Sunday, March 22, 2009

What Makes a Good Society? What Makes us Worship the Great Man?





In this period of economic turmoil, War on Terror stress syndrome, and mood of general uncertainty, people are understandably worried about their society, present and future. Many people feel something is wrong with America and something BIG needs to be done. What is that something? Who can do it?
Due to the scale of the problems it’s understandable that many people feel helpless and look to people with Big Power(big government) to pull us out of the crisis. It seems people lost faith in people with Big Money(big business). We’ve borrowed and spent ourselves into national bankruptcy at the behest of ‘free market’ capitalism. We’ve driven ourselves off a cliff. We feel maxed out economically and spiritually. No wonder that the Obama phenom isn’t just political or economic but spiritual; he’s The One to fill the hole in our soul. Supposedly a man of ‘impressive’ or ‘staggering’ intellect, he’s also to fill the hole in our head. He even made a promise to provide free college tuition so more of us can be educated... or indoctrinated.

Something seems to be wrong here. Yes, the scale of the problem is HUGE, but we should realize that a Good Society begins in your neighborhood and community, not in Washington. Of course, those with more money and political power have greater means to do good or evil, but they cannot do it without the cooperation or collaboration of the people–countless individuals and families.
If anything, we should be wary of Big Money or Big Power for this very reason. Take Iceland for instance. It was a decent and prosperous nation whose economy had been soundly built on production and trade. But, it caught the finance capitalist bug peddled by Big Money. Finance is supposed to work with, not usurp, the economy. But, the decent people of Iceland lost their heads and followed the Pied Piper of Big Finance. They weren’t coerced but they did so anyway. They were misled and misinformed; people abandoned their common sense and put their faith in the Big Money folks who seemed to have all the answers. If a nation of educated people can fall for stuff like that, think of political and economic problems elsewhere. We all need to sober up. We must first trust and gain control over ourselves, not people with Big Money or Big Power. Icelanders stopped practicing capitalism and started worshiping capitalism as preached and led by the Big Church of Funny Finance. And, much the same happened in America. This happened with the New Economy shenanigans of the Dot Com Bubble in the late 90s and then with Easy Loans & the Housing Bubble. Never mind that Americans were shipping jobs overseas or running up huge trade deficits in a New World Order designed to favor the global elite over everyone else. We lost our sense because we knelt and prayed at the altar of Big Money. Actually, it was more like a pagan bacchanalia, with human sacrifice and orgies and all. Our society has become addicted to excess, pushed by liberals, libertarians, and even conservatives. America lost its hardworking and thrifty fascist soul that had been at the core of TRUE Americanness.

From Big Money, now we look to Big Power. From the Cocky Cowboy to the Dark Knight. Bush to Obama. Of course, Bush too was about Big Power and Obama too is about Big Money. But, the focus of Bush’s administration was ‘money is good’ and the focus of Obama administration is ‘power is good’.

We have lost sight of what makes a good society. Unless we regain our vision, we shall not found our way back. We shall no longer be Americans in the historico-spiritual sense. The national spirit of America has always been about individuals, families, and communities than Big Money and Big Government. America of course always had Big Money and Big Power, but Americans had a strong sense of personal and communal values. But, even as our individual freedom has expanded greatly over the years–especially since the 50s with rise of youth culture and rising wealth–, we’ve lost our sense of individual and communal worth, power, and responsibility. The Reagan Era, with its undercurrents of Ayn Randism, made us mindlessly worship the Donald Trumps of the world. The corporate and business giants were seen as new heroes, worshiped as new gods. This reached its apogee during the New Economy hightech bubble of the late 90s. Supposedly all those Silicon Valley geeks were the new supermen. They were going to remake our society and make us all millionaires in the bargain. Americans invested in the stock market like never before. Experts and commentators said old economic rules no longer applied. A new era was dawning. But, the bust happened. And, then companies like Enron and others turned out to be massive frauds. People lost faith. But, the economy had not totally sunk. Then came 9/11 and a feeling of new patriotism. And then, with low interest rates it was cheap to borrow money. With new financial instruments, new lending policies, and the promotion of the ‘ownership society’, it didn’t matter if you lost your job or if your income wasn’t much nor guaranteed. Anyone could get loans and buy homes and watch the value rise and expect to live off an endless boom. Well, that finally came crashing down. So, here we are, finally at a point where we lost faith in Big Money. So, what do people do? In panic and despair, they turn to Big Power. After worshiping capitalism, now they worship socialism. We turn men into gods, gods into scapegoats, and then find another bunch of men to worship as gods, then turn them into scapegoats. I suppose that is easier than taking a good hard and honest look at ourselves, what we can and can’t do, how we can succeed, how we can fail.

But, taking a good hard look at ourselves is the only step that can really do us any good. And, only such undertaking can teach us what makes a good society and what makes a bad society. By ‘we’, I mean all of us or at least most of us. We can’t do it alone. If only a relatively few people act smart or decent while the majority act stupid, ridiculous, or destructive, the tide of idiocy will overwhelm the pool of decency and sense. But, if most people gain good sense, think and act honest, and have a firm grasp of reality, we would live in a much stabler and better society.

What makes a good society? Before looking at or to the Big Man, Big Money, or Big Government, we need look closer to home. Everything big starts from everything small. Before asking what makes a good nation, ask what makes a good state. Or, what makes a good city. Or, what makes a good town. Or, what makes a good village. Or, what makes a good neighborhood. Or, what makes a good street. Or, what makes a good family. Or, what makes a good person. Bigger the entity, less power we have within it. Smaller it is, more power we have. So, before we raise questions about what goes on in Wall Street or Washington, we must ask what goes on nearer to us–where we have greater power.
How are we acting? What are we thinking? What kind of values do we support? What kind of things we do purchase? How much do we borrow? What kind of culture do we promote or consume? What kind of ideas and values do we cherish? What do we teach our kids? How do we raise our kids? How do we treat our parents and grandparents? What kind of relationships do we have with friends, lovers, spouses, relatives? How do we treat our neighbors? What do we expect from our neighbors? These are all things we have power over. These are the things that really define us. We must not hide behind or between Bush or Obama, or blame it all on Bush or Obama; Bush or Obama certainly deserve more blame–because they have more power–but not all the blame.
Notice that too many blacks have crazy sexual relationships and do a terrible job of raising their kids, but they never blame themselves; they only blame government or rich people for ‘not caring’ about the problems in their community caused by themselves; and they only look to government or handouts from the rich or do-gooders to solve all the problems. (Because so many blacks have been so pathetic at minding their own affairs, it has become unfashionable and even ‘racist’ to blame the individual for his problems. Blaming the individual would imply that individual blacks are to blame for their problems. That simply won’t do in our politically correct society. Because we are discouraged from blaming black individuals, this mind set bleeds into society as a whole; as a result, we are less likely to blame any individual for his failings. If the failures of black individuals are not their fault, why should the failure of any individual be his fault? Also, even conservative philosophy and policies stressing individualism have failed in the black community. Since the rise of Reagan, many people have succeeded in various fields through individual ambition and accomplishment. Blacks have seen many fellow blacks succeed in sports, hollywood, music, politics, and various other fields. And yet, many blacks are still social failures.
The problem is not the lack of individualism or self-interest in the black community as such is indeed more than abundant; the problem is lack of individual responsibility and sobriety to buttress the freedom and desire. It’s a truism that black failure is due to socialist mentality in the black mentality, but this isn’t really true. Welfare mentality certainly contributed to black decay, but welfare-ism isn’t socialism. If socialist policies lead to same problems everywhere, every corner of Sweden should be like Detroit, but it’s not. Indeed, black failure is, in some ways, due more to ultra-individualism, rampant greed, and self-interest than anything else. Black teens don’t turn to crime, drugs, pregnancy, and welfare out of socialist principles but out of hunger for lust, easy money, instant power, and etc. The welfare system may support and thereby indirectly encourage such kind of behavior, but the root of such behavior has nothing to do with altruism or socialist ideology on the part of blacks. Blacks fail because they are a primitive bunch of Donald Trumps who want instant pussy and money to boogie woogie with all night long.)

We should not worship Wall Street as the Golden Goose nor scapegoat it as the Golden Calf. Of course, Big Power and Big Money do have great power over our lives, but their power–often abused–would be less if we had better sense and took better care of ourselves. We need not have fallen into the traps of recent history. The Bush trap was one where the economy fell into debt, and the Obama trap is where the economy falls into government hands.
It could be argued that most of us were duped by both Bush and Obama, but we wanted to be duped because we wanted it easy. And, we looked to Big Money and Big Power because we just don’t want to deal with problems near to us. Especially in our non-judgmental, overly sensitive, hedonistic, and self-obsessed age, we don’t want to get into other people’s faces and speak the truth or look straight into the mirror and face the music. To some extent, tolerance is a good thing, but excessive ideology of tolerance has created a climate of fear, anxiety, and intimidation. It has made us afraid to judge what needs to be judged. Indeed, the only people who are JUDGED are those deemed to be insensitive, intolerant, and bigoted(‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘xenophobic’, and the like). A society where we cannot criticize the dangers posed by crazy blacks, denial of obvious sexual differences, the idiocy of ‘gay marriage’, the dangers of liberal & leftist Jewish power, and the recklessness of illegal ‘immigration’ is a world that is dishonest, incapable of hard truths, evasive, delusional, and self-deceiving.
In our age of rampant hedonism and lunacy, we are not supposed to judge men who act like pimps, women who act like skanks, boys who act like thugs, filthy TV shows, slutty fashions, and extreme-excessive-moronic behavior of all kinds.
In a way, political correctness and excessive hedonism go together. Since we feel repressed about uncomfortable truths regarding race, sex, gayness, illegal immigration, and liberal Jewish power which are having such negative effect on our lives, we seek to drown our fears and apprehensions through wild partying, drugs, drink, stupid tv shows, and the like. In a way, the rise of PC and Howard Stern go together. PC stifles us, so people turn to Stern. Stern is acceptable despite his political incorrectness since he’s Jewish and a total pervert degenerate. Since he degrades, denounces, mocks, and attacks EVERYTHING and EVERYONE(including himself), his kind of excessive hedonistic lunacy is deemed acceptable. Sarah Silverman gets the pass for the same reasons. But, neither PC nor hedonistic lunacy(despite its anti-PC-ness) promotes truth. Political Correctness is puritanical and censorious; hedonistic lunacy is degenerate and degrading. One is repressive, the other is excessive(it throws out the baby–moral values–with the bathwater–pc sermons). The sensible Middle is not allowed in this equation. Stern is allowed to attack PC because he attacks civilization itself. The Left tolerates Stern because what he is far more damaging to solid conservative values than to Hollywood celebrities and liberal politicians. Suppose someone with a bucket of shit enters a Church and slings it all around while badmouthing Rosie O’Donnell and Barney Frank. Only an idiot Christian would applaud him because the shit slinger has some nasty things to say about Rosie and Barney. But, just look at what shit slinger is doing to the church itself. This is why conservatives who embrace stuff like Southpark and Family Guy are retards. They think those shows are cool because they go after liberal sacred cows but fail to see that such shows turn our culture as a whole into a pile of manure. It’s why liberals don’t really mind Southpark, Family Guy, and Howard Stern. Some liberal sacred cows are mocked but our traditional values as a whole are degraded. This is why Camille Paglia too is ultimately subversive and dangerous to the Right. She’s a pagan fart, not a pagan fascist.

Anyway, the point is we basically knows what makes a good society at the smaller level. A good person is diligent, serious, honest, reasonably disciplined and self-controlled, moderate in his appetites, considerate, judicious, and helpful but also courageous enough to criticize relatives, friends, and peers. A person who’s totally nice and wants to be liked by everyone is a fool. Everybody must judge and be judged sometimes. And, it’s not good enough to be ‘tolerant’–in the pc way–if one happens to be lazy, deceitful, nasty, trashy, bratty, infantile, and/or moronic. Sadly enough, even as our society has become politically more judgmental, it has grown laxer in the area of morals and ethics. Trashiness, ugliness, and excessiveness of every kind is tolerated or even celebrated as long as it is politically correct(though to be sure, certain groups have license to be politically less correct than others; blacks, for instance, are given greater leeway to badmouth Jews, gays, women, etc; and it’s perfectly okay for Hispanics to speak of their Race or Raza).

In a way, laxity of our morals is intertwined with the rise of PC because much trashiness comes from the black and Jewish community. The highly influential pimp-and-ho music and attitude come from black culture. Jewish wit and irreverence target the sacred cows of our civilization. Jews, once the profound originators of much of our moral values, are today busy tearing them down. Jews do it because they love to show off their wit, to make money(as crazy stuff is popular and profitable among hedonistic barbarians), and to undermine the values of white goy society they want to get even with for the Holocaust and for all the times rich white goy dads said, ‘you can’t marry my daughter’. To scrutinize, criticize, and denounce the foul aspects of our culture is essentially to target Jewish and black cultures since they are the main movers and shakers of popular taste; problem is we are not allowed to criticize anything Jewish or black. Whether it’s the writers and producers of stuff like Sex and the City or all those jive-ass pimp-and-ho rap music, it’s Jewish or black. Indeed, many other groups try their best to ape the Jews and blacks, corrupting themselves in the process. They too try to become the new Lenny Bruces, the new Rappers. It’s a pathetic sight.

Anyway, since Jews and blacks are the favored racial or ethnic groups according to PC, we are supposed to accept their cultural garbage–disgusting, skanky, worthless, trashy, and hideous–as the wonderful and liberating blessings of our culture Call it by its real name–immoral garbage–and condemn the people who produce such trash, and you’re labeled as a ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semite’ like Gregg Easterbrook was charged by the dirty liberal Jews at The New Republic(who, by the way, feel free to criticize the culture of goyim all the time. So, it’s okay for Jews to attack Zhang Yimou’s "Hero" as evidence of something foul in Chinese popular culture, but it’s not okay for Easterbrook to criticize Jewish financing of anti-human movies as proof something rotten in the Jewish business community. By the way, suppose Muslims dominated the porn industry and used Jewish women as sex meat for black men, and then donated much of the profits to Muslim causes in the Middle East. It would be pretty outrageous, right? Well, it seems to be perfectly okay for Jews who run the porn industry to use white shikse women as meat for beastly black men, and then send much of their profits to the cause of Zionism and the Obama campaign. It’s no wonder that people have had this image of the Dirty Jew all throughout history. Of course, not all Jews are like this. Many Jews are good people, but liberal and leftist Jews are the biggest lowest scums in the history of man.)

If much of our ugly and foul culture had originated or was dominated by the white gentile community, it would be a different story. Indeed, consider the feminist reactions to white heavy metal vs. their reactions to rap. Many feminists screamed ‘sexism’ and ‘male chauvanism’ when it came to stupid raunchy white heavy metal acts, but most of them stayed mum about the far worse Rap culture. When Madonna first appeared as a white slut, the feminists jumped all over her. But, when she became the inflatable doll for the NBA, she became a good role model for all the white girls in the eyes of feminism(an ideology that favors interracism).
Modern feminism was created by ugly left-wing Jewesses jealous of pretty white goy girls. (The leftwing Jewesses were also angry because Jewish men were going with prettier shikses.) So, the ugly and rabid left-wing Jewesses created an ideology–disseminated far and wide by their liberal Jewish allies who control the national media and academia–which came to influence an entire generation of white goy girls to see white goy guys as the enemy. All the hoopla over Date Rape focused only on one set of victims and one set of perpetrators–white guys attacking white girls on campuses. White girls were to see their fathers, uncles, brothers, and sons as villainous people. White girls were told that it’s better to go with black men–like Obama’s traitorous and disgusting skankass mama–because white men were the REAL rapists. White mothers were told to castrate their sons into metro-sexual, dorky, and pussyass white boys–like what Anna Quindlan did to her faggotyass sons. In this day and age, even straight white males are raised to be faggotyass dorks by liberal white mothers who’ve been influenced by radical feminism constructed by ugly left-wing Jewesses. It’s no wonder that so many liberal white boys wet their pants at the sight of Obama. They’ve been raised to think, "I’m an inherently evil and privileged faggotyass white boy. My role in life is to find and worship a noble person of color."
Anyway, much of the trashiness of our popular culture emanates from black and Jewish culture. We are not supposed to criticize or attack anything defined by blackness or Jewishness. So, we have allowed cultural sewage to flow everywhere.

Sometimes, it gets confusing. For example, black people call each other ‘niggers’. And, it’s now part of mainstream culture for non-blacks to call eachother ‘nigger’ and even act like ‘niggers’. ‘Whiggers’ are all around. Chinese-American kids act like ‘chiggers’, and Mexican-Americans act like ‘spiggers’. It’s an ugly and trashy way to act, but kids wanna imitate ‘niggaz’ because blacks are tougher in sport and in pop music, the twin pillars of our popular culture. People are animals and naturally admire, respect, and want to emulate figures of POWER. Since the top athletes and top muscle-flexing ass-shakers are black, most kids want to act black. Never mind that black behavior is destructive, worthless, trashy, and useless outside a MTV studio or football field. People wanna associate with naked power, just like primitive people wear lion or bear claws to absorb the power of those mighty beasts. Bling blings–worn by kids of all backgrounds–are the lion or bear claw necklaces in our modern culture. Though we are technologically advanced, primitive tribalism has been on the rise because blacks have come to define that which is MIGHTY and BADASS. When Rampage Jackson or Rashad Evans flattened white boy Chuck Liddell, even white boys wanna be black, and white girls wanna put out to the tougher and studlier black men. Just look at sports like Basketball or Football, and you see pretty white girls cheering for strong black men; most white boys have been relegated to bench-warming status. White boy is to the Black Dude what the Asian geek is to the white guy.

Jewish-black alliance is strange because Jews promote cosmopolitanism while blacks practice a kind of wild-ass tribalism. Black culture, style, and expression are all about ‘we blacks are badass!’. Though there is an element of Jewish pride/identity in superior Jewish wit, Jewish culture casts a wider net–as does their control of much of the economy and media. Jewish-owned music industry have disseminated rap music and black culture far and wide. So, black culture, though primitive and tribal, has become the universal model for youth culture everywhere; perhaps one could call this uni-tribalism or globo-tribalism. So, you have Palestinians and Zionists trashing one another through rap music. We have French youths–white, black, and Arab–trashing one another America through rap. Kids all over share the global culture of tribalism. They sing the same ugabuga songs that turn them against each other as the soul of rap is thuggery and bullying.


Anyway, let’s return to the original point. What makes a good society? The quality of individuals and families make a good society. There are many levels of society within a good society. A village is a society, a town is a society, a city is a society. If the smaller units of society are rotten, society as a whole will be rotten(even if those at the top are good men). But, the smaller units of society are sound, it will weather even bad leadership at the top–as long as the leadership doesn’t gain totalitarian power over society. Civil society is more important than political society. All the Main Streets are more important than Wall Street. (One of the problems of globalism is that our control of our nation, city, down, village, etc weakens as our economy become more linked with the rest of the world.)
Suppose you want to build a toy tower with blocks. Most of those blocks will have to be cubes or interlocking for the tower to stand firm. The shape of the blocks matter most at the foundation or around the bottom. If blocks came in all kinds of strange shapes, the tower will not stand. In other words, a soundly built tower depends on the shape-worthiness of individual blocks. It would be foolish to see only the tower but not the blocks that make it possible; that would be like seeing the forest but not the trees. Of course, there can be some non-essential decorative stuff on the top, but we know that’s not why the tower is standing. (Remove decorative stuff from a skyscraper, and the building still stands firm. Undermine the structural integrity of the main body, especially at the bottom, and the skyscraper starts wobbling and may well collapse. Of course, it could be argued that society is more like a human body than a building. Building is all body and no brain whereas a society, like a human body, has a brain center. One could argue that the brain–the top–is the most crucial part in a person. Even so, the body has to be healthy for the brain to work properly. If the back, ass, stomach, or whatever hurts, the brain is much less able to focus and accomplish tasks; mental energy becomes focused on the ailments of the body. It could also be argue that the body is more important than the brain in this sense; life developed body before mind, mechanisms before consciousness. The brain is the outgrowth of the body, not the other way around; indeed, the brain is really just a part of the body that can function as if with ‘free will’ and imagination. But, the brain is useless if divorced from and ignores to serve the central reality of the body. A healthy society is where the body is healthy so that the mind can do things that the rest of the body cannot. When the body is unhealthy, the mind eventually collapses too, emotionally and intellectually. The ideas developed by the brain center of America–mainly liberal or leftist Jewish–in the past 50 yrs have not been healthy for the body as a whole–white gentile America. The brains have become ever more brilliant but not at facing and dealing with reality but in trying to suppress it, elude it, or go around it.)
Many people mistake the decorative stuff on the top as the essence of the tower when the real essence lies in the square cubes that making up its main body. Of course, all towers, even toy towers, need an architect, but an architect is useless unless he has many cubes to work with. This is why a national leader can only do so much. A leader working with cube people can build a mightier nation than a leader with odd shaped people. Hitler was able to do much more than Mussolini because Germans were made of more solid stuff than Italians. Hitler failed because once he erected his mighty tower, he tried to make it move. A nation takes a giant risk whenever it tries to conquer other nations.
In America no leader has had the power to disassemble the entire system and build anew. He must work with a system, a society, or a reality we all inherited. The president doesn’t have totalitarian powers to overhaul everything. Our society will essentially be as good or bad as the individual blocks composing it. This is why it’s foolish to look to the Great Leader to fix our biggest problems or save us. The greatness of Reagan wasn’t that he DID something but simply allowed the private sector–free individuals–to their own thing. He trusted in the individual blocks that made America. (Where Reagan and many conservatives failed is they over-estimated the wisdom of individualism. In an increasingly materialistic society, individualism can become synonymous with excessive hedonism and barbarism, promoting a freedom that is destructive and mindless than constructive and responsible. The overly materialistic yuppie culture that developed in the 80s was ultimately counter-productive; it was a culture based on individual hard work and success but its values were hollow–succeed to gratify yourself; the children of yuppies were raised to be spoiled brats; spiritually hollow, they either became stupid idiots or new leftists seeking meaning through the secular religion of radical ‘social justice’. Thus, Reaganism led to Obama-ism.) But, Americans, like everyone else, have been prone to fall for the Great Man or Great Men myth. That there are greater men in society is very true, but man is not god. When we look up to certain men as gods, we are making trouble for our nation. This happened with the deification of CEO’s in the 80s and especially in the internet boom yrs of the late 90s. Milton Friedman was a great economist, but many looked to him as a yoda-like sage guru. Ayn Rand fans are crazy about that crazy bitch. Wall Street and Silicon Valley were seen as bastions of all that was free, exciting, excellent, wonderful, intelligent, brilliant, and etc. The internet bust in the 1999 taught us the danger of worshiping techno geeks, and the recent financial bust taught us the dangers of blindly following Wall Street.
So, have we learned our lesson? No, because we now have people blindly worshiping Big Government led by The One, The Messiah, The Anointed One, The Prince, The King, etc, etc, Obama. Instead of looking to ourselves–and honestly at ourselves–, we are looking to the so-called Great Men to solve our problems.
The problems we face were created by all of us, though of course those with more power deserve more blame. They misled us, but many of us put them in power and/or foolishly or blindly trusted and followed. Or, we didn’t stand up to them and blow the whistle even though we sensed what they were doing was reckless or unwise. Consider the fact that the vast majority of people of Illinois re-elected Blagojevich though it was obvious that he’s a low-life crook. Not that a GOP candidate would have been any better, but the fact is both parties come up with unscrupulous leaders because of the arrogance, stupidity, naivete, or laziness of the people.

Sometimes, we do need a great bold leader to speak the truth and push forth a fundamentally new approach and system. But, that’s not easy to do in a highly developed society such as ours(where power isn’t concentrated in one place and where many people have the power to resist new ideas and policies for good or bad). It was relatively easy to establish a fundamentally new order in the Americas of the late 18th century because North America was mostly a vast empty continent. With plenty of land for everyone and following a terribly disruptive war, the Founding Fathers had a unique opportunity to try something profoundly different. Such was much harder to pull off in France because France was already a highly developed civilization with much entrenched interests; lack of radical policies would have left much of the Old Guard in power while radical policies would have led to a bloodbath and frightful dislocations. (Of course, our society has changed rapidly in the past century, but it was mostly the product of countless individuals competing with new ideas. Change in a free society is organic, unpredictable, and elusive than centrally planned and implemented. Like in sports, the real game happens on the field regardless of the game plan. Though practice and strategy are important, the real ‘plan’ develops as the game is being played, with constantly shifting realities on the ground. Communism had a different idea of progress, where central government would come up with five year plans detailing and commanding what must be done and how. There was no room for individual initiative and freedom. It was difficult to breathe change into the communist system because of its massive size and pervasive power. And, it’s difficult to radically change our system because individual resistance to government dictates and power. The real question is what kind of individuals and communities comprise America? Not all anti-government resistance or disobedience is a good thing. Arnold Schwarzeneggar tried to push saner policies some years ago but had to back down due to massive objections from the people of California. Government effort to educate blacks has been met with hostility or indifference on the part of blacks. The people of New Orleans didn’t cooperate with the government during Katrina. Indeed, the aggression and craziness of the people frustrated the rescue efforts of government at local, state, and federal levels. And, we only need to look at places like Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, etc to realize that minimal government doesn’t necessarily produce heaven on earth. If individuals of a community suck, then the community will suck.)

Only rarely do highly complex, advanced, and sizable civilizations get an opportunity to try something drastically new. It happened in Russia following the chaos of WWI. The power vacuum allowed the Bolsheviks to seize power and push forth radical policies turning society upside down. Nazi policy in Germany was less revolutionary but made possible by prolonged depression of the 20s and 30s. China was ripe for radical revolution in the late 40s and 50s because it had been worn down by a prolonged period of imperial decay, Western imperialism, warlord-ism, corruption, and Japanese invasion. But, without such giant geopolitical earthquakes, a new leader has only so many cards to play with. Even in America, presidents were able to do something truly new only following a massive crisis: Lincoln thanks to the Civil War, FDR thanks to the Depression and WWII, Johnson thanks to the Civil Rights Movement. Obama, of course, is hoping to use the current crisis to turn US into a socialist country. Even so, no American president had the kind of power to re-order society to the extent that leaders of other countries had done. America has simply been more stable than more countries, and furthermore, the strain of individualism and local autonomy has made many Americans resist the idea of government amassing power to shove its policy down all our throats. (It must be said, however, that because the freedom of the people was preserved there has been far more change in America than in nations with governments with power to do much more. Communism produced greater amount of change in a short period of time than any other system, but after the initial revolution a long period of stasis and stagnation followed since the only game in town was communism. At no point in history did America produce the kind of overnight change as happened under communism, but America kept changing year after year, with individuals infusing new ideas into the system day in and day out, year in and year out. America was not a nation of single all-encompassing revolutions but many mini-revolutions in various fields–science, business, culture, etc–happening all year round. Communism was a giant storm of change followed by a long drought whereas America was more like steady rain of new ideas.)
But, Americans tend to lose faith in themselves during times of duress and look to the Great Man. When times are good, Americans are likely to admire Great Men, the successful capitalists. When times are bad, Americans are likely to run to the Great Man, the savior who promises to protect us from the avarice of the Great Men exposed as Great Robber-Barons. In the Clinton and Bush yrs, many people looked up to CEOs and bankers. Today, those people are despised, and many people look to Messiah Obama to save them from the Greed of the Evil Rich Folks(though rich folks got Obama into office).

Perhaps, we should ask why this is so. What is it about human nature that makes us look up to and worship Great Men? The most obvious reason would be that some people are indeed great–imbued with special talent or power. But, there seems to be more at hand. It’s not just that people look up to men with great talent but that people NEED to look up to such figures–heroes, chiefs, kings, titans, gods. It’s as though there’s an innate desire within us to seek and worship great figures. Indeed, we would invent them if they didn’t exist–indeed, we do all the time. It begins with children who don’t need to be taught to admire super heroes, giant monsters, sports stars, etc. They have a natural inclination to look up to Great Figures. And, this tendency remains intact as people grow older. Even people who come to reject or distrust authority and institutions worship or, at least, highly admire figures like Hunter S. Thompson or Ayn Rand who supposedly embodied the essence of individualism. Even anti-authoritarianism has its own heroes and gods. And, of course Marxism, an ideology committed to destroying religion, had its own Holy Men.

Consider, for instance, people’s worship of movie stars. We know that movie stars are fakers. At best, they have a talent for mimicry, for putting on an act. But, we don’t admire only their acting talent; we see them as larger-than-life; we associate them with the mythic characters they play. We don’t look upon John Wayne merely as an actor who did a good job playing cowboys but as the myth of the American Cowboy itself. There’s no other way to explain the great popularity of movie stars. They satisfy the need of people to submit to something ‘higher than themselves’. And, consider comic book heroes. We all know such heroes are fake, yet kids love spiderman, superman, and the like. Even adults pay good money to watch Hollywood movies about action heroes. People spend lots of money on super hero posters, t-shirts, and such. There is an aspect of worship even as people consciously know super heroes are fake. And, athletes are admired and even worshiped by their fans way beyond their real worth. They’re seen as Hometown Heroes, National Heroes, or representative of the Noble Virtues or Great Causes. All sorts of cultural and mythic significance are draped across their shoulders. So, Muhammad Ali wasn’t merely seen as an entertaining and excellent boxer but as a god-like hero of the black community. Liberal Jews have vastly exaggerated the significance of Jesse Owens–whose only ability was to run fast–, making him into a larger-than-life hero so as to morally browbeat the white goy community and to teach blacks that Jews are their natural friends. (Jesse Owens, Joe Louis, and Jews against all those evil white goyim.)

To be sure, there is an element of hype and manipulation perpetrated by corporations that control information; therefore, it could be argued that we are conditioned to worship certain celebrities, leaders, and ‘heroes’. Still, we must ask why people are receptive to such conditioning and manipulation to begin with. People controlling the media can manipulate us because there’s something innate within us that can be(indeed wants to be)manipulated. It’s like the porn industry can manipulate the desires of men because men are horny to begin with; men’s innate sexual desires can be exploited and magnified, but it was there to be begin with, not implanted in man by the porn industry. Indeed, even before the advent of modern media and technology, the innate nature of man led him to seek out great men, worship idols, and so on.

Why do people feel this need to admire or even worship great men or great power? Fear may be offered as one reason. Fearsome things/beings may be unpleasant or terrible, but they are awe-inspiring. Fear may not inspire love but can inspire respect or at least acknowledgment of its power.
There is also the element of protection and security. You feel safer if you have a big strong guy on your side. Naturally, people turn to John Wayne-like figures to save the town in Western films. Power inspires fear, fear inspires respect. And, we hope that the powerful being is on our side or on the side of good. Indeed, most action films are predicated on the hope that some fearsome guys will choose good to protect the people from fearsome bad guys; Yojimbo is a classic example.
Even so, we respect power itself, good or bad. Detroit Pistons were the bad boys of the NBA but still admired by many simply because they were the best. Jack Johnson played the bad ‘nigger’, and even though whites hated him., they still had a reluctant admiration for his tough black ass(and today, ‘faggoty ass’ white boys worship him as the great black man who taught the ‘racist’ white boy a lesson and promoted noble black pride); and white women secretly desired to submit to him, the destroyer of the ‘faggoty ass’ white men. In the film "A Bronx Tale", the son feels closer to the tough mafia boss than to his good humdrum dad. In "Shane", Joey looks up to Shane because he’s cooler and faster than his father. Lucky for us, Shane is a good guy. Jack Palance is the bad guy and we fear him... but we are fascinated by him as well. If you ask most men who would they wanna be, Shane or Palance, they would probably say Shane–as Shane is a tough good guy. But, if you ask most guys would they rather be Palance–tough bad guy–or one of the weaklings of the community, most men will say they’d rather be Palance. Power even if evil is more enticing and seductive than weakness even if good. Rap music is openly about being nasty, raw, bad, disgusting, savage, uglyass, and putrid but it’s tough, aggressive, and power-mongering. Because blacks, the main practitioners of Rap, are seen as the toughest and baddest mofos, kids around the world imitate and hope to be black-ish. Even Hispanics who fight with blacks in California listen to black music, watch black dominated sports, and all that stuff. Blacks see Mexican-Americans as short funny-looking midgets while Mexican-Americans see blacks as badass mofos. So, even though Mariachi music is a lot more pleasant than ugly stupid Rap, Mexican-American kids ape blacks and not the other way around. It’s because blackness is associated with power whereas Mexican-ness is associated with funny-looking stubbiness. Of course, there are many tough Mexicans around, but they are no match for blacks generally(except numerically).
Blacks pose a real problem to our society because people naturally look up to powerful figures. We want our heroes to be both powerful and good, but the problems is blacks are powerful and bad. There was a time when whites were fearful of black power, good or bad. White men didn’t want to lose their status as the top dog, the alpha male of society. They wanted white women to see them as the top studs. But, black males whupped white boys real good. Black males became the new alpha males admired by stupid white bitches. Since this was fait accompli–largely with the help of liberal Jews who took special delight in the humiliation of white goy males–, white males hoped that black power would be synonymous with decency and goodness. Whites were willing to accept to the studly superiority of blacks but wanted blacks to be like Sidney Poitier in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Blacks played along with this charade for awhile(Jackie Robinson-ism), but Muhammad Ali revived the ghost of Jack Johnson in the 60s. Blacks didn’t want to be nice decent good negroes approved by white folks; blacks wanted to express their own style, do their own thang, and all that. Much of this could only offend or scare the white community. Even so, it was obvious that blacks were louder, tougher, badasser, cooler, and all that jazzier. Since kids naturally gravitate to power and toughness, more and more white kids turned to black culture even though much of it was hateful, stupid, retarded, ugly, and obnoxious. Again, most men would rather be Jack Palance in "Shane" than one of the weakling good characters. Young people prefer Alex in A Clockwork Orange to his victims. White suburban teens admire and romanticize the tough gangsta thugs of the black community than the decent ‘boring’ blacks who try to make an honest living. In the past, many people romanticized gun-slinging outlaws more than decent farmers and church going folks. Though most white guys in the past wanted to look up to tough white heroes and most white girls wanted to admire white men as the white knight(saving the damsel in distress), the fact was black dragon was tougher than the white knights((and bit by bit, the star of white male-dom dropped lower; white women no longer felt satisfied or safe in the arms of white men; they turned to the black dragon). So, gradually, more and more white guys became sorryass white boys worshiping and imitating black muscle AND more and more white girls became skanky white ho’s worshiping black dick.
But, because black culture is so ugly, hideous, disgusting, and yucky, this cultural shift within mainstream America has had a terrible impact on all our racial communities. (Instead of white people
upholding solid and proud values which blacks could accept, practice, and improve their lives with, white people stooped to the level of stupid wildass black culture. White culture grew trashier while blacks no longer had any higher ideal to look up; as such, blacks just wallowed more in their own trashiness as society deemed it as the badassest and coolest thing around.)
There isn’t much good that comes of imitating stupid ‘niggaz’. They may be exciting on the basketball court or singing and dancing like sex-crazed lunatics, but blackness cannot serve as the basis of civilization or maintain a stable society. Indeed, blackness is the very anti-thesis of civilizational values. If blackness takes over a society, society will fall. Look at the hellish black parts of Brazil. Look at Zimbabwe after blacks took over. Look at what’s happening to South Africa as blacks take over more institutions. Look at the black parts of America. Compare Hispanics who emulate decent middle class whites vs Hispanics who emulate ‘niggaz’.

This is why so many white folks have invested so heavily in Barack Obama. The white community is thinking, "okay, you black guys are tougher, sexier, and more badass. You can fool around with my wife, you can f___ my daughter, you can be my president, and I will pick cotton for you. Just smile more often, do the fist bump than hit me in the face, and don’t scare me half to death. Be tough and cool but also GOOD, because, let’s face it, black culture as it now exists is bad, destructive, and corrosive." (Because black culture is both cool and bad, it is highly dangerous. If black culture was considered bad and uncool, it would be ignored by most people and wouldn’t influence society. But, because it’s considered cool and bad, people identify badness with coolness. Vice becomes the new virtue. Ugliness becomes the new beauty. Obnoxiousness becomes the new manners. In-your-face attitude becomes the new face of American behavior. We’ve seen the awful result of such behavior in the black community, so why do other races try to imitate such behavior? Because blacks are seen as the toughest, baddest, and coolest. People worship power, good or bad. People simply don’t respect weakness, even if good. This is why Passion of the Christ was so popular in our deranged culture. It showed that Jesus was the baddest dude in the world by taking all that PAIN!!! The mentality behind Passion isn’t much different than mentality behind worship of Tupac the Rapper. Of course, Jesus in Passion isn’t some trashy mofo, but his worth is proven not so much by his spirituality but by his badass ability to soak up tremendous amount of pain. He is like a pitbull dog that could take hell of a beating.)

Long ago, whites wanted blacks to keep their asses still and act like Negroes–blacks who practice middle class white values. But, the Black Ass has been popped out of pandora’s box and won’t ever go back. Blacks can no longer be Negroes since even most of white society has grown so enamored of black coolness and jiveassness. Colin Powell was much liked, but he made many blacks and whites feel uncomfortable because he was too much of a traditional Negro. He looked and sounded too white. It wasn’t realistic for whites to plausibly believe that most blacks could be like Colin Powell; that would have been tantamount to saying blacks should act and talk just like white people. It would have smacked too much of expecting blacks to be ‘a credit to their race’. On the other hand, white folks–even liberals–thought that most black leaders were disgusting jiveass buffoons and sleazebags–the Al Sharptons so prevalent in black politics and culture. This is where Obama made his entry and solved the conundrum for many gullible, stupid, dorky, and confused white people. Obama has some jiveassness, but it is restrained by some manners. Colin Powell was missing the Ass Factor crucial to genuine blackness. Problem is that most blacks with the Ass Factor be shaking their booties wildly and violently, bruising white folks both physically and emotionally. Barack Obama has the Ass Factor but he’s goodass than badass. So, Obama is to politics what Will Smith is to movies. They are goodass blacks.
Now, wouldn’t it be far better for white people to come to realization that blacks in general are dangerous and hideous? Wouldn’t it be far better for white people to unite for white power like blacks are united for black power and Mexicans are united for Mexican power–and Chinese are united for Chinese power and Jews are united for Jewish power? So, why don’t white people unite? It’s because the Liberal Jews who have taken control of the media and academia have brainwashed white folks through guilt-baiting and guilt-peddling. It’s also because US had been locked in a long Cold War with the USSR in which US had to prove to the world that it wasn’t ‘racist’ in the eyes of the world in order to win hearts and minds all over the Third World(and in Europe which had been half-destroyed by the ugly radical racist policies of Adolf Hitler). So, white people have been hopelessly castrated by the liberal Jews’ Doctor’s Plot. Despite all the evidence, white people cannot accept that blacks are a racial danger to white folks and to civilization itself. Even if such were proven true, white folks are unable to look at truth in the face because they’ve been raised since cradle to kiss the ass of Martin King, suck on the teat of Oprah, wiggle their ass to Usher, and cheer for their hometown Negro sports hero.

Anyway, the innate desire to worship the Great Power may have predated the arrival of man. Look at social animals, and one notes a strict hierarchy within a pack or pride. Though males of any pride or pack(or females among hyenas as female hyenas are stronger than the males)will fight for dominance, the losing beta-males comes to accept the leadership of the alpha-male. It isn’t just that the weaker males are beaten into submission but that they come to genuinely look up to the stronger male. It’s not mere a case of reluctant submission but a willful submission once the dust clears after the battle. This kind of feeling may exist among solitary animals, but it’s certainly an aspect of social animals. Once the alpha member is chosen, all other members–male and female–look up to it as the god of the tribe. It’s as though all the members realize that they need such a Great Heroic Figure to lead the tribe to victory, safety, dominance, and etc. The alpha male also gets the best pussy. It’s also as though beta-males and females innately understand that if the alpha member falls, there will be dissension and chaos within the tribe in which a whole new round of internecine battles will have to be fought to produce a new leader.
Perhaps, this kind of innate mentality wouldn’t have developed if not for the fact that the natural world is dangerous. In a hazardous world, there must be strict cohesion within the tribe or pack; otherwise, they fall to other packs or tribes, or it will fall apart from internal dissension. An anarchist or libertarian social order is possible in a world without external threats or problematic individuals within the group, but such has not been the case in the natural world or through human history. A community had to cohere together against other communities and to suppress the crazies within. (The farming community in Seven Samurai wouldn’t have survived if everyone just did his own thing.) Even if one community practices peace and atomized individualism, other communities could well be tight-knit, united, and aggressive. (The problem of the Greek city states was they were too divided to form a solid and stable bloc capable of repelling all enemies indefinitely. So, they all fell under Alexander the Macedon.) For a community to prevail or protect itself from others throughout human existence, it needed a leadership class that it could look up to, follow, obey, and admire. The farmers in Seven Samurai need the warrior caste to save them from bandits. Usually, we think of superiors hiring people to serve as inferiors, but in Seven Samurai, inferiors hire people to function as superiors. Farmers need Hero-like men to save them from the bandits. When the bandits are finally gone, the farmers feel less need for the samurai. Even so, respect for the great force or being that maintains justice, peace, order, and advantage to one’s side is probably something that developed since the time mammals became complex social creatures. Whether it’s a wolves happily submitting to their top wolf to lead the attack or retreat from other packs or other beasts OR Hebrews looking to Moses to lead them to the Promised Land against all sorts of obstacles, there is a natural propensity for higher social mammals to play follow-the-leader. This feeling could be one of the basis for our social, political, and religious mentalities.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Will Excesses Really Neutralize Each Other under Libertarianism?




There is a tendency among libertarians to argue for more individual liberty and freedom as the key to societal good. This isn’t because everything people do with freedom is good but because bad things will cancel each other out. It’s like a vision of humanity as economic, social, or emotional billiard balls. There is a rational argument here but one minimizing the moral sense of limits and conscious self-control. The libertarian argument is essentially the Satan-ist argument. No, Satan doesn’t exist, and libertarians aren’t committed to evil. Still, libertarians seem to believe that vices naturally cancel each other out in an utterly free social order. Do they really?

I once came upon a book by some funny Jewish guy of the church of Satan. In it, he argues that the seven deadly sins are nothing to be afraid of. Instead of resisting them we should indulge them because they cancel each other out. For instance, take vanity and gluttony. Gluttony is pleasurable, but it’s bad because it turns us into gross fatties. But, not to worry since vanity is there to balance it out. In other words, a person may want to pig out, but his narcissism will control his appetite or push him to exercise. So, we need not fear these vices. If we indulge in them, we not only gain pleasure but also arrive at some kind of equilibrium. Somewhat true to be sure. But, would it be sufficient for a person to be healthy? Can we have a good society where vices simply cancel each other out? (Also, what about people who are so ugly to begin with that they would gain little by controlling their appetite or exercising? Despair & self-loathing in the looks department may lead a person to eat like pig to compensate for his or her ugliness.)

Libertarian philosophy comes pretty close to such thinking–the notion that vices, if let loose, will cancel or balance each other out and make for a decent society. While such ideas may have some macro-social or psycho-individual validity, there is no substitute for individual virtue and moral character in the maintenance of a healthy society. (Libertarians, of course, aren’t anti-morality, anti-virtue, nor anti-self-restraint, but they hardly emphasize such values in their preference of theory of freedom). Indeed, the beauty and power of virtue unite the individual with the community–made up of other individuals. Individual freedom is something we all prize and seek, but it has no inherent moral value(except in the vaguest and broadest sense; man needs freedom to choose good or evil, but freedom isn’t synonymous goodness; nor, can we expect the bad to simply balance out the other bads).
And, freedom is often socially destructive for the simple fact that people indulging in excessive behavior–even in private–are likely to cause problems spilling into rest of society. Fat people, for instance, make healthcare costs rise for everyone. And, people who gamble away their money become burdens on their family and rest of us.
The libertarian argument is most compelling when law enforcement against certain vices aren’t effective or counter-productive. This was certainly the case with prohibition in the 20s and 30s. The problem in a free society is that even criminals enjoy rights and protections which give cover to much of their criminal activities. The only effective way to eradicate such behavior is by eradicating freedom itself, but that would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. So, a free society simply has to allow certain kinds of freedom. We cannot legislate ourselves at every turn into a healthy society, and it almost impossible to legislate virtue in a democracy(and such don’t do much good even in a theocracy).
Nevertheless, who can deny that certain vices are extremely destructive, and we simply cannot expect other vices or virtues to naturally or organically balance them out. Though being fat is not a crime–and of course shouldn’t be–, the rise of fatassness among Americans shows us the serious shortcomings of the balance-of-vices theory. Though it’s true that people want to enjoy both food and have look goods, narcissism simply isn’t powerful enough to neutralize excessive gluttony in many people. Fatsos know they don’t look good, but they keep pigging out. Why? Because eating is fun and exercising is strenuous. People know they should eat less but they want to eat more and more. This is why so many Americans are fat-tards. Gluttony and narcissism are both vices, but one is much easier to indulge than the other(at least in modern society; gluttony would have been difficult long ago when procuring food was the hardest task of all.)
It’s quite obvious that people need another mechanism to eat less: shame. There is a thing called self-shame, but the most effective kind of shame is social shame. But, as we move away from a shame culture–due to both liberalism and libertarianism–, we have people who indulge in behavior that is immediately gratifying but harmful or destructive. In our politically correct, sensitive, and litigious society, we are not allowed to call fatsos ‘fatsos’. Some states are even considering protecting fatties from the evil of ‘weightism’. Now, I’m not recommending that we call fatsos ‘fatsos’. That would be rude. But, would it be so bad if there was some degree of social pressure or ostracism against fatsos? Indeed, it would be best for the fatsos. Fatsos are not victims. They are self-created self-indulged monstrosities. If they are shamed out of fatness, they would be better off and so would be–lower all-around healthcare costs.

Fatasses eat too much shit and don’t exercise enough. Sure, some people have slower metabolism, but then they should eat less. But, they pig out like the fatsos that they are.
Now, a fatso may not like being fat and may want to lose weight. But, many people simply cannot control their eating habits. They know they are fat and ugly and would like to look better(vanity factor), but the food is just too irresistible. Without strong external pressure associated with shame or a strong internally held philosophy of frugality, freedom and liberty themselves are not going to create some miraculous equilibrium. Without a strong set of moral values or shame culture, there is only the strong arm of the state to enforce and maintain social balance/stability. This is truer in some communities than others. Blacks, for instance, tend to be wilder and more aggressive. So, freedom and liberty for blacks naturally lead to more excesses than freedom and liberty among other races. We can even see this when we contrast normal whites with ‘whiggers’. ‘Whiggers’ are white people who emulate blacks, and they happen to be far trashier and more problematic than regular white folks.
At any rate, we don’t want the state to interfere too much with our lives, so we must prevent bad conditions that arise from freedom and liberty. Shame and morality are central to social stability. The idea that simply more freedom and liberty will fix the problems through an organic process of counter-actions is just wishful theorizing.

There is also the cultural factor. A traditional society with newfound freedom and liberty still holds an internal mechanism–handed down through centuries or even millennia–that restrains excesses of individual freedom or liberty. Such mechanism, apart from the law and government, plays a crucial role in curbing wanton excesses of freedom. But, as the generations pass, as youth culture develops, as cultural traditions and norms weaken, and as more kids listen to stuff like rap music & other junk, individual freedom and liberty take on a different color altogether; they lose the connection to the roots of civilization. Freedom and liberty go from liberation to decadence.
Compare blacks in the 50s to blacks today. Many blacks in the 50s still had what we might call ‘family values’. Freedom and liberty for folks in ‘Raisin in the Sun’ had different implications than freedom and liberty for black kids who grow up today to hip hop, nigga culture, jiggety doo, yabbity ho-di-di-do. Of course, black community had always been more problematic than the white community, but its freedom had been restrained by moral sense and order prior to the 60s. No longer.
So, a libertarian argument that black community will make progress through more freedom and liberty would be nonsense. This isn’t to suggest that bigger government is the solution either as it has, indeed, made things worse by encouraging destructive behavior among blacks–welfare checks for teen mothers, tendency for educated blacks to go into parasitic bureaucratics than productive economics. But, the main problem of bigger government in the black community was having pumped in all that money without social controls. If anything, the problem is that bigger government led to more freedom in the black community. The problem was not the government taking away freedom but encouraging and supporting too much freedom–a dangerous policy because blacks, being wilder, are tempted to abuse freedom. All that welfare money allowed blacks to do as they please in terms of having loose sex, dropping out of school, and so on. Every black girl knew that if she messed up and acted crazy, the government would give her money. The problem wasn’t big government per se but a big government that gave and gave but demanded nothing in return. If big government is bound to fail all the time and everywhere(as libertarians contend), Sweden and Canada would be giant Detroits, but they are not. Of course, one could argue nothing would have worked with blacks because too many of them are just too crazy.

* * * *

Suppose we apply libertarianism to gun ownership. A libertarian might argue that the best way to deal with gun violence is allow easier and freer sales of guns to more people. Eventually, things will balance out. If more people own guns, they would be able to protect one another. Criminals would think twice about robbing people. A sudden spike in gun violence may eventually drop once everyone has guns and an equilibrium has been reached. There is some degree of validity to this argument, but let’s not fool ourselves. This kind of ‘equilibrium’ will be violent, crazy, and tension-filled. (Actually, stability or lack thereof in any society may be the product of its system of laws, moral values, and racial make-up than on gun laws. A Yugoslavia divided by ethnicity was a dangerous place for guns since Serbs shot Croats, Croats shot Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Muslims shot Serbs, and etc. Guns and ethnic diversity can be a deadly mix. But, once you have stable communities dominated by one race or ethnicity, there’s likely to be greater peace, with or without guns; indeed, each of the former Yugoslavian nations are safer now after the breakup and population transfers even though many people still own guns. On the other hand, a society dominated by blacks may not be safe with lots of guns cuz so many blacks act crazy. Indeed, fear of blacks has become the number one reason why whites want to own guns. In the past, it was fear of Indians and wild animals. If the wild frontier was tamed by white folks in the 19th century, today the urban jungle dominated by blacks is encroaching on white folks who want guns. Rich liberals, who can afford to live in safe neighborhoods, risk nothing when they yammer about the evil of guns and promote interracism since they don’t practice what they preach, but many common white Americans see the dangers all around.) If easy availability of guns is the solution, then why is there so much gun violence in the inner cities? Since just about every negro has a gun, he or she would be reluctant to use it; there should be mutual apprehension and respect. And, gangs would not shoot one another since all sides know the other guys have guns to retaliate with. But, the equilibrium and stability brought upon by guns in the inner city isn’t much better than the state of animal nature.
Bad and aggressive people will find ways to do bad things, and they’ll be far more willing to use guns. Bad people are more likely to be daring, reckless, and dangerous. Of course, they are likely to die younger(as in the movie City of God), but such idiots don’t think long-term; even if they know the dangers of crime and violence, they still prefer emotion over sense: the glamorous ‘badass’ life to one of sobriety; they don’t heed to the advice of ‘live a long life eating rice gruel’(Yojimbo by Akira Kurosawa).
Ever see a Western movie? Why do certain individuals or gangs gain great power over other people even though everyone has guns? Consider the movie "High Noon"; why is the entire town afraid of a few goons? Or, consider the mafia; how come a bunch of dago hoodlums could exert so much force on entire communities? Bad people have bigger balls. In truth, most people are chicken or ‘don’t want any trouble’. In other words, most people aren’t bungee jumpers.

So, if we ramp up the freedom for individuals, those with reckless tendencies will push them to excess and get in the way of those who tend to be wimpy(most people). The so-called organic equilibrium will vary from society to society depending on how many crazyass knuckleheads it has. A community of 1000 people with 10 Mike Tysons will be saner than a community of 1000 people with 100 Mike Tysons. The so-called equilibrium will be different between the two.

This is why we need many good laws and effective enforcement. To be sure, bad laws may be worse than lax or no laws.
It is the failure to enact and enforce good laws that leads to the excesses that eventually lead people to call for draconian, intrusive, or even oppressive laws(out of anger or in need for security). The best bulwark against the growing power of the state is to allow the state to play a constructive role in enforcing and regulating social order(within reason). Letting people do as they please can lead to social excess or chaos, in which case people fall under the sway of demagogues or ideologues who seek to greatly expand state power in the name of providing ‘bread and peace’.

Consider guns and the recent financial mess. If we have very loose guns laws and if too many people have guns, there are likely to be more shootings and bloodbaths such as the Virginia Tech shooting. http://groups.google.com/group/neo-fascism/msg/a491ffaa4f7a7035?hl=en&
That will lead to an outcry for truly draconian guns laws by people who react EMOTIONALLY than rationally to such things. Emotions matter in society, especially in respect to who controls the media. In the US, the media is controlled largely by liberal Jews, and they don’t want guns in the hands of white Americans. Horrible gun tragedies will be played up by the liberal media in order to push forth their anti-gun agenda.
Sometimes the image or news story is so ICONICALLY or symbolically powerful that the world community feels compelled to DO SOMETHING even if unwise--think of the humanitarian mission in Somalia. Just consider the effect that the images of dead Palestinian children had on the world community and peace processes in the 1990s. Those images played a key role in pressuring US and Israel to go for policies with little likelihood to succeed. When things get bad, people will grab at anything, especially if some news story crystallizes the urgency and desperation of a situation.
Of course, not all crises are caused by lack of laws or social stability; in the case of Israel and Palestinians, the cause of the violence is competing nationalisms. In any case, the problem exists due to impossibility of effective political control and stability in that part of the world--which makes lawful governance difficult or impossible.
But, even in a nation such as US or Iceland, we can end up with major social crisis if the pillars of society crumble. Too much gun violence resulting from too many guns is one form of crisis. The financial collapse in the US and Iceland is another kind of crisis resulting from too muchness or excesses(of 'free markets').
When things like that happen, people grow angry but also feel helpless. They fall into the hands of those who say they can fix the problem if they’re given tremendous government power. People ‘think’ with their emotions than with their minds. (When times are too good, same can happen, which explains why so many upbeat people in the late 90s ‘thought’--more like felt--that they were all going to be millionaires thanks to internet stocks.) Same can be said of the political and social 'thinking' and expectations during the Civil Rights Movement in America. It was the emotional power of watching ‘helpless’ and ‘innocent’ blacks being bullied and attacked by ‘vicious’ whites(especially on TV) that added tremendous momentum to the movement. Also, the gravity and complexity of the racial problem made people desperate and anxious; they wanted something to be done that would end the problem; so, they just decided to hold their breath and take a leap of faith off the cliff into the water they hoped was deep enough. Alas, the water wasn’t deep and we’ve broken many bones since.
Americans–and the rest of world–ignored the complexities of the social problem and just chose to believe in simple good vs wrong, a scenario where heaven on earth would be achieved if white folks only embraced the negro(when in fact the negro had many biologically rooted problems regardless of whether white folks embraced him or not). And, this sort of thing continues to hold sway over us because the liberal Jews who own and run the media and academia still employ those images via movies, PBS documentaries, and school texts to EMOTIONALLY inculcate us into being ‘virtuous’ people according to their agenda.

We should all realize that terrible crises and incidents can be exploited emotionally by the other side. So, if freedom lovers push for too many and easy access to guns, the series of gun-related bloodbaths can be emotionally exploited to turn the majority of people against ALL guns and ALL gun-owners. This is why people who oppose all gun laws will eventually end up with no guns. Zero gun control will lead to more and more horrible bloodbaths, which will be exploited by the liberal media to shock people. More and more people will EMOTIONALLY support tougher gun laws, not only in fear of gun violence because the growing consensus moral pressure says, ‘you must oppose guns to be a good honorable decent person’.

By now, we should know that thought is really steered by emotions. Prevalence of incidents that stir people’s emotions against gun violence will shape their minds against all guns. Consider the impact of liberal media on racial violence. They cover up or under-report news of black-on-white violence, but still remind everyone of the killing of Emmit Till and exaggerate white-on-black violence(which is almost non-existent). White kids grow up reading about or watching that liberal biased stuff(showing us the evils of white ‘racism’) in the various media; their emotions are stirred first, and then their thoughts follow. In boxing, you hit the head and the body follows. In education and culture, you grab the heart and the mind follows. This is why people think Holocaust was worse than other mass killings. Our hearts have been targeted with heart tuggers like Diary of Anne Frank, Schindler’s List, and Angel on the Fence. In contrast, we know of the other killings through the head than through the heart. We know Stalin killed millions but only through dry books, not through wet movies, music, tv, heart-tugging documentaries. We think of the history of communism; we FEEL about the Holocaust.

We must be wary of extreme liberty and freedom because excesses lead to backlashes.
The great backlash against drugs happened because pro-drug folks failed to understand the emotional impact of bad news. Drug advocates of the 60s would have done better to call for strong laws keeping drugs legal but regulated and controlled. Instead, people like Timothy Leary said it would be no problem at all if all the kids smoked pot, tripped on acid, or whatever. Such messages and attitude led to drug orgies and terrible excesses(easily exploited by the media and alarmists), which led to public outrage and tough drug laws that totally banned most drugs.
And, liberals messed up on the crime issue through the EXCESSIVE pro-negro policies. By apologizing for black crime and naively believing that the crime problem would go away if government provided more welfare, love, and job-training for blacks, liberals ended up creating a scary social reality where blacks thought they could run rampant and do as they damn pleased. With cops’ hands tied behind their backs, with criminals being let out through revolving door system, many cities became uninhabitable, and white folks fled for the suburbs. Though conservatives didn’t control the media nor have the means to portray liberal proponents of laxer crime laws as fiends or louts, many ordinary people saw the reality and simply voted with their feet. Because of LIBERAL control of the media and academia(the power to control the heart), many white folks who took flight felt guilt and self-loathing. On the ground, they readily saw black lunacy and crime all over, but the forces(media) controlling their hearts(thus minds) said, ‘shame on you for running from the wonderful negro(who, in reality, wasn’t so wonderful)’. This explains the popularity of Oprah and Obama among gulli-wullible white people. All those white folks who ran from ‘bad blacks’–but were afraid to admit their fear of blacks–wanted to prove that they aren’t ‘racist’ after all. So, they go gaga over Orpah and Obama.

What’s true of guns and crime is also true of economics. Reagan did a lot of good things for the economy, but the libertarian economists who pushed the envelope on deregulation were asking for trouble. It led to excesses in the financial sector which led to the current crisis which is paving the way for socialism. Deregulation and free market economics were not the only nor the main cause of the crisis, but they played essential roles. Had conservatives been more interested and invested in good government, its operations, and what it can do against market abuses, then the current mess could have been avoided, and we wouldn’t be on the road to socialism. But, free wheelers and dealers got the green light to do whatever clever crazy stuff they desired–all the more dangerous because those instruments and policies got intertwined with forces and policies that had little or nothing to do with the free market. Instead of opposing anti-free-market policies on principle and employing the necessary instrument of government to regulate the financial sector and enforce laws, conservatives got ideologically and politically lazy and thought that more and more deregulation and wheeling and dealing would fix all problems and be good for the economy. It led to excesses, and excesses led to the current meltdown.
And, it’s been EMOTIONALLY exploited by Obama and the liberal Jewish media that made him. And so, we are headed to socialism.
Ancient Greeks valued moderation. Libertarianism is the very anti-thesis of moderation. It is inherently supportive and bolstering of excessive behavior in the belief that all the excesses will counter and balance each other out. But, do we want an ‘ecological’ society? There is ecological balance in nature brought upon by ugly processes. We humans cannot live like that. The balance in nature is achieved by animals fighting and devouring other animals, by forest fires, by all sorts of crazy stuff. Animals act excessively, and the ‘natural balance’ is the outcome of all these competing excesses–constant warfare.

Humans, on the other hand, can maintain order and balance through self-control, shame, laws and enforcement, understanding, virtue, etc. Libertarianism mocks all that and says everyone should just do his or her thing to excess and not worry since the excesses will be balanced by counter-excesses of others or by internal psychological mechanism(like vanity neutralizing gluttony).
It’s no wonder that Ayn Rand had no use for morality as we know it. It was all about ‘me, me, me’. I’m not arguing for altruism or socialism. If anything, I think the individual is of paramount importance. But, an individual must be a person of virtue, with respect for others, and such. Also, every individual must realize that he or she is a link in a long chain of humanity. No individual was created by himself or herself. Nor, did he or she leap out of a theory or book. He or she is the product of union of man and woman and part of a long line of history and society. Individuals need freedom to explore and find his or her place in society and history, but there is no such thing as a pure individual, which is just an abstract theory.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

If Keynesianism is the wave of the future(and we can’t do anything about it), would Voluntary Donation be the best solution?


Many Americans oppose Keynesianism(I do too), but if we’re going to have it anyway... how could it be made to work best? Even something deeply flawed has varying levels of functionality. Drinking and driving is always stupid, but it is less dangerous with beer than vodka.
So, even if Keynesianism is fundamentally unsound, applications can range from utterly stupid to somewhat workable. How may we make it as workable as possible?

The current brand of Keynesianism is fundamentally flawed for trying to have it both ways. Huge increase in government spending, small increase in taxes–and only on the rich. (Of course, current policies may force drastically higher taxes down the line.) So where will the money come from? More printing? More borrowing? Dumb and dumber.
Imho, Keynesianism can only work by spending and distributing actual wealth, not inflated paper or borrowed money. Most of the actual wealth in America is the accumulated capital of the rich.

We all heard countless times that the rich got vastly richer while most Americans have been in the stagnant income bracket for the last 25 yrs. Keynesian economists warn us of wealth that concentrates rather than circulates. Using anatomical analogy, a condition where blood doesn’t properly flow through the entire body is not good. (To be sure, it’s a flawed analogy since every person has brains, ability, and potential to be productive and accumulate his own wealth instead of waiting for wealth to fall on his lap. Still, most people are not natural businessmen nor have the talent to succeed in highly skilled fields. Most people have jobs where they are told what to do, and as such, are kind of like parts of the body. If our economy cannot gainfully use such people, there will problems of wealth circulation.)

Since many rich people have more than enough money to run their businesses and take care of their needs(basic and luxurious), much of their wealth remain in savings. Though wealth in banks and other institutions are lent and thereby circulated throughout the economy, the recent crisis has raised doubts about its viability.
Furthermore, in a severe downturn rich people aren’t likely to invest or expand because of poor economic prospects. So, the vast fortunes of the rich remain in banks, as real estate holdings, and other stuff by whatever name they go by.

With the vast fortunes of the rich locked up in savings and portfolios, where is the economic activity and dynamism necessary for us to climb out of this hole? If Keynesianism really the only solution? If yes, which kind of Keynesianism?
The Only Keynesianism that makes any sense is one confiscating the wealth of the rich and spreading it far and wide. Raising top tax rates from 35% to 40% won’t do it. Vast amounts of accumulated wealth will have to expropriated and spread throughout the economy.
The people will spend the money, and the economy will buzz with activity; eventually, much of the wealth will flow back to the rich who own the big corporations.
If a store owner is rich but customers have little money, economic activity will be low. But, if we take half the rich store owner’s wealth and spread it around, people will have money to spend. There will be renewed economic activity with customers buying things from the store owner.
Of course, this is a very stupid(and unethical) way to run an economy and will probably lead to inflation since people are gaining purchasing power without comparable output in production.

It’s also true that rich people don’t horde their wealth in some secret hole in the ground. Whichever financial institution or investment is employed, the wealth circulates through the economy somewhere and somehow. Even so, in the past 20 to 25 yrs the wealth hasn’t sufficiently circulated through large segments of the American society. Also, with all the financial hijinks, vast amounts of wealth have been squandered by ‘the smartest guys in the room’ who now demand tax payer money for bailouts.
And, though vast amounts of loans have been made available to ordinary–and even poor–Americans, mounting debts have only served to corrupt and/or pauperize many people. Given recent developments, leading economists and politicians have reconsidered the merits of Keynesianism. And, it is in this light that I offer the confiscatory lottery policy. In an era of euphemisms–where anti-white discrimination is ‘affirmative action’ and welfare checks are ‘tax credits’–, it should be called the Voluntary Donation.
Two major problems of Voluntary Donation will have to be considered. One is constitutionality. Government, as far as I know, doesn’t have the power to grab large amounts of accumulated personal property. (I could be wrong). Perhaps more important is the likely loss of motivation on the part of the rich and talented. The wealth will eventually return to the rich in the form of consumer spending, but it’ll be wealth stolen from them in the first place. Destroying meaningful incentives for the capitalist class is like killing the golden goose. If rich people had to routinely fork over huge portions of accumulated wealth, they will slack off and the economy will suffer.

Okay, but how about a system that essentially safeguards the wealth of the rich(and therefore their motivation to work) while, at the same time, grabbing a big chunk of their wealth for ‘wealth redistribution’?
This is where the lottery based Voluntary Donation comes in. Suppose we divide up rich people into several categories: super billionaires, billionaires, super millionaires, mega-millionaires, millionaires. Rich people would be divided up into these groups according to the amount of accumulated wealth not directly invested in their business or primary real estate. Suppose every year, 10% percentage of each group(chosen by lottery) has to hand over a substantial amount of their ‘excess’ wealth for redistribution. 10% of millionaires will have to hand over 20% of their wealth. 25% for Mega-millionaires. For super-millionaires, 30% of their wealth. For billionaires, 35%. For super-billionaires, 40%.
The unlucky rich will be chosen randomly(like for Jury duty). The chosen will get a 10 yr reprieve so that no one can be chosen more than once every 10 yrs. Most of this appropriated wealth will be given to ordinary working people(in credit card form to ensure circulation through the economy).

To compensate for loss of wealth, a special hall can be built in the Washington Mall to commemorate the ‘generous’ rich people who ‘voluntarily’ gave up substantial portions of their wealth for the common good. Bigger donors will of course receive greater honors. Millionaire donors will be honored with plaques with their names and photos; super billionaire donors, with giants portraits painted by leading artists. They lose wealth but gain a slice of immortality. Rich people can take pride in knowing that their mugs will rest forever in the Smithsonian along with those of great presidents, scientists, astronauts, movie stars. Vanity goes a long way in boosting morale. Big donors also get trophies and special mentions at the State of the Union address.

The Voluntary Donation policy both preserves a reasonably high motivation level among the business class and circulates the wealth through the economy. Especially with the rise of globalism, the knowledgeable and well-connected elite have grown much richer than rest of America. Globalism has provided us with cheaper goods and services, but it has led to the concentration of wealth in the top while causing stagnation among middle and lower classes.
I don’t endorse wealth redistribution and would prefer to see more of a traditional patriotic capitalism. But, if globalism continues to concentrate ever more wealth at the top while hollowing out or keeping the middle section of America economically stagnant, growing numbers of people will demand a way, even a radical way, to circulate some of the ‘excessive’ wealth of the rich to rest of America.
Printing or borrowing money to ‘spread the wealth around’ simply sounds stupid and irresponsible. Confiscating and redistributing the real wealth of the rich is economically sounder, but it would demoralize and dis-incentive-ize the wealth-creating class.
But, the Voluntary Donation policy balances the needs of preserving capitalist incentives and circulating the wealth throughout the entire economy. In decades past, vast numbers of American workers were paid well, and they purchased the products of American employers. The wealth circulated up and down, back and forth. This no longer seems to be the case in the global economy. If wealth cannot circulate ‘organically’ through a free market capitalist process, more Americans may demand a Keynesian or even a socialist way to get the job done.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Is Socialism ‘natural’? Is It in Harmony with Human Nature?


It’s often been argued that capitalism accepts human nature for what it is whereas socialism tries to change it. Capitalism is realistic whereas socialism is idealistic. Capitalism believes that human nature is essentially unalterable, socialism believes ‘human nature’ is but the product of social conditioning(or, it’s innately noble before being perverted by an unjust society).
Capitalists say that people are, by nature, self-interested, even greedy. This basic fact can be suppressed but not rooted out or changed. If suppressed, it undermines the very part of man that makes him industrious, ambitious, innovative, and creative. Most people work hard or take risks because for reward. If people are not allowed to work for gain and glory, they won’t be motivated. So, for wealth to be produced, capitalism is the best way. It doesn’t suppress human nature of self-interest or even greed. Rather, it channels and controls our nature through a system of laws and ethics.

Socialists long disagreed with capitalists. They believed man can be conditioned or ‘socially engineered’ to work for the ‘common good’; we could all be trained to work for social or moral incentives than for material incentives. This was the idea behind productive socialism, and it has either failed or seriously underperformed relative to capitalism everywhere. Some socialists admit that ‘moral incentives’ aren’t productive but still defend their moral value. But, most socialists have rejected socialism as a productive economic model. Most of today’s socialists are distributive than productive. They understand that capitalism produces wealth much faster and in greater amount than socialism does. Therefore, the purpose of socialism is not to replace capitalism but to feed off capitalism to support policies for the ‘common good’.

The question I want to raise if distributive socialism goes against human nature. Productive socialism certainly does. But, couldn’t one argue that distributive socialism gels well with human nature? Humans are, by nature, self-interested and greedy, true. But, humans are also, by nature, envious. It could be argued that envy is a form of self-interest and greed. When a child sees that another child has more cookies, he wants some of those cookies. When someone sees that his friend has a much bigger house, much more money, and enjoys more luxury, he wants the things his friend has. Envy is natural. And, envy is the heart of distributive socialism. (To be sure, envy also serves capitalism. People work hard because they want to keep up with the Joneses. People bust their butts so they can dress fancy and drive expensive cars like rich folks do. For talented people, envy drives them to harder work, greater ambition. But, some people are either too lazy or too dumb to succeed. Their envy has little or limited productive value. A poor smart envious Jew can use his brains and make millions in several years, but a poor dumb goy will make peanuts no matter how hard he tries. He just doesn’t have the natural talent to succeed like smart folks. Similarly, a Mexican-American can train all he wants, but he’s not going to the NBA; he wont’ enjoy money and chicks professional athletes do. This is where envy is served by distributive socialism. For masses of dummies, it’s the easiest way to get a ‘piece of the pie’.)

Good or bad, distributive socialism may well be very much in harmony with human nature. Productive socialism isn’t mainly based on envy; at best, it’s based on pre-emptive envy--creating a society where no one will have more than others and thus no reason to envy others. Productive socialism is based on the idea of collective effort. It’s the idea that wealth should be created together by everyone, and since everyone created it together, everyone should get an equal share.
But, everyone knows that capitalism produces far more wealth than productive socialism does. This is because capitalism channels and harvests the energies of human nature rather than suppressing them. But, it must be said that distributive socialism also channels human nature. Distributive socialism is not productive, but it may play a role in bringing forth a degree of social co-existence between the have-mores and have-lesses based on the ways of human nature.

Suppose there’s a kid is hired by his uncle to paint the fence. The kid is paid and buys 20 chocolate bars. His brother wants some and throws a tantrum. All chocolate bars rightfully belong to the kid who painted the fence and bought them with his money. He worked out of self-interest, very much in line with human nature. And, he bought yummies to satisfy himself in keeping with human nature.
But, it’s also natural for the brother to feel envious and throw fits of jealousy because his brother has all the candy. Suppose the jealous brother was never hired by the uncle, can’t find means to earn money to buy candy, or is too lazy to work at odd jobs. Suppose the parent finally steps in and tells the brother with the 20 chocolate bars to give 3 to his brother. Fair or unfair, that may restore peace in the house. The brother who worked and earned his money still gets to keep the lion’s share of the candy. The envious brother is partly satisfied because he got something than nothing. And, the parent can finally get some peace in the house without the two kids bickering and fighting constantly.

Or, consider the natural world. Animals are, by nature, self-interested and ‘greedy’. Animals hunt for keeps, but there’s no rule that says an animal is limited to his own kills. If a bear comes upon a kill felled by wolves, the bear will try to take it. Hyenas and lions raid the others’ kills. Packs of hyenas try to take the kills of other packs of hyenas. Prides of lions do the same with other prides. All predators do this. They take whatever they can. Animals hunt for their own kills but also take others’ kills. Whether we call it hunger, envy, or greed, animals want something through effort or no effort at all. In some cases, animals fight eachother to the death over kills. Or, an animal or a pack will retreat when confronted with stronger animal or larger pack. But, this isn’t always the case. There are times when a kind of crude ‘distributive socialism’ prevails among the beasts.

For example, suppose a pack of wolves fell a large bison and start feastingt. We could say they ‘produced’ a kill. Suppose a bear comes along and wants the kill. It could be said the bear is ‘envious’ of the kill. Though the bear didn’t ‘produce’ the kill, he wants it just the same naturally. Now, three things can happen. The bear can drive out the wolves, or the wolves can drive out the bear. But, in rare cases, the bear and wolves, though unhappy and growling at one another, may decide to ‘share’ the kill. If the bear and the wolves are evenly matched, they may sense it’s best to feast on the kill together even while maintaining a certain distance and constantly growling at one another. Why risk life and limb fighting over the kill? Of course, bears and wolves don’t consciously understand this process in the contractual sense. But, in an instinctive sense, both parties may feel that’s it’s better to share, with each side getting something, than have both parties maul one another viciously with everyone getting hurt or even killed. Animals don’t understand game theory, but there is a certain natural dynamic that takes place in such situations.

Animals want to have it all. An animal will lay claim to an entire area and mark it as his own. But, there are times when it will have to tolerate ‘socialistic’ intrusions of others on its territory or bounty if it’s to have a peace of mind and find some enjoyment in life. Suppose there’s a stream full of salmon and a bear slunkers along and claims it as his own territory. It ‘claims’ and marks the stream; it wants to have all the salmon in the stream for itself. But, suppose other bears arrive one by one and intrude on this marked territory. Suppose the newly arrived bears are ‘envious’ of all the goodies in the stream and want some for themselves. The bear that first arrived and claimed the territory can fight all the newcomers. If it’s powerful enough, it may drive them all way. But, it may well be wiser to ‘share’ the stream. The first-arrived bear may still keep the best part of the stream for itself, but it may have to let the other bears fish in the other parts of the stream. If the original bear chases after every new bear, it will grow weary, go hungry, and may even get killed in the fight. So, in order to keep something than end up with nothing, the greed of the bear will have to accommodate the envy of the other bears. This is any kind of conceptual socialism but defacto natural socialism.
Something similar can be seen among polar bears. Generally, polar bears are solitary animals who hunt and eat their own food. But, if a bunch of polar bears come upon a giant beached whale, they may go into ‘socialist’ mode. Suppose a polar bear comes upon a dead whale, claims it, and wants it all for itself. Suppose other bears arrive and want some of it since it’s a BIG feast. Often, all the bears will feast together even if they remain wary and suspicious of one another. It’s almost as if an instinctive game theory kicks into place. If the bears all fight for the entire whale, many will get hurt or even killed, and no bear may enjoy the meal. But, if the first-arrived bear shelves its ‘greed’ nature and accommodates the ‘envious’ nature of all the bears, all the bears will enjoy something.

So, one could understand distributive socialism of the human world in the same way. Of course, it’s not ‘fair’ under the rule that says those who earn their wealth should keep it all. But, the fact is there are far more mediocre folks than talented people. Far more people are unlucky than lucky. All people naturally want personal gain and glory, but relatively few people achieve much of such. Successful people naturally want to keep their gain. But, unsuccessful people naturally feel envious. Since ‘greed’ has negative connotations, capitalists say great achievers seek ‘success’, ‘excellence’ and ‘greatness’. Since ‘envy’ has negative connotations, socialists say the people seek ‘social justice’, ‘fairness’, and ‘equality’. But, at the root of both -isms is the essence of human nature: greed and envy. And, if we examine both carefully, they are two sides of the same coin. Envy is, in other words, greed of the mediocre, the unlucky, or the lazy. Capitalist greed is about using your talent and ‘exploiting’ partners, situations, and employees to maximize your profit, glory, and/or fame. Socialist greed is about using the ‘protection racket’ of the government to take some of that good stuff from rich successful folks.
Some liberal-minded capitalists may pat themselves on the back and take pride in their compassion and willingness to ‘share’ with the less fortunate, but something more elemental is taking place. Like the wolves who figure it’s better to let the envious bear have some bison and leave them in peace to eat the rest of the bison, successful capitalists figure it’s better to ‘buy off’ the people’s envious resentments by offering them some freebies.

And, this is the thinking of the capitalist class who helped Obama get elected and now dominate his administration. Though Obama is a stealth socialist radical, most of the people in his administration(the oohs, aka liberal Jews) are actually successful capitalist types who are trying to expand distributive socialism in order to save their own golden goose.
They are essentially supporters of the New Economy or global capitalism which allows the smart, cunning, knowledgeable, rootless, and cosmopolitan to trot around the world and make fortunes undreamt of by previous generations. This process has made the top 2% very very rich, a group that is disproportionately ooh-ish(liberal Jewish). The global capitalists love this cash cow so much that they don’t want to let it go. But, this process has led to the stagnation of Middle America which lost millions of jobs overseas. If this goes on, there may be an angry mass revolution. Middle America–mostly goyim–may rise up against the oohs. So, these oohs are using Obama to institute socialism not so much to empower the people but to defang their rage and anger. More and more Middle Americans have grown envious and jealous of the superduper oohs who live in fancy condos, rich suburbs, the gated communities, etc. The oohs think, ‘gee, maybe if we give them free healthcare and tax credit checks(welfare checks by other name), they’ll remain stupid, docile, and happy watching American Idol’.

Anyway, this proves that socialism too can be in harmony with human nature. For distributive socialism to work meaningfully however, it must be conditional. People mustn’t just get free stuff through the government but be willing to do community service or participate in public works and lead a reasonably healthy and responsible life. Lazy and irresponsible people who simply want to mooch off others 100% deserve to be shot. In other words, socialism can work if it’s fascist than welfare-ist.

Monday, March 2, 2009

Did Gomer Pyle become his true self in Full Metal Jacket?



Most of us would like to think "Gomer Pyle"–Lawrence–in Full Metal Jacket went from a naturally nice guy to a cold-hearted killer. In other words, the Marines turned him from a warm healthy individual to a cold killing machine. But, could it be argued that what drove Gomer crazy was the realization of his true self?

Gomer was probably raised in a protective environment where he indulge being a big baby. He was provided with food, comfort, and simple joys. He was a child in a toy wonderland. But, in the Marines he’s forced to connect with his predatory nature. (Remember that Peanuts cartoon where Snoopy has a nightmare about being in the North Pole with Huskie dogs? Gradually, he turns mean and fights to be head of the pack.)
Of course, human nature is multi-faceted. There are both the warm and tender side AND the brutal and aggressive side. It would be wrong to say human nature is ONLY this as opposed to that. But, Gomer was probably brought up in a family where the aggressive and survivalist side was never nurtured or developed. He grew big and tall but emotionally remained a cuddly baby. It didn’t help that he’s rather dim.

In a way, Gomer changes due to external pressure, especially that of the badass sergeant. But, this process involves something WITHIN Gomer being awakened. It is the brute nature that had remained dormant but had always been there. It is the side of man that is aggressive, ruthless, competitive, and bloodcurdling. It is a genuine part of human nature.
With most guys in the camp, we see a balance between control and aggression. The problem of Gomer is he starts with little control and little aggression. He has little control over his baby-ish appetites. He’s a fatbody, looks like an overgrown child, and can’t control his hunger or even his facial expressions. He also has little aggression because he’s probably been pampered and doted all his life. Eventually, he is brutalized and gains self-control. And, the aggressive and ruthless side of him is cracked open, and Gomer finally turns into a bona-fide killing machine. But, the process was so traumatic that he ultimately cannot absorb the shocks. He goes crazy. He cannot maintain the balance between aggression and control.

Others do much better, but not much better if we think about it. The Gomer-infantile-killer-syndrome theme is picked up later. Recall how the soldiers sing Mickey Mouse at the end of the movie. And, Joker’s friend turns totally infantile freako after the Viet Cong assassin girl is killed. It’s as though the Marine Corp turn boys into men but also men into boys. The military makes boys put away toy guns... and places in their hands... real guns... which are toys too, if you think about it. So, in a way, War is like Disney Land where people get hurt for real... or a movie where people die for real.

There is, indeed, something infantile about our love of war movies. Sure, we say it’s all about honoring servicemen, sacrifice, patriotism, and etc. But, isn’t a big part of the appeal just to see things get blown up real good? Don’t we enjoy war movies in the way that kids enjoy playing war games? Movies, no matter how ‘serious’, are all make-believe anyway. Make-believe or not, we sure love to play.

We generally distinguish play-acting from the real thing, but could it be said play-acting is the real thing as practice, and the real thing is play-acting for real?
Just look at cats. Cats are always playing, and we think it’s cute. But, cat play is always based on fighting and hunting. It’s like what David Mamet, another Jew like Kubrick, understands so well. Take a film like "House of Games" where the games are for real. The Play is the Thing.