Moderates United

The central tenet of what I tend to call either economics or Counter-demand-side economics–where the negation of a negation logically equals a positive–is that investors invest and employers employ. This is really a stretch for some, but that is the case in its nutshell.

The problem with Socialists–in a relatively free market at any rate–is that they want “rich” people to create new businesses and new jobs, and then they want to take their money. They want people to want to make money, then they want to be sure they don’t. They want the economic benefits of business expansion, but they don’t want anyone to benefit from it. This is quite literally the mindset of the child, but that is the level they operate at. You can’t not be stupid and ignorant of human nature, and still support these policies.

For their part, businesspeople are understandably reluctant to settle in for the night in a henhouse run by a pack of wolves.

This is the underlying purpose of the Keynseian “stimulus”: when you can’t get the people spending money who should be spending money–because you want to take it, and they know you want to take it–then you get government “investing” the money. You know, the “investor of last resort”, when all the actually competent businesspeople have headed for the hills, with justification.

This is where they get sneaky. They think that if they borrow the money, and if they enact “tax cuts”, that the economy will get moving, the businesspeople will jump back in and POOF, they have them caught. This is a bit like a six year old thinking that because he can catch his father in hide and seek that his father couldn’t escape him if he wanted to. It is infantile.

Sooner or later they realize this, and that is when they start arguing for a command economy, so the money will stay put for them to steal. If they get their way, as in Cuba and North Korea, the money gets spent, once, and after that the golden goose is dead. Maybe the bourgeoisie and capitalists are dead or in prison: they sure as hell are not creating jobs and economic growth. Mass poverty ensues.

Short of this, they put the jitters in everybody, and the nation as a consequence suffers.

There is literally nothing good in the doctrine of Leftism–except rhetorically–and much, much evil.

It is the doctrine of fools and the wicked.

If I borrow money for war, or for social programs, does it matter to the people who lend the money, if they can create as much money as they want, whenever they want?

A loan is always a claim of ownership, and if that loan is created from nothing, then that claim of ownership is likewise created from nothing. From this basic mechanism, those who control it can eventually own everything. They can’t lose, provided they keep their legal protection.

I am speaking, of course, of the central banks, including the Federal Reserve, the IMF they largely control, and their cartelization agency, the Bank for International Settlement [who by the way have planned deflation for us in the coming decade, which will be quite onerous given the amount of money that was just put into the system by the same people. Inflation/deflation is a basic method of generating depression, and all the wealth transfer which it enables.]

The point I wanted to make here is that they are equally well served by the rhetoric of “capitalism” and “socialism”. Obama is serving them–who leftists would generally inaccurately identify as capitalists–just as Bush did. Wars and social spending: they all generate debt, interest on the debt, industrial and financial weakness, fire sales, and a dependent populace.

It is a source of on-going frustration to me that leftists lack the mental agility to recognize that corporations are employers who create jobs, and that when they inaccurately conflate Wall Street with free market economics, they serve the interests of no one but the politicians who use them to get elected, and the actual powers behind Wall Street, who of course benefit from the policies they enact.

It is equally frustrating that conservatives, who otherwise understand how things work, fail to see how the Federal Reserve banks leach wealth from the most powerful economic system ever developed.

Here, again, is my treatment of the topic: http://www.goodnessmovement.com/Page14.html

I had initially conceived the previous post on Homosexuality as a meditation on why we–some people–view it as a sin in the first place. Getting some feedback, however, this sparked further thinking. I cannot overemphasize how valuable criticism is for me.

The task of geniune Liberalism–which is to say the doctrine of people like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill of maximal freedom for and emphasis on the individual–is to built a society composed of countless strands of personal relationships, in a complex web of meaning and personal satisfaction without any real center, and very rich with information and connection.

A Liberal response to a claim like “Homosexuality is wrong” might look something like the following:

I understand that at first glance it might seem unnatural for men to be with men, and women with women, but the first thing I need to point out is that sex is actually a small part of who we are. We have jobs, bills to pay, and responsibilities that fill most of our days. When we are together we have the same arguments; we worry about the same things. We wonder if love is real, and what our futures will hold.

True, we cannot physically procreate, but we can adopt. In any event, we tend to be more educated than average, and if you compare us to comparable heterosexual demographics–particularly in Europe–most of them aren’t having kids either. The survival of the race isn’t really at issue, is it?

What I would like you to understand is that while I respect your right to your opinion, in my case at least it is injurious to be labelled as somehow defective or wounded, just because of the sexual drives within me. I endured a lot of teasing as a child, which frankly have left me very sensitive.

Please keep these things in mind as you are typing. As you say, we both have our rights, but you need not exercise them all the time, if it does little good, and might be emotionally painful to someone who has done you no harm.

Now, that would be quite good. That would be effective in my case, and frankly does cause me to rethink what I wrote. I will leave the original post there for instructive purposes, even though I would tend to want to take it down, especially if I actually got a response like that.

A leftist response would look like this:

You have no right to talk about homosexuals. You are a bigot and homophobe and should be ashamed of yourself. If I knew where you were, I would set up a picket tomorrow to denounce tools like yourself for your viciousness and hate. Fuck you, you piece of shit.

In the one case a connection is established, a relationship of rapport and mutual consideration built, and our social order strengthened. In the latter case, a divide has emerged, which will only be bridged with violence; historically, in the form of laws repressing the spontaneous expression of non-conforming sentiments, such that no genuine bridge building and development of human empathy can happen.

Over time, the latter approach builds spiritless, unempathetic, robotic human beings. It levels all relationships to a flat plain, and erects on that plain a throne for the dictator, from whom all meaning and action is to emanate, but who climbs from that plain himself, and therefore has nothing valuable to offer.

I was thinking about this yesterday: which is the greater sin–two men or two women having sex with one another; or a father siring a son them abandoning him? In one case, the consequences are consensual, and negotiable; in the latter, lifelong pain is the result, and entirely beyond the control of the child.

Which is worse: homosexuality; or being married and betraying your spouse with infidelity?

Many, of course, would balk at linking homosexuality with sin at all. In my view, such people are simply unlucky. They are either born that way, or made that way through sexual and/or emotional trauma.

For some women, particularly, I think it may well be more emotionally satisfying, but seems not to be for men, who seem to retain their promiscuity in all too many cases, along with dramatically elevated levels, as a population, of drug and alcohol abuse.

Personally, I don’t care either way. They do what they do, and I do what I do.

I just thought it worth comparing some of the ways in which people hurt one another. Homosexuality does it not at all, at least in its basis. No one is hurt, and in general people are happier (at least than the alternative, which would involve suppressing some basic part of your identity), since sexual expression is a natural urge.

Edit: I will add to that that emotional expression is a natural urge, too, and probably more important. This ties in with my notion of “qualitative repression”, defined in my glossary of neologisms (and new uses of old words, which I propose to call neoarchaologism.)

Perhaps for now obvious reasons, my sexual activities would be roughly the same as they are now if were gay.

I will say I do in general stick to my principles, even if I do question them at times.

Rihanna:

Sticks and stones may break my bones
But chains and whips excite me

This is currently a big hit. I just heard it on the radio.

S&M makes sense to me in a world denuded of love. I was thinking about it today, that when you are in love, you are in this sort of trance state, where the world is altered somehow in strange but desirable ways. It is still a type of madness.

S&M aims to stimulate a qualitative risk of altered states, but one without the risk of actual emotional vulnerability. These people will go to all sorts of lengths both to approach one another, and to avoid genuine emotional intimacy.

Never having done it, this is my speculation. It does not interest me in the slightest. I will take my emotional wounds all day every day. They may hurt, but they tell me I am still alive.

S&M is a type of death, as the imagery associated with it plainly shows.

For those unfamiliar with my method, I am not calling it right or wrong: I am calling it an incompetent means of pursuing the emotional satisfaction we all want. Sex, likewise, is an incompetent means, and the connection of sex with willful and voluntary cruelty and masochism is obvious: is not emotionally detached sex already a sin against fulfillment, in many cases, particularly over the long term?

What we WANT is to hold hands and walk down country roads. By the age of 13 or so, though, nowadays, most kids have abandoned that fantasy for “maturity”, which seems to normally start with oral sex, and advance to hormonal driven coitus, all without the CAPACITY for lasting committment by the boy–and probably any more by the girl, although they are wired differently.

If you risk nothing, you get nothing. If you cannot trust, you will always be alone. If you cannot get hurt and go again, then life looks like a really scary ride. You get off by closing yourself emotionally, and having done that, not uncommonly by leaving altogether. In my view the only reason suicide rates are not skyrocketing is effective drugs that act on a physical level.

My two cents.

I am not seemingly meant to work within large corporations or other large human frameworks requiring me to be demure and willing to ignore blatant affronts to my cognitive or other sovereignty.

As you watch people climb the corporate ladder, there is this point where they stop protesting the injurious. They get crapped on, and figure they’ll just dish it out when they get higher up and in a position to do so.

Part of fitting in is always being willing to subordinate your opinion to others. Now, obviously, in any human system you can’t always get your way. To demand it is stupid. At the same time, there is a big difference between compromising because you have to, and forgetting what your principles and beliefs are in the first place.

Organization Men (and Women) forget who they are. They accept the unacceptable so many times without complaint that they forget they once had backbone.

This is the problem, too, with politicians, whose constraints are always public opinion. They get muted and chastened by the views of the electorate, and so water down their own beliefs that when it comes time to stand for something, they have forgotten how.

I have no idea if Donald Trump would make a good President, but it can be stated with no hope of contradiction that he is an individualist. He does things his own way, for his own reasons. Obviously, he always hopes to capture greater notoriety and/or business success, but what he is not trying to do is fit in. He is trying to create his own unique brand, and is obviously quite sincere in doing so.

That is why and how he brought up the issue of Obama’ identity, which has been so successfully suppressed by the propaganda machines in our airwaves.

People care about this issue. They know they are being lied to, about this, about the debt, about Obamacare, about Social Security, about Medicare, but are unable to find anyone willing to buck their pollsters.

Sometimes you have to lead, and wait for people to follow. I think that’s what he’s done. Again, I can’t say if he’s smart enough to be President, but I’m quite sure Obama isn’t, and he is occupying the office now.

What we want is people who are NOT organization men. What we have been doing has NOT been working.

I have posted on this a number of times, somewhere, but figure it’s time for an update.

If you are going to move an immovable rock, how do you start? Is it not by eroding its foundations? Given time, the largest rock can be reduced by flowing water. The Grand Canyon was once solid.

The task of the brainwashing is to develop comfort with cognitive and perceptual dissonance. As one example, they might ask the captured American: do you think black people should be able to vote? Do you think they all deserve to be beaten? Do you think rich people owe no debt to the poor?

They might bring in some little girl who they say (it need not be true, of course) has been victimized by American bombs. They ask: do you feel sorry for this little girl?

They keep at this until they get some small agreement, then they ask you to write it down.

The next day they go a little farther, and then farther, and you acquire gradually the habit of small accomodations. Small changes, you figure, can’t hurt. You are kept in a ideologically sealed environment, such that you can’t see how you change over time in your views. One day, they tell you the United States is the Great Satan, which is the inverse of the truth where Communists are concerned, and you disagree. Then they show you all the notes detailing American aggressions. You want to fight it, but you wrote the notes. Emotional and cognitive pain follows. If you are going to fall, you fall here.

Once you fall, the justify it to yourself, that you are now in possession of the true truth, and you become an advocate of hate in the name of compassion, violence in the name of peace, and economic oppression in the name of economic liberty.

To the point on the question of who our President actually is, and if he is actually legally qualified to be our President (plainly, he is not qualified on his merits), the example I would use is the Communist use of sticks of varied lengths to gauge their progress.

First, they give you one stick that is 4″ long, and another that is 4 1/16″. There is a perceptible difference, but only if you place them right next to each other. They ask you if they are the same. You say no. They say that if you admit they are “mostly like each other”, that you will extra rations (they have of course been starving you to weaken your will, and diminish your judgement). This goes on for some time, and you get used to the rations. “It’s just a harmless game”, you say.

Then they put the two out, and they say, these two are of course the same, but do you see any difference between these two, where one is 1/8″ shorter than the other. Are they basically the same?

If you don’t confront them there, you will rationalize what they said. You will have internalized as truth something that just recently you knew to be false.

In my view, this birth certicate issue–where no representitive of the American people as a whole, which would presumably be a member of Congress and/or their designated representative, has been allowed to look at anything remotely conclusive–has a similar dynamic. We are being asked to accept as valid a process which is nothing of the sort. This situation is ridiculous. We are being asked to accept a a3″ stick as a 4″ stick. Once you have done that once, you will do it again.

That to my mind is the true significance of this issue. I don’t know and I don’t care what they find: they need to do the damn thing, as a matter of PRINCIPLE. Pass an Act of Congress forcing Fukino to release it to unbiased experts representing both parties, and the nation as a whole.

To do otherwise is to plead cowardice quite explicitly, in my view.

What if Frank Marshall Davis were listed as his father? Obama’s father abandoned him nearly immediately. What if he thought he were the father, and took her to Kenya to be his (second) wife, as allowed by the Islamic faith he was born into? What if he then found out that he wasn’t the father? He dumps her, she returns to Hawaii, then moves almost immediately back to Washington state, and the two of them have almost nothing to do with one another the rest of their lives. She takes the time when she leaves, though, to both get a birth announcement placed in the paper, and applies and gets a Certificate of Live Birth, naming the actual father, since she had no reason to believe it would ever matter? Obviously, her goal would have been to secure US citizenship for little Barry.

Davis, for his part, bragged about conquests of girls as young as 14 (and group sex with same). 18 would not have been a problem for him. Obama is never told, but the grandfather knows, and makes sure Davis is in his life as a mentor, even if not as an acknowledged father.

Let’s say Obama doesn’t find out until he goes to Hawaii just before the election to look at his birth certificate. He is upset, but as per his style doesn’t show it. His grandmother, however, stricken with grief, dies. I always thought it strange she died the day of his election, but could never quite bring myself to believe he had anything to do with it. This I could accept.

Now, he’s been using his COLB for everything until now. Obviously, he got his documents somehow. Let us say that he even provided Factcheck with a valid document, and that they really did delete things in good faith.

This still leaves him with a Communist, drug-using, sexually perverse father, as a matter of public record, with whom he on his own admission spent a lot of time as a child. That would be politically problematic. The father to whom he (or someone) devoted “Dreams from my father” was also a Communist. That’s a lot of Communists, but of course everyone that is thinking and paying attention knows that.

Communist=baby killer, just in case this is unclear; and literal, as a matter of policy, baby killer. NVA troops routinely shelled civilians on purpose for explicitly terroristic purposes. They put bombs on kids, put them on bikes, and detonated them when they were in crowds. There are no analogues for these behaviors–which were, incidentally, militarily counter-productive in most cases–on our side.

I will follow this with a post on brainwashing.

There can be no serious question that the black people suffer greatly in this nation, and that this should be cause for much concern. Yet, who is to blame?

When black people are victimized, who is normally the aggressor? Another black person. If a black kid gets shot, it was a black kid who pulled the trigger. If a black girl gets raped, it was usually a black kid who did it. They are robber and robbed.

As I ponder this, it seems obvious to me that there are two ways to look at this situation: we can look at it in a static fashion, as if an abstraction once formed could be assumed to forever represent reality; and we can look at it as a dynamic situation, in which even small changes can produce large and unintended consequences. We can live in a fantasy world, or in the world which actually exists.

In the fantasy world, all negatives must result from a positive somewhere else. If someone somewhere else has things better, then they must have taken from the less well-off person. This farcical statement is always made with no serious effort at determining how, physically, this could happen.

With black people, the claim always made is “racism”. What is the mechanism of this supposed racism? Are they thousands of huge factories located in black ghettoes who just don’t hire “colored” folk? That was true of FDR’s world, whose supporters were quite open in their racism–and why most all black people voted Republican–but that is not true today.

The black family is gone. An average kid has perhaps a one in ten chance of growing up in a two parent household, and distressingly large numbers of kids don’t even know their fathers.

What is the solution? Well, why do the fathers leave? They leave because they can’t support their kids, and because of cultural conditioning. The two are related. How can they support their kids? Obviously, if they can find well paying work. The solution is more and better jobs.

In the real world, what one has to ask is: what are the barriers to more and better jobs? What are they?

Well, why do businesses do what they do? Are they not trying to make money in competitive conditions?

Logically, a two pronged approach is needed. First, we need to make it easier to make money for businesses, and we need to make black neighborhoods more attractive business-wise. This leads to a number of conclusions I will partially itemize.

First, we need monetary reform. I have discussed my reasoning here. This is the big picture. This makes our real money expand, and addresses the only real problem which might justify Leftist anti-business rhetoric.

Second, most ghettoes have been created by anti-business activists under the tenet that money could be permanently reallocated by redistributive taxation. In my view, corporations should pay NO taxes. None. The Unions which are strangely (not really) exempted from rules against lobbying still manage tax exempt status. Imagine if you will that you had to pay a tax for the privilege of having a job, then another tax on your actual income. This is how things work for corporations: the entity itself is taxed, then the income of its employees is taxed again. This should stop. In exchange for tax relief they–and unions–lose their ability to lobby directly. Their members can still do whatever they want.

What the Fantasyland thinkers imagine is that wealth is more or less stored in a locked room, and that it just sits there. Logically, they think, why not take that money, which is not needed, and give it to someone who is hungry? Socialists do this all the time, and always economic activity declines. They get a higher percentage of a much smaller pool. Why is this?

The problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of systems in motion. What is being taken is not wealth, but creative possibility. If I am a billionaire, you can take my billions, but you lose the next company I was going to create, employing thousands.

There is no way to sustainable, generalized wealth except through healthy corporations who pay their employees well. In my view, the end goal is that every individual in the world is their own corporation, making their control of their time, assets and creative energy entirely their own, but for the foreseeable future we are stuck with larger employers.

We need more of them in the ghetto. We need IBM and GE and Proctor and Gamble in there, hiring people they want. To do that, they need higher caliber people, and kids raised in broken abusive homes rarely rise to that standard.

I want to be clear: I see no functional difference between the gangster culture of the ghettoes and aggressive sociopathy generated in socialist experiments like those in Britain and Germany and elsewhere. The movie “A Clockwork Orange” is a good example of what I am talking about. Race has nothing to do with it. It is disempowering socialism which creates this effect.

The root problem is a lack of an outlet for the expression of creative energy. Dim the lights, and you get people self destructing.

There is no outlet since the socialists never imagine society as a system in motion. It is always for them objects–classes, races–which are set against one another in ways that can be described in the abstract without ever reconciling those descriptions with actually existing realities. They don’t realize that even if you can engineer permanent unemployment payments for those thrown out of work by destructive policies, this will generate misery, and that a life with more risk, but less dependency, will be more productive for everyeone.

As I thought about it today, evil is that condition which seeks to destroy energy. It seeks to reduce the world to wax figures. I think this image of a lifelike–but dead–world is quite horrible to most of us, which is why it has been used often in horror movies. Sade’s book “120 Days of Sodom” is filled with static images.

Goodness is that condition that seeks to encourage and foster motion. I want people to have a place to move. As things stand, large swathes of our population sit in stuffy rooms, with nowhere to go they can see. Jobs are the way to do this.

It seems obvious that charter schools work well. The statistics support this, and it would seem obvious that if the goal is to help people, it would not hurt to ask the people you are trying to help what they want. It is the height of arrogance when people like Barack Obama veto programs which are wildly popular among those using them, simply to support a core constituency–in this case “teachers” unions, with the quotation marks intended to question how much they are teaching, and what.

Few thoughts. This could benefit from editing, but only so much time in the day.

I occasionally see the way to live. The other day I was–in a dream–offering love and comfort to a black woman who had had a very hard life, with repeated traumas, and I was thinking that this energy, this love, is always there, but we hold back. From an early age, we are taught that to give someone is to get something, and we block our natural generosity if nothing is coming back to us. There is a tenderness we block.

Most of the time, what I think we want is recognition: we want people to see that we hurt too, or to acknowledge what wonderful people we are for giving our time and energy. If we can’t get someone to say “you’re so wonderful”, we don’t want to give; obviously, this would be implicit in people simply knowing what you do.

Yet, I felt an alternative, and felt simultaneous resistance to it. We all have our stories. We want to tell people our stories, to be seen, to be visible. I want to tell my story, to be seen.

But this path is short, and leads to death. The way forward is to forget who you are, what your sufferings have been, what your generosities have been, and to work patiently, daily, and as invisibly as you can to build a better world: to comfort those in pain, to encourage those doing things, and to live with as much personal congruence as you can muster.

It seems to me there is a limit to what you can take, but no limit to what you can give. That energy is infinite, provided it is not funnelled through a channel that has been unnecessarily reduced in size by your silliness.