|
The Politics of a
Reactionary America
19.09.01 Bush didn't first declare war the
U$ papers did,
"the nation must
prepare itself to fight its first war of the new
century," written Tuesday, the very day of
the attack by the Washington Post. Similarly the same day the
New York Times main headline read
"The War Against
America". The ever violent and vociferous
American media is now set to gain exactly what it asked for, but
not without cost,
"US TV networks are
losing up to £75 million a day in advertising
revenue as they broadcast 24- hour coverage of
the disaster." America, under the
brilliant benevolence of George W. Bush, is set to fight the
first war of an already blemished 21st century. So much for moon
colonies and world peace, eh?
Capitol Hill
collectively puts a finger to the wind and
declares in unison "window of opportunity!"
Let's make new laws to placate our rabid
electorate and commercial constituency. Bush's
advisors realizing the same, whisper in his ear
"war" and Bush shouts "this is war!"
Military industrial groups already colluding with
the same administration set to work with new
contracts and renewed financial resolve.
Meanwhile the domestic oil industry looks forward
to supply disruptions and the unparalleled profit
potential of sky-high prices. And in this case
Iraq is useless to them being already out of the
supply loop for the most part, hence the need for
a new region to destabilize, like
the oil wealth of central Asia. And yet the
American military as of yet has no soldier or
officer that speaks the principle language of the
Taliban, Pushtu! I guess Bush and his Generals
will just let the 2,000 pound laser-guided bombs do
all the talking.
Arguably the
most risible reactionary effort is the
new policy to shoot down all commercial
flights that don't respond to FAA tower
requests. Not only does this look to me
like a violation of the Posse Comitatus
act, stipulating that the military cannot
be used against its own citizens, but the
physics make no sense either. I mean who
came up with this one, really? If the
plane is in the air and it's being used
as a bomb then whether it hits its
intended target or gets shot down and
rains fiery death on some other part of
the city seems almost irrelevant, it's
going to kill somebody and the shoot-down
policy only makes the government implicit
accomplices to the terrorism in a twisted
sort of way. Admittedly something should
be done about hijacked airliners but this
is not it!
 Instead of sharpening the skills
and number of intelligence workers the legislature is allowing more dirty tricks and meddling in sovereign
nations that started the whole cycle of violence in the
first place. Instead of a defensive knowledge net they seem to
want an offensive search and destroy machine. The changes in CIA
policy are widely criticized by lawyers and concerned citizens
alike,
"However, many
lawyers say state-backed killings would breach
international law and send a signal that the US
is abandoning its stance as a beacon for
democracy and legal process." This should make us all safer I'm
sure, and illegal too so that whole world court of justice thing
will look even less like a hypocritical farce I'm doubly sure.
Remember the Constitution, huh the what? C-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n,
oh that old moldy parchment thing right...
Meanwhile fortress
America still has a few holes in its borders; like a sieve! The borders are
less safe than ever before because the guards
are now required to do rigorous searches of every
vehicle with the same work hours but without any
new hired help, making a mockery out of the
procedure as the tired, overworked crews end up
only miming the motions! But Americans feel safer so it
must be fine.
Yeah well Americans
will be feeling a lot poorer too after all this
starts to kick into high. Why have so few
questioned the costs associated with these plans?
Economically it will turn out to be more costly
to guard and protect every oil refinery, airport,
power station and potential terrorist target than
just establish a neighborhood watch program and
clean up the mess after an attack! Seriously, the
costs to the economy, meaning every consumer, are
staggering. Who is paying for the security, the
military missions, the loss of business to the
airlines causing them to go bankrupt, destroy
competition and jack up airfares? What of the
cascading effect that higher fuel prices have on
the entire economy? What about the costs incurred
by the friction added to all trade from searches
and lengthy waits at borders? This
is setting up to be a very expensive New World Order. The
American economy will not only go into deep recession due to
these measures but will likely never recover. Bombs away
America!
How Not to Lead in
Crisis
13.09.01 Instead of standing
on the White House lawn arms akimbo delivering
defiant speeches to the wary nation Bush ducked
from one Air Force base to another like a game of
three card monte; Bush pulled a Putin. Because
politics is symbolism what the leader does and
portrays is usually more important than the
logical reasons for or against such action.
That's why Clinton could do dangerous, impulsive
things and the public just couldn't get enough of
him; I'm sure the Secret Service wondered if he
was worth the trouble more than once. Putin was
vacationing when the Kursk sank, he remained vacationing after
it hit the news and became universally reviled by the Russians. Putin
quickly learned from his mistake and eventually recovered. Bush made an even bigger
mistake and it remains to be seen how much it
will cost him politically.
The Bush
administration pontificated to the American
people, urging them to dutifully defy terrorism by
going on with their daily lives. I'm sure many
Americans could have done that, even without
awareness of the attacks entirely except for the
news. Only problem is Bush shut down the
airports, grounded all the air travel for days,
moved ships out of ports, closed major border
choke-points and basically made normal life impossible!
Indeed The Bush administration made life more difficult and
disjointed than the terrorists could have ever hoped to do.
American's must be left wondering, with friends like the Bush
administration who needs enemies?
Boycott The U$A
Today!
18.06.01 For a few months with
the 2000 election fiasco and related confusion it was easy to ignore
the fact that America had been Bush-whacked yet again. I was
having fun enjoying the fantasy that we didn't even have a
President, or at least that without even a shred of mandate he
would never be anything but an ineffectual symbol. Alas the rude
intrusion of reality has taken over. President George W. Bush is
as obnoxious as the grating screech of nails against a
chalkboard. When he's not serving up Texas-style justice by
executing people he's busy crushing toes like the big
loud-mouthed stupid guy at parties, then ignoring environmental
responsibilities or tearing up treaties to build vastly over
budget pipe dream war-machines. Always staggering onward, Bush
is never one to let the failures of the past get in the way of
the failures of the future.
The 1972 ABM treaty
has been a cornerstone of détente for decades
but now with the National Missile Defense money-hole
were expected to drop years of negotiations and
diplomacy for a $70 billion dollar sunk-investment without a single practical product to
field, or even a plan to create one! Bush claims
the North Korean government can't be trusted as
an interlocutor but then turns around and sets up
a new round of talks with the same interlocutor
North Koreans. After touring Europe shaking hands
with a few grinning politicos and laughing off
widespread, violent multinational protests he
proclaims it a "mission accomplished,"
and heads home! I thought Clinton had an abysmal
foreign policy but Bush is coming very close to
beating him at it in less than a year.
At least with Bill
Clinton we expected mendacity and shortsighted
policy blunder but this is ridiculous. What does
it take to get rid of these idiots once and for
all? I mean I vote against them, I've written to
Congress, but what good does it do? Now
Americans must endure a collective punishment
meted out by a justifiably outraged world.
Americans can't even go to a foreign country
without risk of kidnap or assassination.
This just doesn't make sense, the
U$ is the number one economic power, California alone is larger
than France in GDP, yet the country is plagued by an endless
series of fools in the front office who go around stomping on
toes and bragging about it. Well I have a novel suggestion
world, if you're listening: boycott American brands, products
and corporations. Got it? I don't think America has a monopoly
on anything but perhaps supercilious self-righteousness, so stop
buying those American imports and buy local.
And OPEC, please, boycott oil to the U$A -- strangle your mortal
enemy Israel by proxy!  And if you need the
money just sell more to China or convince Japan
to dump their nuclear power plants and go oil! If
Americans are unable or unwilling to clean their
own house maybe a little prodding from the
concerned planet will help. Thank you for your
support... Oh and if the 'duwb' comes to your town you all know
what to do.
Crisis &
Response
19.02.01 The whole nature of
contemporary crisis resolution centers on the
transference of point problems (acute crisis) into
chronic and long term annoyances. Omnipresent low
level pollution and radiation hazards replace
exploding pesticide plants and reactors on
meltdown. Cause and effect all but vaporizes yet
even though the immediate consequences are
minimized the spatial range of hazard expands.
Likewise diffusing
dangers temporarily doesn't mitigate their
consequences so much as it merely makes them more
palatable to the public conscience. And although
these pseudo-solutions may allay panic it ironically increases
dangers to the public by negating the one factor that actually
stimulates policy change - the vivid, poignant, headline
screaming catastrophe!
Sports &
Politics
08.11.00 54 to 43, 97% of the
voters in New York placed a vote for Lazio or
Clinton, two horrendously putrid characters they
had seemingly no reservations putting into one of
the highest and most respected offices in the
land. Hillary has more baggage than will fit in
the overhead compartment, if you know what I mean,
and Lazio is so shameless it just appalling to me that either one would get such a high
percentage of the vote. Did you see the debates
between them? They basically centered on who
could stoop the lowest to kiss Jewish ass. Of all
the other people on the ballot from green to
socialist to write-in, the voters chose to side
with either a Republican or Democrat. Look at the
national election for President. At the moment
the popular vote is at 48% to 48%. Certainly it's
been an unusual presidential election featuring
the closest contest and the closest candidates
in decades. In contests like this vote fraud
becomes almost the deciding factor. With the
elections all tallied by computers and the ease
of which both ballots and computer systems can be
tampered it's not just an idea it's a reality,
the only question becomes to what extent? And
recent evidence in California and Florida points
to the fact that it may well be a sizable
industry.
But still when we're
dealing with 96% of the population choosing dumb
or dumber, vote fraud is fairly incidental in the
long run. Who out there really thinks that one of
these carbon blobs Is more qualified to be
President than the other? Are they seeing some
spark of intelligence in Bush's eye that I'm
missing? Are they detecting some faint glimmer of
righteousness in Gore's heart?
When picking a
puppet in elections I keep hearing this same idea
and it really pisses me off. People saying 'we'll
he/she doesn't have a chance to win so I'm not
voting for them.' This is such blatantly specious
reasoning that its futile to even argue with the
proponents. If the candidate can win, why do they
need your vote at all? Why not vote for a
character that has qualifications and a platform
that you can really agree with and support? Instead of some
Party clone with a face-lift and a million dollar
ad campaign? Shit, I want to vote some of these
bastards down just for their obnoxious
advertisements! "Oh but they can't win so
I'm just throwing my vote away!" Uh
yeah, okay...
Voters only pick from bin A or bin B
because they vicariously attach to the
candidate; winning is very important to voters and they don't want to pick a loser because they're
so insecure they
fear that to do so makes them a loser too! Likewise
the reason for parties is the vicarious ego boost
individuals get from participating in something
bigger than themselves, they achieve greatness by
attaching their fortunes to the greatness of this
structure be it Party, sports team or Church. It's difficult to
exaggerate the insecurity of the average mass-media consuming
individual. The less personal worth and identity
one has the greater the need for external
associations and attachment to groups. The sports
entertainment industry is huge because of this
effect, the idea that I can be as big as
Da Bears, Manchester United or what have you by
being a fan because I'm with them.
But now we're
getting closer to the real message. The
electorate really acts like a horse with blinders
on. The majority, again 96%, are unwilling to
entertain any option besides the one that is
delivered to them in a neat and officially
stamped package courtesy of the media. If the
candidate doesn't have that seal of approval, if
the candidate doesn't have the official Party
endorsement and feature in the debates on NBC or
CBS, then they just aren't a real candidate.
We're dealing with the masses, with emotion and
feeling here, not with reason. To run on a third
party platform, say as a Green or a Libertarian, is
a waste of time or money unless you have the
megabucks to literally buy-up national air time
and drive your message right into the center of
the TV-addled crowds' brains, just like Perot did.
The duopoly Party system is in bed with the media
and neither one wants the system to change. This
system of the political machine is an outcome, a
reaction not an input. It reflects what the
people are able to grasp and the information that
they have been able to collect and interpret from mass-media outlets.
To change things for
the better one should not waste the effort
attempting to win through elections, it's like
punching ghosts. Nor do you even need to change
the political-election structure. What really
matters is not which puppet gets to play dress up
and pretend to be king of the world for four
years but what policy issues the elected
representatives are forced to deal with. In other
words these faithful representatives that some of
us elect are not the problem nearly as much as
what issues, the limitations on the spectrum of
ideas, that they and us are collectively forced to
find solutions from. As long as that spectrum is
limited to the likes of school vouchers and
privatizing social security, ain't nuthin gonna
get better friend.
And how do we fix that? Four words:
persistence, propinquity, permeation and pervasiveness. The
monopoly death-grip that the establishment media exert over the
minds of the world has to be broken. Significant erosion has
already occurred. The media moguls are running scared,
desperately cycling through mergers and cutting convoluted deals
to exchange 'content' and expand markets. But they can't win
because they offer nothing but failure and death to all who
listen and watch. Me, you and everyone else who wants a better
future must tune them out and turn them off, get unplugged.
Next, tune in to something that is edifying and broadens
horizons, that expounds ideas and concepts outside the bounds of
the traditional hackneyed pseudo-solutions. The first step leads
to the second...
Always Remember: Things
are the way they are for a reason
24.09.00 Monoculture, the
youth culture, why are they 'good'? Because youth
buy more or because they're more easily influenced and
always want to be popular, a trait that is then exploited to
market a rainbow of consumer goods?
Think of the interface between
media, supported by advertising revenue, and the multi-national
corporations that provide that revenue. Both parties need each
other - corporations need a positive image and a broad consumer
base while media needs corporate sponsorship. To borrow
Hollywood lingo: two bad guys in bed together. Neither party
wishes to offend the other which is why we see in our media so
little real criticism of corporate policy and why global
free-market capitalism is
ceaselessly portrayed as being unfailingly
positive. Both parties gain from monoculture and
the destruction of community, environment, and all identity separate
from the consumerist cookie cutter mold.
But the relationship
is tenuous for if media is too critical of corporate
policy they will reciprocate by pulling their
advertising dollars and going to another network,
or using their share-holding power to fire and replace
unfriendly media big shots and executives. MNCs
are not stupid, they know the power of media and
they have done much to avoid being burned by
loose cannons, example GE which owns NBC and its
horde of affiliates, or AOL absorbing TimeWarner
with its incredible plethora of media interests.
But that just demonstrates that it's nearly
impossible to discern the difference between
media and corporate interests, they're literally
the same entities anymore.
Media powers are no
fools either, they know this and try their utmost
to appease business interests. But if certain
corporate cannons go too far they can use their
ethnic media monopoly to destroy that corporate
image in no time.
Between these two
ogres, government nearly seems a friendly giant!
And I doubt that it deserves all the
invective of right-wing interests. Government
power has waned steadily for decades, what
antitrust and charter controls government legally
possess they're too fearful to use. Electorates
need jobs and politicians need votes! Not
only that but they need campaign donations even
more, and who has the biggest wallets? Of course,
and campaign finance reform? A rich man will
sooner give up his wealth.
All Wrong
Our modern power
triumvirate has conveniently formed an alliance
in mutually propitious endeavors, the fiendish
result: them versus the rest of the planet. This
is an important concept to understand because any
attempts to change things must take in to account
all three elements of the triumvirate. Right-wing
rebels want to take down government, left-wing
rebels want to take down corporations, moderates
want to take down media or at least control it's
outpourings of unpleasantness i.e. violence and
sex. *Ding!*, times up, that's your final
answer? Oh so sorry, you all lose the final round
for tournament of revolutionaries.
And this is a
quandary of no small significance, it's one that
plagues even myself - how to align politically in
a world that deals with atomised issues when our
problems can only be understood and solved in
totality? Political ideologies are slowly evolving
towards the realization that collective crisis
can no longer be rectified using trite reductionist paradigms. It calls for a radical
realignment, a new vision. But how to convey this
complexity to an electorate as misinformed as
they are uninformed?
Rewind and
Repeat
They can understand personal
experiences but when confronted with the new and the unknown
they go retrograde, they're reactionary because that's often all
they know. Yet counterrevolution is both foolish and
impractical, the world isn't the same as yesterday, nor can it
or should it be. We need new answers not the old concepts
repackaged, because they only guarantee failure, a repeat of the
present. Our collective modes of survival need to become organic
not artificial. We must match our culture to the environment,
fit into our surroundings not the other way around. It makes more sense
to deal with the present problems with clear and
immediate action. Future issues can best be dealt with when they
arrive.
Know thine Enemy
 All
anger needs to be directed in order to have any positive
benefit. That anger and resentment should logically be directed
at those who have gained from the suffering of others. All those
in an establishment leadership position today, secondly any
proponent for the established order, and thirdly the lackeys and
passive participators of the Empire. Remember that even honest
men become dishonest when inside the machine of corporate and
political power. CEOs are slaves to the profit motive, the
President a slave to the moneyed interests. They're responsible
for stealing our future, our wealth our reasons to live; the
only reason they can't steal is the only one left - the one to
resolve to rub them out. Reject the corporate sponsored suicide,
the poison of artificial foodstuffs, plastic culture mental and
material exploitation. The answer is a new outlook. Time to meet
Kali.
Deleterious
Lifestyles
10.06.00 The idea that drug
users only harm themselves and should therefore
be left alone or even have their practices
legalized rests on some thin assumptions. Case in point is
the emergence of what appears to be a new
illness, possibly a mutation of an existing
disease, that affects intravenous heroin users.
The UK has been ground zero for this, however
so far cases have been limited to those drug
abusers and not the general population. This
illness has 30 documented kills in the UK with no
response to administered antibiotics at all.
Illegal immigration
is likewise an issue of self-preservation and
disease prevention, albeit so warped in the
public's mind it's now about 'human rights' not
public safety. Sickness and disease is rife
amongst illegal immigrants into the U$, EU any of
the western nations. Immigration can be
economically and even culturally advantageous but
only if it is carefully regulated, incoming
peoples checked and quarantined if necessary. I
mean, hell - you can't bring any animals or plants
into most countries from overseas or at least
without a long quarantine, yet countless TB
patients walk across the borders of the U$ every
week.
It's a profound
breakdown in social organization when de-facto
actions are the only ones which accomplish the
desired goal. If one attempts to do things
legally and within the properly proscribed
boundaries and to wait for permission then nothing will
ever happen. It seems that the only time anything
gets done anymore is outside the channels of
official oversight. To immigrate legally into the
U$ today is a challenge even the pioneers of old would
have second thoughts at attempting. If you don't
have a wad of cash to put up as collateral or a
U$ citizen to marry, you might as well not even
try. Yet anyone willing to brave the desert or
swim the muddy Rio-Grande (in most spots all you
need is an inner-tube) can walk in get a job and
a menial lifestyle.
Thank an errant, Kafkaesque
bureaucracy hopelessly broken down. Logic is lawlessness, common
sense illegal. Official sanction the word of gospel and
leadership mouthpieces for rent to highest bidder. Meet the new
paradigm: better to protect one than the many.
Building 21st
Century Politics from the remnants of old –
some things never change
28.04.00 & 31.08.09 It must be
unambiguously understood that Nazism, the "NAZI"
party, or more correctly the NSDAP, was purely a
counter-revolutionary and reactionary movement
against Communism. Germany after WWI was the
frontline for Communist political agit-prop work.
It would undoubtedly have turned into a Communist
state on a greater scale than even the USSR if
not for the competition of the NSDAP. Indeed just
read Mein Kampf, over half the book is
about the parties efforts to counter Communist
political inroads, from bashing heads in beer
halls to rip-off red banners inciting Communists.
To apply any mystical motives or powers to the
Nazis is simply ridiculous. Go back and read
Rauschnings 1939 book The Revolution of
Nihilism. Hitler and his associates were not
politicians they weren’t even aristocrats
with a foggy idea of how the established order
functioned. The only thing especially unique
about the NSDAP was that they were comprised of
average people that gained political power,
democratically.
The problem with
categorizing the NSDAP within the framework of
historical politics is that they never progressed
beyond the limitations of being a reactionary
movement. True some members went off on tangents
and set up pet projects but consistency was
lacking. Nazism is about being anti-Communist.
If communism didn’t exit Nazism wouldn’t
either. Nazism opposed the tenets of
Communism but more importantly they opposed the proponents
of Communism. Those key leaders were nearly all
Jews, Rosa Luxembourg is a perfect example but
she certainly wasn’t acting alone. Because
of this Nazism became an "anti-Semitic"
movement. This obscured the fundamental
simplicity, nay the banality of Nazism. The
German Jews weren’t any more aggressive than
anywhere else, the Germans aren’t any more
"anti-Semitic" than other people, they
aren’t more political or activist either. It’s
the fact that Germans knew who was behind the
Communist movement desperately attempting to
overthrow their nation and turn it into a bad
copy of the Soviet Union! They did no more than
what any American of the same period would have
done.
Politics is more about popular myths than
substance, which is why lying works so well. They
say ‘military intelligence’ is an
oxymoron but no more than ‘political science’.
This is also why it doesn’t really matter
who you elect they pretty much all end up
operating with the same amount of competency. I
mean, Minnesota's Jesse Ventura may be a bigmouth or even a
nut but he can’t do any worse than
President Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter. The
really hazardous politicians are the ones that are
smart enough to cause a lot of trouble but not
bright enough to grasp any consequences like Bill
Clinton or Janet Reno.
So where does
politics go from here? Opportunism seems to be
the keyword, but single issues and divisive ‘us
vs. them’ are probably even more important
to party success. If politics is just whatever it takes
to win then maybe we should start to question
what we're fighting for, and what we think we're winning from
the process.
When National
Security Met Free Trade
02.01.00 American investors
aren’t the only ones reaping the rewards of
stellar stock market gains in the U$. Foreign
investors, especially big players with big
bucks, have been making killings too. U$ bonds
have long been a favorite, but the returns on
those can’t even come close to the equity
markets. China, rocketing to the top of the
unpopularity charts, is the first name to pop up
on this list. But truthfully anyone can invest on
Wall Street even if you're a rogue nation like
North Korea or Libya because it's simple to set up front
companies and special off-shore bank accounts to
funnel the profits – just ask the Russians.
But don’t get the wrong idea it’s not
Joe and Jane Wong making any money here it’s
the institutions, the government investments that
have the volume power to get involved and make
significant gains.
Undeniably as well
as ironically the U$ equity bubble is directly
sponsoring avowed enemies of the United States.
The U$ economic system is founded on open and
fair trade but very few other governments out
there play by those generous rules. Taking
advantage of American naiveté and fairness is all
too easy for concerted foes. So then really, what
good is free trade if it only ends up (literally)
as ammunition for your enemies?
With
domestic enterprises stumbling over themselves to
dissolve every border and eliminate every tariff
they're unwittingly opening themselves up to
reprisals. In other words the monomaniacal desire
for open and fair trade so characteristic of
American business-politics is not shared by the
rest of the world. I would recommend proceeding
with extreme caution and only when one could be
sure the other party actually reciprocates with
more than mere words. But when
does money ever wait up for reason?!
And you know I hear
capitalist's sell cheap rope...
America Would be
Better off as a Confederacy
14.12.99 The critical
founders of the United States of America seemed
to have a monomaniacal obsession with the
Republic, the naive and simplistic beauty of a
centrally organized political system and a
convenient delegation of powers. I can understand
the original fear that the country would fall
apart, but I don’t agree that would have
been the chaotic, disastrous outcome proclaimed
by the catastrophists. By the point of the Civil
War the country was solid enough that foreign
interference was not a serious issue. The enemies
were essentially domestic in nature. Indeed the
actual choice of unity seems far worse than any
separation could have possible caused.
The problem of the
republic system was amply demonstrated by
Lincoln, his Republican Party and the special
interest groups, namely the abolitionists. The
lust for power was so great that an idiotic blood-fest
of a war became preferable to ceding authority in
a confederacy. I believe in principle that any
group that wants independence from a controlling
body, as in the case of the South, should be
allowed to have it. A healthy and productive
relationship just cannot be kept by force.
Especially when the second party is getting
screwed economically and politically as in the
case of the South. Basically their low-density
population mitigated their clout in the House and
tipped power in the favor of the North.
Now I may be a
little biased because of where I live (and I don't
mean I live in the south), but I have some
respect for State government. At least State
governments are fiscally responsible (usually
prevented from deficit spending by amendments),
responsive to their constituencies, and the link
between government and voter infrastructure
spending is tight. Not only that but the beauty
of the State government is that if one makes
mistakes, they pay for it, people will move to a
state that has its act together.
The federal system
is the opposite - inefficient, unresponsive to 50
states and the nearly 300 million voices, and
totally out of control fiscally speaking. And
no one can move away without
leaving the system entirely when the feds make
mistakes! Washington D.C. is another planet and
anyone who has spent time working for a federal
agency can attest to the dysfunctional nature of the Federal
bureaucratic system. But
you do get decent pay and good benefits, so why
make waves, right?
Power can be a
dangerous thing, especially when powerful people
are allowed to aggregate their authorities at the
expense of others. What I mean is that the
Federal government, especially the Executive
branch, has been stomping on States rights for
decades, the 10th amendment has been
taking a beating for some time. But this shouldn’t
be surprising given the present importance
attributed to the national government. This
significance is based purely on cash payments
whether for disaster relief or representative
pork. Beyond that, modern America is increasingly
assuming the nature of a Ceasarship, a
dictatorship through popularity, and a popular
demagogue, the President. Once again what people
want is not necessarily what's best for them all.
Unfortunately few States really
consider leaving the union today (and true only Texas can do so
legally) although most are currently on very solid financial
footing. Americans that want change have to work on a level that
is both practical and will achieve results. Today it seems that
this is only realistic at the State level. But the good thing
about that is that a well-run State government needs less from
the Feds, and although they will be taxed more heavily the
incentive to quit the Federal scam will be that much greater.
Also the fact that many states are working on their own direct
trade agreements with foreign countries is encouraging.
Eventually people will realize that in order to be responsive to
the voters the power has to be close to the voters.
A Radically Simple
Solution To Our Legal-Political Crisis
29.11.99 I propose a holiday
from laws, a real no-rules, anything goes day for
everyone of all ages and free from any
prosecution before, during or after the Holiday.
Neither shall any profit or property be taxed on
this day, nor crime be punished. We shall call it
Law-Free Day. Perhaps this would ameliorate our
collective unease, the pent up angst that
pervades our culture and manifests as love of
violence, crude behavior, obscenity, perversion
and vulgarity? Laws can be your best friend or worst enemy.
Geography plays a critical role in
the formation of laws, and it is to geography that we must look
to find answers. Ever wonder why the suburbs have witnessed such
explosive growth over the past 20 years? If you’ve spent any
time in a large city you won't. Cities are both outdated
economically and regressive socially, creating more problems
than they solve. Cities were never more than a construct of
necessity and perhaps deluded idealism, never of driven desire
for efficiency through density. Few really prefer to live in an
600sq-ft apartment next to a rail line and a below the airport
flight path, with countless neighbors above, below and next
door. Fortunately technological improvements have divorced labor
from industrial locations. Now people can work at home and live
in the suburbs even own a house, car and property.
But the phenomenon
of cities is still worth study if for no other
reason than to learn what not to do. Functional,
prosperous cities require a unique human quality
– the ability to peacefully coexist in
densely cramped quarters. Indeed any factor be it
ethnic, religious, racial or class-based will magnify
conflict and destroy vital cohesion. Witness
‘white-flight’, like Californians
moving to Oregon or the general trend of fleeing
the cities for the suburbs. After that the
suburbs divide up into class-based regions, you
know the big houses on the hill and the trailer
parks on the edge of town. Human nature doesn’t
naturally congregate into tenement complexes and
fight for room on public transportation. It
occurs out of economic necessity and at the same
time contrary forces of human nature secretly
desire to blow it all apart. In order to function
cities must be oppressive and heavily legislated
zones, just think of Singapore or the parking regulations in New
York City.
But density living
comes with a price. That price is repressed
hostility, which become manifest in unpredictable
and unusual ways. Perversion, drugs, crime etc.
‘Psychos’ and serial killers appear out
of nowhere and wreak havoc in a heavily
regimented and poorly protected populace. People
wonder how such craziness can occur and what
would drive someone to do such things. It’s
nothing years of psychological torture can’t complicate. Studies have shown
that mice for example when forced to live in
dense quarters become homosexual, violent, and
exhibit anti-social behavior. The exact same
effects occur in human populations but cities
still ‘work’ because we have qualities
that mice don’t, namely fear of authority
and a sense of strategic well being. In other
words we can sacrifice immediate desires for long
range goals be it a career or merely a warm place
to sleep for the night. Psychological needs, just like
physical, are often sacrificed for long term
survival. By assuming the benefits of social life
we must also forego many of the benefits that
would otherwise be ours through solitary life
– freedom, time and pleasures.
We go along with civilizations
rules for survival, not because we really want to be oppressed.
By living in cities humans gain certain protections and
guarantees that would otherwise not be available but at the same
time give up many freedoms as well. These security and welfare
guarantees are codified by laws and enforced by government
authorities. Instead we must go through a complex maze of
legality and trials, often with little hope it will mean
justice.
Archaic law centered
on compensation for loss of property or life. In
other words if someone killed your calf you would
be entitle to equal repayment for the value of
that animal from the offending party. And if they
couldn’t pay you could either make them earn
the money through work or less pleasant
means... But really what is the normal human
reaction to a serious loss of life or property?
You want to revenge against the offending party. And if you
can’t carry out the deed then your family will. This is the
essence of archaic justice (revenge). In
our civilization murder is never allowed (rare
cases occur as in self defense); retribution is a
nebulous concept that leaves the offended without
reward and the offender without judgment. Guilt
and punishment have been transferred from
individual to society. Now it's
believed that the offenders are not depriving
individuals they are depriving society. Serving
time in a prison doesn’t make anyone happy
because the deprived party is gaining nothing; no personal justice is being done! Merely a reactionary
response is being implemented, devoid of purpose
and ineffectually preventative.
So should everyone
have the right to equal archaic justice? If you mess with
me or my family, we will kill you! That model is well applied in
some regions of the world. It does work in a way, but it
makes complex social structures difficult to
maintain. The relation between population size
and effectiveness of clan-justice is inescapable.
Small groups can effectively use the Old
Testament ideology, but in large populations
where no one knows anyone else it becomes tricky.
This takes us back to my original idea, Law-Free
day. What would happen in say the U$A if such a
concept were implemented? Would we not have an
orgy of clan-justice? A direct and swift
retribution of personal wrongdoing. I know I
can think of a few people worthy of such reward,
and I suppose any normal person could think of a
few themselves. So is civilization worth the
sacrifice? Why not nullify the laws and treat
your enemies the way they’ve treated you?
Well to start with
total freedom is not as good as it sounds. As
long as you can kill with impunity, so can
everyone else. Eventually a stasis will emerge,
one based on personal power and the revenge
potential of family and friends. Life is likely
to be shorter and more brutal than civilized life.
The luxuries of intellectualism and academia will
be difficult if not impossible to enjoy when food
and survival are self-serve. It seems that total
freedom is more than most can swallow. Perhaps
civilization is as necessary as it is evil?
Cities are extreme
examples of civilization and all its regulations
and oppression combined. But why throw it all out
when we can pick and choose what we want? We’ve
already seen the appeal of suburban life; why not
take it a step further? Why not create custom
suburban enclaves for everyone, and everything.
We’ve also seen how density and oppression
are directly related. Why not create low-density
neo-cities complete with indigenous (high-tech?)
industry, commerce and residential? Likewise we
know that similarity is
desirable for social harmony and collective
identity, why not include this element into the
Suburban Life Zone (SLZ) as well? Now what we
have is a form of de-industrialized, de-urbanized
city-states complete with their own rules and lifestyles. Something approximating a county in
size with probably one major commercial center
and several diffuse industrial nodes at nexus’
of transportation arteries. Residential and farm
zones are equidistantly scattered throughout.
Indeed it is also
well documented that the larger the structure a
government tries to control, the less effective
and efficient it becomes; compare the Soviet
centrally planned farm economy to a county co-op.
Likewise fewer laws and greater freedom make for
happier citizens. The only reason we need so many
laws now is the fact that our country is so large
and encompasses so many people of various ethnic,
religious and cultural backgrounds – all
with different ideas of right and wrong.
Reductionist logic dictates that the fewer people in the system,
and the more homogeneous they are, the fewer regulations will be
necessary. Offenders can much more easily be identified and
dealt with at a community level.
Through the private
ownership of property average people can lay
claim to the strategic destiny of their family
and community. Likewise it makes good sense to
avoid foreign ownership of local property because
foreigners may not share the same goals or ideals
as the indigenous inhabitants. The owner who
lives on his land will never intentionally
destroy it environmentally, or otherwise pollute
it for obvious reasons. Foreign owners are not
restricted by this dictum, polluting and
exploiting for maximum profit. Likewise
international trade regulations and traditional
laissez faire economics clearly violate this
order. Consequently labor and environmental
abuses are rampant. Multinationals don’t
care what the working conditions are in some
dumpy country on the other side of the planet,
but they’d be forced to care if the
factory was next door to the corporate
headquarters, in this case located in the same
SLZ.
The greatest
impediment to the creation of such a system is
the present imperialistic world order, which
desires the exact opposite, unified global
economy and polity. What I propose is the
antipode of what Multi-National corporations,
banking, industrial and plutocratic elites want.
These greedy and corrupt men crave the power and
money that come with controlling vast
populations; they will never willingly cede power
to the people in the form of local law making, or
in any other way. The Suburban-Life-Zone however,
will promote a ununified and cohesive population,
stable prosperity, decentralized self-rule and
private land ownership for anyone and everyone.
And up to a point this is perfectly practical.
Certainly in the U$A land is abundant enough for everyone to
have their own city and then some. Unfortunately growth
inevitably means conflict over land. But so be it! This is the
story of all human history. Conflict is inevitable. I would rather be forced to fight for my
freedom than be forced to accept subjugation in a
temporarily peaceful world order.
Technology, human nature and history
are all in my favor. All that remains is the will and
persistence to see the idea to fruition.
Money - The Disease
of Capitalism
08.03.99 Isn’t it funny that the
more money involved in any government project the more
significant the amount of corruption? Oddly enough the less
funded projects actually accomplish more than the budget
busters. Look at NASA today with its cheap space probes and
compare that Lyndon Johnson’s
social programs.
Russia is in the
grip of a major scandal involving the Central
Bank and dirty deals. And in true Russian style
everything that might implicate them has now been
labeled as a ‘State Secret’. Of course
any sensible person would realize that a nation
based on the law of kleptocracy isn’t the
best place to invest money but hey, were dealing
with the IMF and Clinton administration here.
So all those
billions of IMF dollars ended up in the Swiss
bank accounts of crooks. I have to say that the
‘New World Order’ is one heck of a
poorly run organization. And if all these under-the-table
deals are part of the plan then they must not
have much real authority after all. Or just the
authority that any common criminal has.
Money is the most infectious
disease around. Everyone that touches it gets sick. The more
money the more sick!
No situation is so terrible
that a committee of officials cannot make it worse.
|
