Probably the best way for us to enshrine favorable policies is to accept non-kosher labels. We need to accept the use of different terms to approach different people. Neither the Left-Locke nor the right Locke is familiar with subsidiarity. The Left will probably think it refers to big business and the Right will just think it is a new shade of lipstick for the old socialist pig.
In the old days when all media spoke with one voice those who identified with the left end of the scheme or the right end of the scheme all saw the same stories the same political ads and quickly fell into party lines. Now that there are media alternatives there is an opportunity take people from either party aside and talk to them about how their goals can be partially furthered and a more sensible system built.
For instance, "local and sustainable" is necessarily small and probably family owned. In order for a small business to survive under current conditions it needs "help" to the left this has always meant subsidies, but a more efficient way for the government to help very small businesses is to take away some of the government burdens imposed on business.Exemptions on red tape for businesses that employ only family and sell all their products locally could give many small local farmers and artisans the ability to compete with Assembly-line goods from mega-corps.
After all the "protections" that government inspecting and licensing arms provide are not as necessary if you know the guy who grew your food or made the product you are using. Nor is there any need to redistribute wealth away from small-time operations, many of which are run by semi-retired senior trying to make ends meet on social security. We could even all agree that there shouldn't be any income tax on goods that are sold and consumed by the end user within the state of their manufacture (or if manufactured in a border town within 100 miles, whichever is greater).
That would please those who are worried about fuel consumption and sustainability; it should also please those who are worried about the credit system shutting down. If more people can make something of worth, or have extended family that can, then it means that more people will have a meal ticket if the credit markets shut down.It also should please conservative federalists who don't feel the Federal government should be regulating commerce within states.
There are a thousand points upon which agreements could be reached that would further a culture of subsidiarity point by point. It can't be built overnight anyway, even if had to be, but the time could soon be approaching when it will be needed and the real question is will it be there? If more people can see the rightness of it as well as the benefits, nay even necessity of it then this could begin to take off.
They just need to see it from their point of view and for that we will need different strokes for different folks. Don't re-fight the old ideology wars, stay focused and this can happen fall off to the right or to the left and it will just be absorbed by one of the two parties and become part of the ideology of 50% of the country and bitterly opposed by the other half.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Co-ops; the future of American manufacturing?
Co-ops; the future of American manufacturing?
Could the manufacturing co-ops of Mondragón, Spain be the model for manufacturing in America in the future? Under current conditions it seems unlikely. America’s vast natural resources have made capitalism the perfect exploiter; men of vision were induced to develop, invent, and risk because the rewards were beyond any prior experience.
After these men of vision had built their dreams on a combination of capital, guts, and skill, not to mention cheap immigrant labor, they had created so much wealth, so much infrastructure that in a democratic country it was impossible that the less rich voters would not figure out how to vote themselves some of that wealth.
And it wasn’t just the wealth alone that had become concentrated; it was the power to control or to at least manipulate the market that had concentrated to the few.
Teddy Roosevelt “broke up the trusts” or at least make a show of it, but in reality he had nothing against a few companies running a whole industry so long as it was controlled by a government he (and his super-evolved elites) controlled.
Thus his cousin F.D.R. allowed pluropolies. “Allowed” is not the right word, he forced smaller businesses out of business so as to better control the few remaining large businesses. This was seen as an efficient way to harness capitalism to create wealth, but regulate it, so as to distribute the wealth that was created. The promise was “every man a king” and in terms of standard of living the average man had access to most of the material goods kings had and a whole lot more in terms of medical treatment and so forth that many kings died not having.
The socialist harnessing of capitalism under F.D.R. did not end right away but continued on until the Clinton administration. During the five decades before Clinton capitalism went from being harnessed to being abused; rather than simply increasing the standard of living and maintaining that standard, it became the American dream to do better than your parents - bigger house more cars and therefore more money. The wages became so much greater than in the third world that it became impossible for American manufacturing to compete with third world manufacturing and its low wages.
A culture that has developed over decades, generations really, can’t be reformed overnight. The culture I’m talking about is the “worker” vs. “the wealthy” class warfare culture that led the unions to destroy their hosts. G.M. workers were getting as much as $80/hr in compensation and their CEO was getting a package just as absurd; figuring out how long it would take for the parasites to destroy the host was like a big mathematical story problem. Once the unions and the management left the station and started picking up speed it was just a matter of time before they collided with overseas competition.
When the common people are used to wealth and they can vote, they are not going to accept any sudden lowering of their standard of living that they can vote away. America, despite her reverses, still has great natural resources and a lot of infrastructure. This means that our dollar, which the 2nd world (Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan) as well as the 3rd world (everywhere else) is still highly invested in can still be exploited. America, or the Obama administration, will print dollars into existence until the rest of the world won’t play that game any more.
When the rest of the world sees the game is unsustainable then they will demand payment in natural resources and they will get back a percentage of what they put in because payment will be in ever inflating dollars that will have ever decreasing value. The dollar printing game will be over for good. Then it will be hard to get credit, jobs and even food. When it is hard to get food the formerly fat Americans will try to figure out how to make a living without capital, and they will be hungry enough to be humble.
They will be willing to try anything that could work and they will look first to what they know has worked elsewhere. This is why we Catholics who believe in the Mondragon idea, the idea of co-operative ownership, or employee ownership of the company, need to adapt the Mondragon model to American culture and law. Then after such an adaptation we need to offer to assist a start-up co-op in one of the hardest hit areas.
Perhaps we could start a financial co-op that would loan the money to start a manufacturing co-op preferably in the South. I would like to see a wide group of people each put a small amount of money into the financial co-op with the knowledge that the first two or three attempts might run up against resistance from the state, from lawsuits, from the competition, and from unions. It also might be difficult to get Americans to adjust to the idea of solidarity when we are used to looking out for Number One. I would further propose that the financial co-op be run as an American branch of the Mondragon co-op system and the first co-op would be started under the guidance of folks from Mondragon.
Next the men who form the manufacturing co-op need to be men who have worked in manufacturing before and not a bunch of writers and dreamers who probably won’t really work at all, let alone work together. Such folks would be likely to use any imperfection in the co-op as an excuse to cause trouble and even quit. Beyond that they might not have the skills and abilities to work well with their hands as well as the knowledge of the technical aspects of modern manufacturing.
Thirdly, I would propose a top of the line online school so that workers could learn from home without interrupting their work, taking them away from their family or running them into debt. Unlike most technical schools this schooling would have a bit more of a university feel and would leave the student not as “well rounded” as a great books school, but certainly with a bit of the basics of science, history, economics and theology.
Forth, we need to start co-ops now, but we need to get legal protections similar to how corporations were declared “legal persons”. This could be done by getting laws passed, but another way to do it is by developing “case law”. Of course if case law doesn’t go our way we would have to go the legislative route, but the legislative route needs to be proceeded by a groundswell of support. So continuing to get the message out is important, but now is actually a good time to start the ball rolling here in the states.
Maybe we could start in a manufacturing ghost town in a Southern state that has a freshly emptied factory and a ready trained unemployed workforce. If the corporation that has gone overseas won't sell because they don't want competition, then buy the empty factory through eminent domain.Your average conservative will object on private property principals, but what of the rights of the workers who helped build the company, the town that built up around it that is now left high and dry? Yes the company should be justly compensated, but also they should sell.
It should be a small factory in a town that has no other industry. The industry should be one that is still viable. The workforce should be educated and in total agreement with the co-operative system. This is do-able.
Could the manufacturing co-ops of Mondragón, Spain be the model for manufacturing in America in the future? Under current conditions it seems unlikely. America’s vast natural resources have made capitalism the perfect exploiter; men of vision were induced to develop, invent, and risk because the rewards were beyond any prior experience.
After these men of vision had built their dreams on a combination of capital, guts, and skill, not to mention cheap immigrant labor, they had created so much wealth, so much infrastructure that in a democratic country it was impossible that the less rich voters would not figure out how to vote themselves some of that wealth.
And it wasn’t just the wealth alone that had become concentrated; it was the power to control or to at least manipulate the market that had concentrated to the few.
Teddy Roosevelt “broke up the trusts” or at least make a show of it, but in reality he had nothing against a few companies running a whole industry so long as it was controlled by a government he (and his super-evolved elites) controlled.
Thus his cousin F.D.R. allowed pluropolies. “Allowed” is not the right word, he forced smaller businesses out of business so as to better control the few remaining large businesses. This was seen as an efficient way to harness capitalism to create wealth, but regulate it, so as to distribute the wealth that was created. The promise was “every man a king” and in terms of standard of living the average man had access to most of the material goods kings had and a whole lot more in terms of medical treatment and so forth that many kings died not having.
The socialist harnessing of capitalism under F.D.R. did not end right away but continued on until the Clinton administration. During the five decades before Clinton capitalism went from being harnessed to being abused; rather than simply increasing the standard of living and maintaining that standard, it became the American dream to do better than your parents - bigger house more cars and therefore more money. The wages became so much greater than in the third world that it became impossible for American manufacturing to compete with third world manufacturing and its low wages.
A culture that has developed over decades, generations really, can’t be reformed overnight. The culture I’m talking about is the “worker” vs. “the wealthy” class warfare culture that led the unions to destroy their hosts. G.M. workers were getting as much as $80/hr in compensation and their CEO was getting a package just as absurd; figuring out how long it would take for the parasites to destroy the host was like a big mathematical story problem. Once the unions and the management left the station and started picking up speed it was just a matter of time before they collided with overseas competition.
When the common people are used to wealth and they can vote, they are not going to accept any sudden lowering of their standard of living that they can vote away. America, despite her reverses, still has great natural resources and a lot of infrastructure. This means that our dollar, which the 2nd world (Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan) as well as the 3rd world (everywhere else) is still highly invested in can still be exploited. America, or the Obama administration, will print dollars into existence until the rest of the world won’t play that game any more.
When the rest of the world sees the game is unsustainable then they will demand payment in natural resources and they will get back a percentage of what they put in because payment will be in ever inflating dollars that will have ever decreasing value. The dollar printing game will be over for good. Then it will be hard to get credit, jobs and even food. When it is hard to get food the formerly fat Americans will try to figure out how to make a living without capital, and they will be hungry enough to be humble.
They will be willing to try anything that could work and they will look first to what they know has worked elsewhere. This is why we Catholics who believe in the Mondragon idea, the idea of co-operative ownership, or employee ownership of the company, need to adapt the Mondragon model to American culture and law. Then after such an adaptation we need to offer to assist a start-up co-op in one of the hardest hit areas.
Perhaps we could start a financial co-op that would loan the money to start a manufacturing co-op preferably in the South. I would like to see a wide group of people each put a small amount of money into the financial co-op with the knowledge that the first two or three attempts might run up against resistance from the state, from lawsuits, from the competition, and from unions. It also might be difficult to get Americans to adjust to the idea of solidarity when we are used to looking out for Number One. I would further propose that the financial co-op be run as an American branch of the Mondragon co-op system and the first co-op would be started under the guidance of folks from Mondragon.
Next the men who form the manufacturing co-op need to be men who have worked in manufacturing before and not a bunch of writers and dreamers who probably won’t really work at all, let alone work together. Such folks would be likely to use any imperfection in the co-op as an excuse to cause trouble and even quit. Beyond that they might not have the skills and abilities to work well with their hands as well as the knowledge of the technical aspects of modern manufacturing.
Thirdly, I would propose a top of the line online school so that workers could learn from home without interrupting their work, taking them away from their family or running them into debt. Unlike most technical schools this schooling would have a bit more of a university feel and would leave the student not as “well rounded” as a great books school, but certainly with a bit of the basics of science, history, economics and theology.
Forth, we need to start co-ops now, but we need to get legal protections similar to how corporations were declared “legal persons”. This could be done by getting laws passed, but another way to do it is by developing “case law”. Of course if case law doesn’t go our way we would have to go the legislative route, but the legislative route needs to be proceeded by a groundswell of support. So continuing to get the message out is important, but now is actually a good time to start the ball rolling here in the states.
Maybe we could start in a manufacturing ghost town in a Southern state that has a freshly emptied factory and a ready trained unemployed workforce. If the corporation that has gone overseas won't sell because they don't want competition, then buy the empty factory through eminent domain.Your average conservative will object on private property principals, but what of the rights of the workers who helped build the company, the town that built up around it that is now left high and dry? Yes the company should be justly compensated, but also they should sell.
It should be a small factory in a town that has no other industry. The industry should be one that is still viable. The workforce should be educated and in total agreement with the co-operative system. This is do-able.
Monday, October 25, 2010
To faze out the income tax
To faze out the income tax is a better idea than abolishing it. First of all if you are really interested in getting rid of it then you have to realize that it will create a radical change and that Americans tend to reject radical change. Secondly getting rid of it at a single stroke would leave a whole lot of our most vulnerable in the lurch; folks like our seniors and disabled vets who paid their dues and now deserve our support.
Many professionals like bookkeepers and accountants have built up their life around the income tax and would have to start over with no warning or easing into it. Many business models rely on servicing it and so forth. In other words too many people and their families would be ruined today if the income tax went away today. You might not be sympathetic to their plight, but you should be sensible to their opposition and how desperate you want to make them.
My proposal therefore is to turn the income tax collection, and the services provided by the income tax, over to the states.From that point it would be much easier to faze out a state income tax than a national one. While all the states might start out with the same rate and system within a few years the states would begin to compete for ranking in efficiency and rates would lower.
As the ideal of subsidiarity gains ground there will be a snowballing effect as families redeem their responsibilities from the government. Parents armed with better teaching software will tend to take on more of the education of their children. Now that everyone realizes that the baby boomers are going to bust the government retirement idea we will see more families figuring out how to handle these issues on their own.
Now that the safety, nutrition, and supply of our food has come into question, people have become more interested in growing their own and buying it locally from folks they know. This means less need for the government to have their nose in it, and therefore less need for government. Other than our imported food it is hard to make a case for much of the "inspections" that go on because the companies that produce the food have a greater stake in avoiding media exposure than the government union drone with his rubber stamp.
As to our national defense I think most of the cost of it has to do with the fact that we think we can always make things better by sending our boys overseas. Once we realize that knees on the ground in most cases is more effective than boots on the ground in combating evil, we will send more prayers and less boots overseas. The remaining costs can be raised in the way we used to fund our military with tariffs and a hybrid army of paid professionals and trained volunteers.
The times do not allow for a small military, but we could do much with quite a bit less, especially considering how many of our citizens are armed and what could be done with reserve and national guard units.There are almost no other needs that can only be organized at the national level, and actually the states could be required to keep a proportionate number of state guardsmen at the ready in a standard of readiness overseen by the federal government. This would aproximate the medieval model of knights maintained by nobles who were under a King thus limiting the power of the King (or in our case the federal government)to do anything but organize against an invasion.
Many professionals like bookkeepers and accountants have built up their life around the income tax and would have to start over with no warning or easing into it. Many business models rely on servicing it and so forth. In other words too many people and their families would be ruined today if the income tax went away today. You might not be sympathetic to their plight, but you should be sensible to their opposition and how desperate you want to make them.
My proposal therefore is to turn the income tax collection, and the services provided by the income tax, over to the states.From that point it would be much easier to faze out a state income tax than a national one. While all the states might start out with the same rate and system within a few years the states would begin to compete for ranking in efficiency and rates would lower.
As the ideal of subsidiarity gains ground there will be a snowballing effect as families redeem their responsibilities from the government. Parents armed with better teaching software will tend to take on more of the education of their children. Now that everyone realizes that the baby boomers are going to bust the government retirement idea we will see more families figuring out how to handle these issues on their own.
Now that the safety, nutrition, and supply of our food has come into question, people have become more interested in growing their own and buying it locally from folks they know. This means less need for the government to have their nose in it, and therefore less need for government. Other than our imported food it is hard to make a case for much of the "inspections" that go on because the companies that produce the food have a greater stake in avoiding media exposure than the government union drone with his rubber stamp.
As to our national defense I think most of the cost of it has to do with the fact that we think we can always make things better by sending our boys overseas. Once we realize that knees on the ground in most cases is more effective than boots on the ground in combating evil, we will send more prayers and less boots overseas. The remaining costs can be raised in the way we used to fund our military with tariffs and a hybrid army of paid professionals and trained volunteers.
The times do not allow for a small military, but we could do much with quite a bit less, especially considering how many of our citizens are armed and what could be done with reserve and national guard units.There are almost no other needs that can only be organized at the national level, and actually the states could be required to keep a proportionate number of state guardsmen at the ready in a standard of readiness overseen by the federal government. This would aproximate the medieval model of knights maintained by nobles who were under a King thus limiting the power of the King (or in our case the federal government)to do anything but organize against an invasion.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Freedom of religion is a gentlemen's agreement
Freedom of religion is a gentleman's agreement. It was never meant to mean anything goes; if that was the case then it would make it virtually impossible to enforce any law, because anyone who wished to break that law could simply claim exemption because it violated their conscience.
No, freedom of religion was a gentleman's agreement arrived at by the Founding Fathers as a way for all of the differing Protestant denominations, the Jews, and even, gasp, Catholics to live peacefully. It wasn't that hard of a sell because under the British government this was already the order of the day.
The mistake the Founders made was in not keeping with the tolerance of reasonable accommodation that the British had arrived at; oh no, they were revolutionaries, they had to put into practice the latest fad in liberalism, an open-ended freedom of religion.
At the time that they believed this stupidity they didn't have any dealings with Muslims; in fact, Thomas Jefferson was shocked to find a few years later that Muslims wanted Americans to pay tribute because they were Christians, or at least not Muslims.
At the time there was another idea that was current and that was that all denominations should essentially have a battle of ideas and that the denomination with the best case would rise to the top in a free-market of ideas.
Again the folks with these ideas did not reckon on the Muslim approach; Islam doesn't rely solely on convincing arguments but on conversion by the sword or by persecutions involving a special tax, lack of legal standing in court in case of a dispute with a Muslim, etc.
The modern Liberal has added another layer to this gentlemen's agreement; the agreement to disagree. This "let's agree to disagree" philosophy sounds good at first, but what it really is saying is that nothing we believe is worth arguing over. Along with an unhealthy philosophy known as multi-culturalism, this is why the claims of Islam are not being cross-examined with the same adversarial zeal which other faiths have faced.
It is after all the claims and practices of Islam where the weakness is; the whole religion could collapse in a few generations if it was subjected to the same scrutiny that Christianity is constantly under. Let's try the Historical-critical method on it, let's look at the authenticity of its claims. If Christians offer the test that Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or Lord, then let's ask the same question of Islam - did it come from a liar a lunatic, or the Lord?
I will later write on what criteria we can ask the liar, lunatic or from the Lord question of Islam, but even to raise the spectre is enough to start a conversation, so go start one.There is nothing stopping you; after all, you don't need to build a Mosque overlooking "Ground Zero" to start a conversation.
No, freedom of religion was a gentleman's agreement arrived at by the Founding Fathers as a way for all of the differing Protestant denominations, the Jews, and even, gasp, Catholics to live peacefully. It wasn't that hard of a sell because under the British government this was already the order of the day.
The mistake the Founders made was in not keeping with the tolerance of reasonable accommodation that the British had arrived at; oh no, they were revolutionaries, they had to put into practice the latest fad in liberalism, an open-ended freedom of religion.
At the time that they believed this stupidity they didn't have any dealings with Muslims; in fact, Thomas Jefferson was shocked to find a few years later that Muslims wanted Americans to pay tribute because they were Christians, or at least not Muslims.
At the time there was another idea that was current and that was that all denominations should essentially have a battle of ideas and that the denomination with the best case would rise to the top in a free-market of ideas.
Again the folks with these ideas did not reckon on the Muslim approach; Islam doesn't rely solely on convincing arguments but on conversion by the sword or by persecutions involving a special tax, lack of legal standing in court in case of a dispute with a Muslim, etc.
The modern Liberal has added another layer to this gentlemen's agreement; the agreement to disagree. This "let's agree to disagree" philosophy sounds good at first, but what it really is saying is that nothing we believe is worth arguing over. Along with an unhealthy philosophy known as multi-culturalism, this is why the claims of Islam are not being cross-examined with the same adversarial zeal which other faiths have faced.
It is after all the claims and practices of Islam where the weakness is; the whole religion could collapse in a few generations if it was subjected to the same scrutiny that Christianity is constantly under. Let's try the Historical-critical method on it, let's look at the authenticity of its claims. If Christians offer the test that Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or Lord, then let's ask the same question of Islam - did it come from a liar a lunatic, or the Lord?
I will later write on what criteria we can ask the liar, lunatic or from the Lord question of Islam, but even to raise the spectre is enough to start a conversation, so go start one.There is nothing stopping you; after all, you don't need to build a Mosque overlooking "Ground Zero" to start a conversation.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Rulling class V.S. Productive class
There is an important, nay I would say “watershed moment” article: • American Spectator: America's Ruling Class. And the Perils of Revolution - Angelo M. Codevilla .It lays out the case that a “ruling class” has emerged in America, but more than that it defines who they are, what they are and how they rule the “productive class” or the other side in this struggle.
In the article Codevilla calls the “productive class” the “country class”, but I feel “productive” is both more accurate and less confusing than “country class”. After all, we don’t want people thinking you have to live in the country or listen to the music coming out of Nashville (which is at a low point just now with the loss of Johnny Cash.)
This article is important because in the past members of the productive class first thought that all of the nonsense currently going on was just the problem of liberals, then democrats in general, and then democrats and liberal republicans. While in terms of elected officials it is a problem of liberal democrats and republicans, the bail-outs revealed a whole infrastructure of unelected members of this group.
The 2008 bail-out revealed that instead of representatives, we have a cabal in power that is using power to grant mutual back-scratching privileges to each other payable by the general public. While everyone has railed against the bail-out and the crony capitalists who privatize profits and socialize losses there lacked a focus, or group to appose.
Besides the obvious politicians and czars it also consists of folks who profit from the expansion of government through grants, subsidies, or in the case of big business, contracts, bail-outs, special laws and rulings that favor their company at the expense of the competition. This can even be restrictions and red-tape that cost the favored company more money, but in the end are profitable because it forces their competition out of the business. The mainstream media or big media is owned by parent companies that are “big businesses”. Also don’t forget the “frivolous lawsuit rich” nor those who occupy profitable positions in “non-profits” nor heads of national professional groups.
This "Ruling class" term is a great catch-all for all the folks who are loosely affiliated or in ca-hoots; it also explains why the expulsion of God from the public square is necessary for their power. This term defines a group that until now had escaped definition; but now that they, their tactics, and motives have been identified and reduced to a single named group, they can be stopped. By explaining how they maintain their power, Codevilla has given us the key to destroy their power.
They maintain their power by perpetuating the myth that they are superior and that we are inferior; that the little retrogrades need them to step in and stop the ignorant from hurting themselves and others. That they have “evolved” beyond the commoners and we are lucky they are so benevolent as to use their powers for good; good being defined as making society and people evolve or “progress”
Anyway read the article and the next time you are talking to an “NRA democrat” who votes union-democrat or the like, instead of having the old discussion about whether it was the “D”’s or the “R’’’s who lost our manufacturing base, got us into wars only to lose them, has us wrapped in red tape, created an unsustainable debt, destroyed our educational system or any of the other failures the ruling class is responsible for you can point him to this new concept that Democrat and Republican are different only in matters of degree; the real distinction is between the “ruling class” and the “productive class”.
If a guy can’t understand that concept it is probably because he is either a member of the ruling class, one of its’ aspirants, or one of their useful idiots. There are also those who are still POW’s of the Sexual Revolution, are part of the “Endless War” (especially in the Mid-East) lobby, or in some way benefit more than lose from big government. I wouldn’t waste my time trying to convince them, prayer is their only Hope.
In the article Codevilla calls the “productive class” the “country class”, but I feel “productive” is both more accurate and less confusing than “country class”. After all, we don’t want people thinking you have to live in the country or listen to the music coming out of Nashville (which is at a low point just now with the loss of Johnny Cash.)
This article is important because in the past members of the productive class first thought that all of the nonsense currently going on was just the problem of liberals, then democrats in general, and then democrats and liberal republicans. While in terms of elected officials it is a problem of liberal democrats and republicans, the bail-outs revealed a whole infrastructure of unelected members of this group.
The 2008 bail-out revealed that instead of representatives, we have a cabal in power that is using power to grant mutual back-scratching privileges to each other payable by the general public. While everyone has railed against the bail-out and the crony capitalists who privatize profits and socialize losses there lacked a focus, or group to appose.
Besides the obvious politicians and czars it also consists of folks who profit from the expansion of government through grants, subsidies, or in the case of big business, contracts, bail-outs, special laws and rulings that favor their company at the expense of the competition. This can even be restrictions and red-tape that cost the favored company more money, but in the end are profitable because it forces their competition out of the business. The mainstream media or big media is owned by parent companies that are “big businesses”. Also don’t forget the “frivolous lawsuit rich” nor those who occupy profitable positions in “non-profits” nor heads of national professional groups.
This "Ruling class" term is a great catch-all for all the folks who are loosely affiliated or in ca-hoots; it also explains why the expulsion of God from the public square is necessary for their power. This term defines a group that until now had escaped definition; but now that they, their tactics, and motives have been identified and reduced to a single named group, they can be stopped. By explaining how they maintain their power, Codevilla has given us the key to destroy their power.
They maintain their power by perpetuating the myth that they are superior and that we are inferior; that the little retrogrades need them to step in and stop the ignorant from hurting themselves and others. That they have “evolved” beyond the commoners and we are lucky they are so benevolent as to use their powers for good; good being defined as making society and people evolve or “progress”
Anyway read the article and the next time you are talking to an “NRA democrat” who votes union-democrat or the like, instead of having the old discussion about whether it was the “D”’s or the “R’’’s who lost our manufacturing base, got us into wars only to lose them, has us wrapped in red tape, created an unsustainable debt, destroyed our educational system or any of the other failures the ruling class is responsible for you can point him to this new concept that Democrat and Republican are different only in matters of degree; the real distinction is between the “ruling class” and the “productive class”.
If a guy can’t understand that concept it is probably because he is either a member of the ruling class, one of its’ aspirants, or one of their useful idiots. There are also those who are still POW’s of the Sexual Revolution, are part of the “Endless War” (especially in the Mid-East) lobby, or in some way benefit more than lose from big government. I wouldn’t waste my time trying to convince them, prayer is their only Hope.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Molesting Pope Benedict
It looks like the Atheist in the AP and the Perversion Activists who run the New York Times are commemorating Holy Week by molesting Pope Benedict.
"It is not the nature of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge" and that is apparently why it is more important to run headlines that simply repeat the charge.
The articles below the headlines never pay off; they simply talk in a parallel way about some pedophile or pederast priest and at the same time talk about the Pope in a way that seems to link them.
Only in the last few years have we come to understand that a certain part of any male population have a mental defect that leads them to be pedophiles. During the 60's and 70's certain liberal seminaries lowered the bar to keep their numbers up.
Also they were more concerned with "not judging" because in their heresy, being judgemental was the worst possible sin.Some of them welcomed the idea of "Judging is the worst sin" because the sins the were committing themselves were quite interesting.
What they didn't know was that the therapy and the therapists they placed their faith in could not rehabilitate people with this kind of a mental disorder. I tend to think that rehab has pretty much come to be understood for what it is (mental punishment.) Mental punishment cannot deter people who are insane; if you keep expecting a different result it just means more victims.
So to sum it up;
1 Priests are males
2 A certain number of any male population are pedophiles
3 They can't be cured or fixed
4 If given therapy and released they will do it again and again
5 They were released after being declared cured and safe by therapists
6 The Pope was in positions of leadership during these times.
Now the part that they don't talk about is that
1 The Pope never engaged in a repeated catch and release
2 The Pope was the most active in taking steps against the abusers
3 The Church has notoriously high bar for Church trials and it takes a long time to do anything because they are also concerned with the rights of the accused who might be innocent.
4 Pope John Paul II was used to the communists falsely accusing every good priest of as many crimes as they could think of; this made him the worst possible person to deal with this particular issue. It wasn't until then Cardinal Ratzinger stepped in that these cases began to be dealt with at the top levels of the Church; before that the local bishop dealt with it.
5 The press is all interested in selling stories, or stories that sell. It makes their job easy if they can run something sensational that they didn't have to prepare because it is soon-fed to them by a lawyer who is suing the Church.
6 A great deal of the press is angry with the Church because we are the last great pillar to stand on all sexual morality.
The good news is that this has caused a great purification of the Church
"It is not the nature of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge" and that is apparently why it is more important to run headlines that simply repeat the charge.
The articles below the headlines never pay off; they simply talk in a parallel way about some pedophile or pederast priest and at the same time talk about the Pope in a way that seems to link them.
Only in the last few years have we come to understand that a certain part of any male population have a mental defect that leads them to be pedophiles. During the 60's and 70's certain liberal seminaries lowered the bar to keep their numbers up.
Also they were more concerned with "not judging" because in their heresy, being judgemental was the worst possible sin.Some of them welcomed the idea of "Judging is the worst sin" because the sins the were committing themselves were quite interesting.
What they didn't know was that the therapy and the therapists they placed their faith in could not rehabilitate people with this kind of a mental disorder. I tend to think that rehab has pretty much come to be understood for what it is (mental punishment.) Mental punishment cannot deter people who are insane; if you keep expecting a different result it just means more victims.
So to sum it up;
1 Priests are males
2 A certain number of any male population are pedophiles
3 They can't be cured or fixed
4 If given therapy and released they will do it again and again
5 They were released after being declared cured and safe by therapists
6 The Pope was in positions of leadership during these times.
Now the part that they don't talk about is that
1 The Pope never engaged in a repeated catch and release
2 The Pope was the most active in taking steps against the abusers
3 The Church has notoriously high bar for Church trials and it takes a long time to do anything because they are also concerned with the rights of the accused who might be innocent.
4 Pope John Paul II was used to the communists falsely accusing every good priest of as many crimes as they could think of; this made him the worst possible person to deal with this particular issue. It wasn't until then Cardinal Ratzinger stepped in that these cases began to be dealt with at the top levels of the Church; before that the local bishop dealt with it.
5 The press is all interested in selling stories, or stories that sell. It makes their job easy if they can run something sensational that they didn't have to prepare because it is soon-fed to them by a lawyer who is suing the Church.
6 A great deal of the press is angry with the Church because we are the last great pillar to stand on all sexual morality.
The good news is that this has caused a great purification of the Church
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Some ends justify disregaurding meaningless rules
To End abortion there is no rule of order, separation of power, or strictly man-made rule of law that would make me blink before stopping abortion. Anybody who says it must be done through a certain process, respect states rights, federalism, the role of the court, or anything else is probably not "down for the struggle".
They also haven't noticed that all the conventional rules have long ago gone out the window; we no longer live in a country governed by the rule of law. For those of us interested in such things there is only right and wrong to consider now. No pro-lifer should be worried about the details of the best way to end abortion; if abortion ends, then that is probably the best way.
If the president declares abortion illegal, if the supreme court does it, or if the people simply gather in a ten million man march and take the capital like has been done before in other countries a hundred times then that is good enough for me. Why should pro-lifers be the only ones left who are worried about process? Especially when it is results that matter.
Let's recap; the supreme court declared it the law of the land by fiat. It seems to me that by the same turn the president (a co-equal power) could declare abortion illegal by fiat. Or for that matter Congress could do it. But let me be clear, if a dictator seized power tomorrow and outlawed abortion I would consider it outlawed.
Whether I fought against the dictator or not would depend on how he governed (compared to the likely alternative) not to mention the likelihood of a successful overthrow of such a dictator (just war theory), but I would still consider abortion to be outlawed either way.
Anyone who doesn't get this is either stuck in political buggy-whip production mode or is offering us excuses for why abortion is not banned. If we are to overturn this we must be as bold as those who forced this on us. We should no more care for the rules than they did, much less so now that the rules only serve to bind us. Not only should we understand this, but we should say as much when we run for office. Let them know that the game is up.
The only rule left for us is "by whatever moral means necessary." That excludes terrorism and the like, but not much else. Just about anything Rahm Emanuel would do short of attacking naked men in the shower (no pun intended, only observed after the fact). Complaining that the other side broke with the process is a lot like complaining that the ref called the game for the other team; you not only still lost, but now you sound like a sore loser, and nobody cares.
Let the other side be the one who has something to complain about. After all the American public has a lazy wisdom that doesn't worship the founding fathers; they also aren't as interested in what goes on as in knowing the gist of what happened. The only reason they are paying attention now is because they are starting to sense that everything is going down and they are upset the gravy train might slow down or stop.
If the democrats complain that we have subverted the rule of law and caused a constitutional crisis, then the few people who still pay attention will say "It's the economy stupid" and vote accordingly.
They also haven't noticed that all the conventional rules have long ago gone out the window; we no longer live in a country governed by the rule of law. For those of us interested in such things there is only right and wrong to consider now. No pro-lifer should be worried about the details of the best way to end abortion; if abortion ends, then that is probably the best way.
If the president declares abortion illegal, if the supreme court does it, or if the people simply gather in a ten million man march and take the capital like has been done before in other countries a hundred times then that is good enough for me. Why should pro-lifers be the only ones left who are worried about process? Especially when it is results that matter.
Let's recap; the supreme court declared it the law of the land by fiat. It seems to me that by the same turn the president (a co-equal power) could declare abortion illegal by fiat. Or for that matter Congress could do it. But let me be clear, if a dictator seized power tomorrow and outlawed abortion I would consider it outlawed.
Whether I fought against the dictator or not would depend on how he governed (compared to the likely alternative) not to mention the likelihood of a successful overthrow of such a dictator (just war theory), but I would still consider abortion to be outlawed either way.
Anyone who doesn't get this is either stuck in political buggy-whip production mode or is offering us excuses for why abortion is not banned. If we are to overturn this we must be as bold as those who forced this on us. We should no more care for the rules than they did, much less so now that the rules only serve to bind us. Not only should we understand this, but we should say as much when we run for office. Let them know that the game is up.
The only rule left for us is "by whatever moral means necessary." That excludes terrorism and the like, but not much else. Just about anything Rahm Emanuel would do short of attacking naked men in the shower (no pun intended, only observed after the fact). Complaining that the other side broke with the process is a lot like complaining that the ref called the game for the other team; you not only still lost, but now you sound like a sore loser, and nobody cares.
Let the other side be the one who has something to complain about. After all the American public has a lazy wisdom that doesn't worship the founding fathers; they also aren't as interested in what goes on as in knowing the gist of what happened. The only reason they are paying attention now is because they are starting to sense that everything is going down and they are upset the gravy train might slow down or stop.
If the democrats complain that we have subverted the rule of law and caused a constitutional crisis, then the few people who still pay attention will say "It's the economy stupid" and vote accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)