was to do with rules and tools for humans to make decisions, with the economic calculation argument. And while it’s insufficient on it’s own as they expressed it, the calculation argument, was closer to than answer than the various historical or psychological and the Misesian Logical, or the Hayekian sensory models. Conservatism is a Pareto-residue. A military class’ value system. It is a prescription against hubris. It acknowledges that we are most easily misled by our vanities and perceptions, and that political hubris is most often a political downfall, rather than an heroic political achievement. It says if we do not understand it we should tread lightly, becaus the costs of failure are dear. As such, it is a prescription of what NOT to do, in a world where we are increasingly empowered to take personal and political actions, yet because of prosperity, we are isolated in time from the outcome of those decisions, and as such, commit the act of hubris, beccause we confuse our abilty to sense an outcome with the fact that that outcome is simply slower to be detectable by our perceptoins. However, we must act. We must create political actions. Even if those actions are simply to prevent the hubris of others in our politiy from harming us by the results of their folly. And to act we must understand what is possible and impossible for people within a polity, or at least, beneficial and harmful to us and our fellows. And conservatism as it is constructed, uses a language of history and largely expresses a condemnation of the Greek concept of hubris. These prohibitions are not quite a religion, and not quite a science. They are a set of observations and limitations. They tell us what not to do, while we do what we know how to do. They warn us about using our pretense of knowledge. They are not a form of skepticism, but a warning against egoism. But, as a set of principles for an activist, participatory government, they are not sufficient to define what actions we may take as a polity. As limitations for Kings and Oligarchs, they are tribal wisdom. But as wisdom for activist democrats, they are both impossible and uninformative. In a democratic polity, and perhaps, even a republican polity, Conservatism must become a science in order to combat what are the normal human political preferences that are the outcome of each generation’s politicians, serving each generation’s young, by trying to apply the principles of the family, tribe and clan to the extended order of human cooperation that we call the market, but which is effectively a highly complex information system between people of varied ability, knowledge and desires. And the market is a tool that exists precisely because we cannot know as a group, what many individuals know as individuals. It is a tool mandated by our political ignorance. It is only science, or the force of scientific argument, that allows us to make decisive political movement in the face of the ignorance and error in the polity due to necessary human ignorance. All the great minds have failed to create a science of politics. Hayek failed. He called himself a liberal. Popper did as well. Most of these great thinkers were classical liberals or libertarians – which means a cautious, market oriented conservative. They attempted to discover a science by which to convince members of the polity, or at least their elites, what NOT to do. They were scientists searching for truth to employ in political coercion. They were members of a class that would not be disenfranchised, or diminished, or see their people harmed by the fashionability of democracy, and it’s simplistic view that prosperity could be generated by government, rather than encouraged and protected by government. In time, Mandelbrot came closer. The behavioral economists closer still. We have seen the recent demonstrated failure of mathematical idealism in economics, and therefore politics – economics being the argumentative scripture of modern politics. But even the behavioral economists are postiviists. THey measure without knowing what they measure, and all of their measurement simply confirms what is common sense, and disproves the ideal type that economists seek to express with their formulae. The science that the great thinkers of the last century attempted to discover is not a form of sentiment, or emotion, or cognitive bias, but calculation. Calculation in the broadest sense. Calculation in the sense of the tools human memory must make use of in order to compare possible outcomes. And that process, when understood is quantifiable. It is measurable. It can be tested. It can be proven by testing. It is enormously complicated. But we should not confuse the difficulty of obtaining the data with the value of possessing it. We codified laws. We wrote constitutions. We contrived philosophies. We conducted wars, and we built nations and complex governments. Surely we can solve the greatest problem of human conceptual history, politics, even to the extent of including Hume’s problem of induction. The properties of individual human memory are the fractal patterns of Mandelbrot’s observations. Society prospers or dies because it’s tools of calculation keep pace with it’s birth rate. A government’s purpose, if it has one, is to spread calculability. What it does instead is spread taxes, which distort calculability. We do not live in the law-and-tax world any longer. We live in the credit and calculability world. While there will always be laws, laws are only important for those who abandon market participation – what we define as criminals. Our problem is to insert as much calculative ability into society and therefore into politics. So that rational arguments can be made. So that irrational arguments can be exposed. So that instead of class warfare there is class migration and class cooperation. So that we can cease being a society of laws – prohibitions and punishments, and instead become a society of actions – ambitions and compensations. Conservatism currently simply assumes those ambitions and compensations without being able to articulate them, or understand their causes.. But it does not comprehend that there are ambitions and compensations that the market CANNOT create. And we cannot make political judgments among the myriad of possibilities, nor stay within the Pareto-Optimum of helping without hurting, without the tools by which to cooperate politically in large numbers while avoiding the problem of creating a self-interested corrupting bureaucracy which simply exploits producers for it’s own benefit, while arguing that exploitation is for the common good. We need to get government off the drug of secular humanism, the food of taxes, and the fantasy of laws. We need to build the calculative society. We need to get away from the religion of secular humanism, and the mystic luddite fantasy of socialism. WE can have our cake and eat it too , if we can measure the ingredients. We can have low taxes and redistribution. We can have small government and large public expenditure. We can cooperate between classes instead of foment class hatred. We can have it all, if we reward our risk takers and producers and redistribute to our laborers and consumers. We can avoid hubris. Hubris is simply the warning that we cannot perceive what we cannot measure, so do not interfere in that which cannot be measured. It is still hubris if you can’t sense or percieve it. It is still hubris if you cannot measure it. And in politics hubris is simply violence and theft. But it is not hubris if you can measure it, and calculate it. The great thinkers failed to give us the the calculative society. The philosophers failed. The economists failed. They had the answer in their grasp. We can have the calculative society. And that calculative society is a science of Conservatism.
-
Two Misleading Infographics – One Religion of Secular Humanism
Timeplots posted an infographic on women’s participation in congress, which, all things being equal, has essentially remained flat. However, I take issue with the assumption that participation alone is a measure of somehting valuable, other than than as a vidication of the spread of the religion of secular humanism. Also: The Guardian posted an infographic on military spending, which implies that spending is some sort of jingoistic preference, rather than necessity. Together, these graphics illustrate something other than stated. THey represent a measure of the non-rational ambitions of secular humanism rather than the material expression of economic risk and necessity. The first is a misleading graphic, because it assumes that women would achieve some unstated GOOD by greater participation in political participation, rather than are a reflection of political sentiment. For example, another Infographic that’s misleading is the comparison of the US military’s expenditures, which is far larger than any other nation’s. But this ignores the underlying reason for having a military: protecting trade routes. After first, property rights, and second, corruption the third factor most important in prosperity is trade routes. And the civilization that polices trade routes is, in human history, the prosperous one. Another problem is that Chinese military’s size is overstated versus the US. The US uses vast numbers of contractors, as many or more of them than military personnel. The Chinese do not, but instead they perform these tasks within the military ranks. Another problem is that our military is one of technology not numbers, so cost per soldier is more important. Lastly, a very large portion of the military budget is for benefits and in particular, military benefits. The meaningful, and therefore accurate measure of comparison of military cost is the total dollars minus benefits, adjusted by national purchasing power, expressed as a percentage of GDP spent on the military, divided by the number of miles of air, water, rail and road transit that the nation operates. This would show that the USA is very close to dead last in military expenditure. Or rather, that the cost to its citizens is infinitesimal compared to that of other nations. The same analysis would be informative for viewing other nations. Russia for example has a horrific country to transport goods upon and police. It is vast, much of it is harsh to human life, it has a terrorist threat on it’s border, China at it’s south and east, very little in the way of connected waterways and little access to worthwhile seas. All miltary costs for russia will be higher. It must be a threat in order not to become a victim. (See Stratfor’s articles on Rivers and seas as well as on China’s security needs) The US is, fortunately, or unfortunately, the policeman of the seas, and took on that duty after the fall of the british empire. Our wealth is largely dependent, not upon democracy and all the other self-congratulating features we attribute to ourselves, but almost entirely to our control of the seas, because water transport is so much less expensive than any other. This military dominance makes our political values (secular humanism) and our currency, and our laws, the dominant structure on the planet, and is the reason why americans are prosperous. Early US growth was simply the result of applying european technology for the purposes of selling off and occupying a continent. The assumption made by advocates of decreased military expenditure is that there would be little material impact, or that we would not be impacted. Or that this impact would lead to greater equality at home. But that would nto be true. It would lead to vastly higher costs and a permanent upper class, and a vast reduction of the middle class to lower standards of living. Any argument to the contrary must rely upon an example of decreasing control over shipping that led to something other than widespread decline across a nation. In other words, advocacy of pacifism is an appeal to Ludditeism. The problem with women in politics in the US is related to the underlying political necessity of trade route protection. Since many people in the USA, rightly understand these necessary militaristic sentiments (Pareto would call them residues and derivations, and others would call them metaphysical preferences, others would call them biases, or jingoism) they are accurate representation of the problem at hand. Since our political structure is largely organized to maintain that policing and that trade, the population is more interested in maintaining a similar political sentiment. This tendency is generational, class based, and culturally influenced, and is becoming the minority sentiment (which is how civilizations age). But it is still the dominant sentiment among males. Even hispanic males. The reason other nations have higher percentages of women en-toto, is that trade route protection is not the problem faced by, or sentiment held by, people in weaker states. Redistribution is. The correct analysis of women in politicswould be visible if countries were ordered by their ability to expand trade routes. As such, you would see weak countries dominated by women, correctly expressing the social sentiment, and strong countries dominated by men. This is, another example, of the philosophy of Power and Weakness stated by Kagan. People develop philosophies that they CAN. Women have a preference for maternal redistributive duties, and men have a preference for conflict resolution and status enhancement. These charts, by contrast, are an example of a metaphysical bias toward the religious doctrine of secular humanism. (Which is the evolutionary result of christianity.) A pacifist doctrine that is only possible to maintain in the midst of prosperity – a prosperity generated by trade routes, and maintained by militaristic, expansionist, sentiments in a population. Both sentiments are necessary. But dominance of one sentiment is a function of the nation’s needs. So, in other words, if we look at the miles of transport that we police, we have a very, very cheap military. And women serve according to their preference, and societies preference for their sentiments. Women CAN serve in politics. Ability is not a question. Sentiment is a question. Because, in the presence of inadequate information to allow us to predict the future, we make decisions according to our sentiments. And politicians are of necessity both inadequately informed, and not in their positions because they are informed, but because they appeal to voter sentiments. So these charts do not illustrate what the authors mean them to: an illustration of the progress yet to be made in advancing the religion of secular humanism. They illustrate something else entirely: the resistance by the objective and material world of raeality to the religion of secular humanism, and the rationality of those existing judgements in the face of the irrationality of the ambitions of secular humanism. Men and women have different sentiments, and it is almost entirely biological in nature. And there is no evidence to the contrary. Yet our political discourse must, for secular humanist reasons of faith, deny that fact. Arguably from a man’s perspective, especially a divorced man, we have rendered unto women extraordinary privileges never available to men in human history. To the detriment of men’s quality of life, men’s occupational distribution (men take the high risk jobs and largely bear the brunt of unemployment), and medically, more money is diverted to research for women’s health than for mens. Certanly benefit systems are set up to give women an advantage. Especially when we consider that the world’s primary issue is overpopulation, not pollution, or health care. Overpopulation. We have implemented this shift from male dominated benefit, to women dominated benefit, by women’s participation in the voting structure, not by women’s participation in politics – a participation level which appears to have leveled out. The same is true for women’s participation in the work force. It has leveled out. The same appears to be occurring in the past two generations. Women under 30 are not as activist as they were in the post-war generations. The post war generations were largely an effort to demilitarize society that has been militarized in order to fight the world wars, and recently, because of labor saving devices (invented by men) that no longer made it necessary for women to spend the day in home labor. In other words, we attribute to our politics those causes which were actually effects. This overemphasis of politics is another example of the religion of secular humanism, which attributes to collective judgment that which is an artifact of economic conditions. And economic conditions which are an artifact of military sentiments. In the 19th and early 20th century, our trade routes were largely internal, as the Great Lakes region industrialized so that the west could be populated. In the 1980’s our trade routes moved from the atlantic to the pacific, along with the technology leadership, and increasingly are doing so. The same is true for financing. San Francisco is the primary source of investment capital for experimental ideas. At some future point, our trade routes will change again. When that happens, we will change our political participation to be more masculine, or more feminine, depending upon our nation’s position of power and weakness. Just as every other nation will.
-
Germany Should Exit The Euro And Return To the Mark
THe NYT Opinion page includes recommends Germany leave the Euro? (Referring to a posting elsewhere.) Yes, it makes sense. Earlier last month I wrote a series of letters and posts recommending Germany pull out of the Euro myself. Mediterranean Europe and Germanic europe are too different in culture, social structure and values. Restore the DM. Leave the Euro to the southern countries who need it, and have similar social values, and are willing to fund those social values. Currencies as they are currently used, are the primary means of social insurance and redistribution. People are naturally gregarious to their own ethnic groups, and are naturally not gregarious with what they see as competing groups, and in particular, groups that they see as a permanent drain on their resources. Because currencies are a means of social insurance they are inseparable from the social orders that employ them. Countries need their own currencies. The spanish, italians and greeks can then maintain their historical poverty born of their less productive lifestyles, without impoverishing the north. Besides, the north has a new permanent semi-revolutionary underclass it is supporting at home to deal with. THe USA has a similar problem. It is a domestic empire over somewhere between four and six separate cultures, with entirely different economic interests, and cultural interests, and political friction between them is becoming intolerable. The only reason that america government has functioned since the 1900’s, is because of the two party system, and the south’s rejection of the republican party. With the south now more pragmatic, this prior balance has been shattered, and the country is increasingly a north and west against a south and interior. For exactly the same reasons as europeans face these problems. It is all well and good to believe in the myths of egalitarian secular humanism, while you’re living in a temporary era of post-war, then post-soviet prosperity. But western civilization no longer has it’s economic advantage over the rest of the world. The west will be permanently poorer, even if retaining it’s ordinal status, for some period of time, simply due to the northern european people’s ancient tendency to eschew corruption. Since a currency is a reflection of social values, nations need their own currencies. The euro was a failure. Return to the DM.
-
Bad Policy In Democracy Is The Outcome Of War And Revolution Is The Outcome Of Bad Policy
The war period has been highly controversial, and unfortunately led to a radical minority taking control of our government, and that minority is creating policy that is against the will of the majority of the people. This is another example of the dangers of war. Countries overreach during war. Empires overreach. Democracies, counter to conventional wisdom, are actually very willing to wage war. Yet they are unwilling to continue them. In a democracy, an exaggerated counter reaction develops in response to warfare, because only exaggerated reactions are possible, when the nation consists of opposing forces whose extreme elements determine the candidates. Extremes breed extremes by creating a dichotomy of choice between dramatic positions. These positions then empower the radicals. There is no failure to understand this trend in history among political scientists. There is every reason to advocate it among political theologians. This is because there are very few political scientists that measure what people actually DO, and many political theologians who recommend what people SHOULD do. Evidence is what it is. Democracy is a dangerous construct when government is a debate over the reigns by which one economic class or philosophical class can oppress the other, rather than forming a government where each class has control only over those issues where their class has demonstrated accomplishment. This was the reason for the property requirement in the USA’s founding. While property may be an insufficient requirement in modern society that is no longer dependent upon farming, we do not have houses of government that represent classes and we need a means of empowering houses and regulating participation in the, and we must return to that state of affairs, or continue our decline and class warfare. As I have stated before, we are all unequal in our ability to create violence. Some of us petty interpersonal violence, some of us rabble and protest, some of us revolution and civil war. I only constrain my violence because I feel the state acts justly. But we are nearing a point where I feel that the state has become a means of class oppression, specifically designed to doom me to poverty and dependence in old age, and to do my heritage, my class, and my people to servitude under a false argument for morality. And while I have rejected their please twice now, the next group of people that offers me money to raise a revolution will find me a willing advocate of bloodshed. War is dangerous because it makes a polity and it’s state fragile, and allows radicals to obtain purchase amid the chaos and dissatisfaction, which in turn leads to oppression, which in turn leads to civil war. While the myth of the general strike is a commoner’s revolution, the myth of a violent minority creating a coup is the nobility’s revolution. And I’m getting very close to changing from a public intellectual to a violent revolutionary. It is only marginally more interesting to be personally acquisitive, run companies, and write for a living than it is to wage war. And it is becoming painful enough to pursue the former, that the latter becomes more enchanting by the day. We have an entire american civilization around the great lakes that is in decline, and like china, have coastal areas that oppress the interior. And a southern border under assault because of fear by those in power to protect the southern states. That is our nation’s fragile position. It simply requires fomenting local interests against a universal federal government, and restructuring our government so that it is either representative of the different nations that make up the American empire on the north American continent, or that we destroy our imperial government and restore power to the regions. The world has adopted commercial capitalism. We have completed the act for which our federal government was created: to sell off the american continent. We no longer need to be the world’s policemen. And we are no longer competitive enough and possessed of enough advantage that we can continue to do so. Now we find ourselves the citizens of a corrupt and declining state. It is time to let local areas prosper, and return to the practical matters of civic interest in local development and politics away from our fascination with theocratic democracy, socialism and empire.
-
The first problem with laws is that they do not die with the fools who wrote the
The first problem with laws is that they do not die with the fools who wrote them.
Source date (UTC): 2010-03-20 00:28:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/10748682890
-
I was very proud of the people in our company today. It’s the best feeling in th
I was very proud of the people in our company today. It’s the best feeling in the world. Great work on great accounts for great clients by great people.
Source date (UTC): 2010-03-18 00:05:00 UTC
-
Making dinner. Starter of Local Chardonnay, olives, crackers, baked garlic and o
Making dinner. Starter of Local Chardonnay, olives, crackers, baked garlic and olive. Main of sunflower seed and orange encrusted Tilapia, with endive and tomato salad, and asparagus with oil and cayenne pepper. For dessert, coffee served with powdered donut balls, strawberries and mint chocolate sauce and shaved bitter 70% cocoa. Just needed to cook tonight. One of those life’s little necessities.
Source date (UTC): 2010-03-14 20:10:00 UTC