Sunday, October 4, 2015

Pump of Barbarism and Materialism

I sometimes wonder if a cultural pump may be at work.  The following rumination, if false, may not be too difficult to disprove.  I postulate that civilizations are pumped by cycles of testosterone-driven barbarism versus estrogen-heavy metrosexualism. 

As society becomes more secure and civilized, it tends to promote pinkie wagging, conniving, passive-aggressives.  For example, among this round of presidential candidates, apart from Trump, Cruz, Santorum, Jindal, and Perry, who is not a pinkie wagger?  The incapacity of Trump and Cruz to pass for pinkie-waggers seems to be the most prominent reason why pundits would be startled if they are not soon eliminated.  In the civilized West, only blow dried, pc, pinkie waggers tend to be promoted.  Among pundits, these people are called "the talent."  May this help account for increased rates of autism, falling IQs, and lower sperm counts? 

Notice that birth rates in third world nations that are Islamic, Hispanic, and African do not seem to be falling.  So, what causes the drop in fertility in the industrialized West?  Does barbarous poverty cause fertility?  Does metrosexual security and substitution of materialism for metaphysics cause infertility? 

Does the engine of humanity necessarily drive history to unfold in downstrokes of brutal poverty followed by upstrokes in conniving meekness, and so on?  Hmmm.

Maybe we will only find the people we need to reset our awkward lean to excessive pinkie-wagging when wolves are running wild in the streets of every city.  Maybe then we will once again find and promote the people we need.  Like Trump, Cruz, Reagan, Patton, Grant, Polk, Houston, Crockett, Jackson, Boone, Hamilton, Franklin, and Washington. (All being "Whiteys," to considerable extent of European stock.)

There may be a fly in my hypothesis.  That is, not everyone on my list of exemplars was a father of a large family.  However, Hamilton had 8 children, Boone had 10, Jackson had 10, Houston had 8, and Trump has 5.  Note also that many among the world's population carry genes from Genghis Khan.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Ponzi Math and Money

Well, work is a kind of tax.  It taxes (expends) energy in trade for desired goods.  So there is no way not to tax workers.  Inherently, taxes have to be paid to support the desires of workers, as well as the desires of retired and supervising workers.

As to the grease of printing money:  How long can a ponzi scheme (quantitative easing?) go on?  Maybe the economy is like a cosmic ponzi pyramid of fractals, perpetuated via a meta-printing press that consists of some non-quantifiable stuff that expresses itself out of nothing more than pure math.   OK, back to Earth.

So long as the population of workers and consumers constantly expands (or bill collectors are "offed"), such population can be greased along its way with ever more printed money.  If the population of workers were to diminish, the weight of the retired and longer-living portion of the pyramid could not be sustained by the working class.  Then, printing more money would come to inflate costs, without producing enough to sustain the pyramid. 

The only ways I can think of to get off the demand for an increasing population and expanding economy are to kill bill collectors and old people, or to invent machine workers that can produce more desired goods than they consume.  If intelligent machines can come to harvest solar energy, a civilization based on machines serving the pleasures of a declining population of human beings may eventually become sustainable.

There are unknown issues.  Will a leisure class of humans that is serviced by machines retain enough gumption to propate any pleasures?  Will a machine class that is intelligent enough to serve the evolving pleasures of the human class remain content to do so?  Can or will a "magic" of printed money grease our path to a sustainable and evolving balance between humans (and super humans) and the machines that pleasure them?  Will the cosmic field allow our return to a kind of Eden?  Can a pleasured Eden summon will to last beyond the asteroid that surely has Earth's name written in its destiny?  Hmmm.  Where did I put my hat?


In effect, the Fed has power above the republic and the law to proportionately redistribute wealth so that crony establishmentarians will never lose power. Crony bankers have self-help means to protect themselves from having to rely on tax reform. The republic, to survive, needs counter powers and institutions to militate against the continuing rise of the unholy alliance between corrupt crony deceivers and usefully idiotic commies, which is reducing workers to serfs and destroying representative republics worldwide.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Perpetual Stalemate Among Fascist Regimes

There's often a close connection between elitism or pretended elitism and fascism.  America is filled with poison ivy elitist schools.  In science, medicine, and technology, elitism makes sense.  In history, religion, art, fashion, politics, and political correctness, elitism tends to make far less sense. 

America began as a representative republic that was designed in main by broadly educated, wise, and good men.  Put some emphasis on good.  They had ideals concerning what was good that transcended personal pleasure and self interest.  The problem with modern elitists is that many of them seem to have no such transcendent values.  Many believe in social Darwinism or close cousins to it.  Many believe in group evolution.  As in, may the best hive-minded, goose-stepping, self-promoting fascists survive and replicate.  Oceania consists of crony corporatists.  Middleasia consists of insane jihadis.  And Eastasia consists of crony socialists.  Under this view, Earth is like Darwinia, to self-create and test conditions in which each fascist system can flourish. Under this view, Representative Republicanism is banned from Eden.

Modern elites, unlike most of our Founders, say they don't need religion or God to have moral values.  Yet many also say there is nothing moral about referring values to evolution.  Apparently, they believe in a reference that is higher than evolution, but what is it?  They are "too elite" to suggest it may be something like God.  So what is it?  Well, it seems to be the State, as designed by elite fascists.  Elite crony fascism promoted worldwide.  Dynasties among fascists, wearing masks of states.

Ordinary mortals need not apply, nor need they be given more than lying lip service by smirking, crony owned media.  According to the "moral code" of modern elitists, "God" is the State run as a crony owned commodity.  They mean to pull down the ideal of representative republics, worldwide.  Their simple "Drano" technique:  Print money, bribe voters, open borders.  Thus, reduce the masses to desperately competing laborers in markets where labor is cheap and being replaced by machines.  Their calculation is that you are too stupid and/or corrupt to notice that all ideals of America are being flushed by Drano before your eyes.

America cannot win a victory as a representative republic because America is no longer a representative republic, and has not been one for a considerable time.  Review Orwell's 1984, to understand perpetual stalemate among and between fascist regimes.

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Managed Decline

Why would not managed demographic decline be a good thing?  Our need for replacement workers to support aging generations can be met by robotics.  A decline in human consumption would seem a less painful way to restore a kind of planetary balance of which so many people dream.  As techniques improve for extending human life, why should we need so many billions of largely redundant homies, whining metrosexuals, and uninsightful personages?

Perhaps the fear is that nations with small populations become attractive to plunderers.  So, why empower nations that are prone to plundering and exporting their surplus populations?  Why trade with them or enrich them, only to increase their potential to become plunderers?

What are the alternatives?  (1) Quarantine them.  (2) Enrich them without requiring any change in their culture, governance, or metaphysical insanities. (3) Colonize and rule them, without expecting them to be able to assimilate to Western mores.  (4) Seek, find, promote, and spread Truth and understanding. (5) Invent and dictate "Truth" under a borderless NWO that is ruled under the syndicated power of contesting oligarchs and international corporatists. (5a) Orwell World.  (5b) Huxley World. (6) Accept that humanity is depraved and as much as possible enjoy the ride. (7) Inspire a new awakening to potentials that accompany pursuing cooperative meaningfulness under The Reconciler.

I tend to ascribe to a mix of 1, 3, 6, and 7.

Sunday, September 20, 2015


I think there's too much of a finger-in-the-eye tendency against every faith in higher purposefulness.  Yes, A is A.  But that also means that Consciousness is Consciousness.  It abides and connects. What is, has been, and will continue to be.  All of consciously measurable physics is derivative of one immeasurable field of meta empathy.  How we think about that field ("God") deeply affects how we relate to one another in any meaningful terminology of morality. 

A person who constructs an anti-belief system concerning the moral empathy that powers the Source Field will yet construct an alternative belief system for a replacement moral code. In this, so long as a person is consciously aware, he has no choice.  If he thinks he is not making a choice, the consciousness of that, itself, is an experience of moral choice.  Every conscious rationalization of meaningfulness or moral purposefulness, to the extent it follows any consistent or coherent theme, will be in respect of some adaptation of a moral code.  Every vectored being rationalizes and follows a code.

It's not so much that this general state of affairs is not conclusive.  It's that it is unavoidable.  Experience of a point of view that in some aspect connects in moral empathy is unavoidable.  It is for us to be receptive to a path that may best allow that-which-in-common-defines-us to instil us with moral meaningfulness. 

For example, we can rationalize and serve an ideal of a caring, forgiving, grace-granting, and inviting Reconciler (Jesus).  Or we can rationalize and subjugate ourselves to an ideal of an ever vengeful and head cutting Monster (Allah).  Sometimes, in our memes, we must compete in a Darwinian-like zero-sum contest.  Other times, we can cooperate in expanding the unfoldment of possibilities.  We can "tolerate" the surrender of Obama-ilk to evil and to every "diverse" and immediate gratification of glandular impulse.  We can poke a finger in the eye of everyone who empathetically pursues a meta City on a Hill.  Or we can join the pursuit of freedom under law.

Humane civilization requires freedom under law.  Too much freedom leads towards moral anarchy.  Too much law leads towards fascist despotism.  The way we inspire a path to a "Goldilocks" balance of freedom under law is by inspiring belief in, and acceptance of, a foundation for a moral code.  A foundation beyond the unreality of sand and superior to the despotism of excessive regulation.  Dignity without fascist rule. For that, we reach out to "the Man upstairs."  But you can fictionalize Him as "Flower" if you want to.

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Natural Born Citizen Clause

It appears NBC people would punt to an Act of 1986 to separate out who is a citizen, because they otherwise lack a clear way to determine among many of our migrant residents which are "citizens."

But then, to determine who is a "natural born citizen," they think they have some simple test that is clearly set forth in the Constitution?  Even though, to state their test, they have to refer to a version of Vattel that was published after the Constitution was ratified?

The way I see it, Cruz is a citizen, jus sanguinis, because his mother was a citizen.  And he is a natural born citizen, because he was born a citizen of right, without having to earn it by naturalization.  I don't find anything in the Constitution that says that a person who is born a citizen, who does not have to undergo naturalization to become a citizen, is not a "natural born citizen."  Nor, in my experience,  have I noticed that those Presidents who were born here of two citizens have tended to display any superior loyalty to America.



John Jay recommended to Washington a need to help guard against intrigue by foreign princes to become head of state in America.  As near as I can tell, nothing suggests any connection in Cruz to any foreign prince.  (He should rather have been more concerned about intrigue by internal traitors, oligarchs, and shills for the Chamber of Commerce who become bent on cannibalizing and selling out America and Americans.)

The Founders (under the Committee on Detail) had been considering a residency requirement of a number of years to become President.  However, any need for that was apparently subsumed when (without recorded explanation or debate after receiving Jay's letter) it was submitted (by the Committee of Eleven) simply to require that the President have been born a citizen (a natural born citizen).  In Jay's letter, the only word underlined was "born."  The word "natural" was not underlined.  The Jay letter did not refer to Vattel.


In 1904, Frederick van Dyne (1861–1915), the Assistant Solicitor of the US Department of State (1900–1907) (and subsequently a diplomat), published a textbook, Citizenship of the United States, in which he said:
There is no uniform rule of international law covering the subject of citizenship. Every nation determines for itself who shall, and who shall not, be its citizens.... By the law of the United States, citizenship depends, generally, on the place of birth; nevertheless the children of citizens, born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, are also citizens.... The Constitution of the United States, while it recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications of the President, Senators, and Representatives, contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, in 1868; nor did Congress attempt to define it until the passage of the civil rights act, in 1866.... Prior to this time the subject of citizenship by birth was generally held to be regulated by the common law, by which all persons born within the limits and allegiance of the United States were deemed natural-born citizens.


In 2012 WL 1205117, a pro se plaintiff challenged Obama's presence on the presidential ballot, based on his own interpretation that "natural born citizen" required the president "to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents."

 To which the Court responded, " Article II, section 1, clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the Natural Born Citizen clause means what plaintiff Strunk claims it says. .... Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil." [listing Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover].

Chester A. Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was not naturalized as a U.S. citizen until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born.  While he was born in the U.S., only one of his parents was a citizen at the time.

Charles Curtis was Vice President under Hoover.  Curtis was
born in Kansas when it was a territory.  As such, he was not born in the U.S.
  Pehaps the most important function for a Vice President is to be ready to assume the presidency in event of the death or incapacity of the President.  Yet, there does not appear to have been significant debate that Curtis would have been disqualified for not having been a "natural born citizen."

Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona territory, not in the U.S.

Lowell Weicker entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980, but dropped out before voting in the primaries began; he was also suggested as a possible vice-president candidate in 1976. He was born in Paris, France.

Marco Rubio was born in Miami, but his parents were Cubans at the time.



Much ink has been spilled on speculation and dicta about the meaning of "citizen" and "natural born citizen."  Respectable commentators have been all over the map.  The controlling documents, being the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, are not especially clear.  The 1986 Statute under Reagan did not much help.  Since and before that time, much has happened.  We have had candidacies by George Romney, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz.  We have also come awake to an out of control invasion by Mexicans and Chinese vying for birthright citizenship.  Other nations have been clarifying that birth does not in itself confer citizenship.


An intelligent policy would hold that birthright citizenship of a type for which naturalization should not have to be earned should pass and endure only to a child born of an American parent and whose allegiance does not become compromised.  All other forms of citizenship should have to be earned under provisions for naturalization as provided by Congress.

However, even though an argument can be made that such should be the policy and the law, it is not clear that it in fact IS the law.  Ideally, it would be best to have Congress declare such to be the law. 

The PROBLEM is this:  It is now clear that Congress, the Presidency, and even Scotus, are in thrall to anti-American, establishmentarian, one-world interests that are of no mind to make it easy to enforce the border.

In this situation, is there enough of a good faith argument to support a popular and competent President in building political pressure and agencies to bring such policy to fruition by executive enforcement, pending the lack of resolution by Congress? 

Answer:  If there is not ground for such a process, then America, as a representative republic, may not be much longer for this world.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Brave New Threshold: Robotics Interface

ELIMINATION OF CHARITABLE DEDUCTIONS: What would happen if businesses, corporations, and employers were prohibited from making tax exempt donations to charities and foundations? Would such businesses invest more money in making things that people want, attracting empolyees that can make such things, and paying employees enough to neutralize redistributive politics?

WELFARE V. WORKFARE: What would happen if charity-minded reformers had to inspire donors based on the goodness of their works, rather than based on the opportunity to hide power investments and empire foundings behind tax deduction schemes? Would a spirit-based morality be awakened, so that recipients of charity would become more thankful than insulting?

ELIMINATION OF CORPORATE TAXES: What would happen if businesses were not taxed on ordinary, non-cosumptive, non-retail, business transactions and investments? Would businesses invest more money in making things that people want, attracting empolyees that can make such things, and paying employees enough to neutralize most redistributive politics?

PROHIBITIVE CRONYISM: What would happen if American businesses could not lobby politicians, import cheap labor, or export industries without paying exactions and taxes as if such activities constituted taxable comsumptions? Would such businesses find ways to attract foreign purchasers to buy from Americans, become more competitively productive, improve American factories and industries, propagate intelligent robotics, encourage American students, promote initiatives for improving social infrastructure in ways that would neutralize redistributive politics, and make America a better example of free enterprise for the rest of the world?
FRANCHISE CENTRALIZATION AND DISTRIBUTION: What would happen if American businesses could seed profit and bonus-oriented franchisee-subcontractors, to delegate local production to local managers, without having to pay corporate franchise taxes? Would small business franchises flourish among more kinds of business activities, helping to spread local efficiency, wealth, and power?

ELIMINATING ELITIST CANNIBALIZATION OF RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIES: What would happen if out-of-country money transfers were treated as taxable consumptions? Would people and businesss build and buy American, and would foreign businesses invest in creating wealth for being transacted in America?
NATIONAL SELF SUFFICIENCY: What would happen if Western economies were induced to become more self sufficient? Would basket-case cultures and economies need to make their labor forces available for corporate-colonial like investments, to teach local despots and minions how to organize, work, and increase social capital, while reducing their exposure to despotism and their need for faux charities? Did Western Sponsored Colonialism end too soon?

CHECKING THE RISE OF NEW ARISTOCRATS: What would happen if family dynasties, aristocracies, and oligarchies were reduced by taxing retail and non-business transfers and bequests progressively, as if they were taxable consumptions? Would more and continued investment in productive business be encouraged, and also wider distribution of salaries and personal wealth? If lobbying were likewise taxed, would political influence be more evenly distributed?

REDUCTION OF CRONY SOCIALISM: What would happen if businesses were made less answerable to double-dealing bureaucrats and favor-seeking crony businesses and instead more answerable to limiting regulations under representatives of informed electorates? Would domestic wealth be more distributed via business interests, while domestic political power would be more decentralized among localities?

REDIRECTION OF GOVERNMENT TO INFRASTRUCTURE: What then would remain for a limited and limiting role for federated and local governments, states, and republics? Would representatives of each become more responsive to well-informed electorates, to be called on only to smooth rough edges between citizens and businesses by regulating and coordinating needs for: Anti-monopolization, anti-non-compete contracts, reduction of aristocracies, enhancement of competitive free enterprise, freedom of association, competitive media and education, improved environment, population reduction, health, emergencies, banking, currency, defense, foreign relations, common infrastructure, standards for weights and measures, and other functions under the heading of social capital?

ECONOMIC AND SPIRITUAL REVIVAL: What would happen if power to direct economic development came more to be federated among businesses instead of centralized to elitists, political planners, and bureaucrats? What would happen if social cost and complexity of governmental cronyism were markedly reduced? Would a middle class of decent, competent, and free thinkers be revived?

BRAVE NEW ROBOTICS INTERFACE: We stand on a Brave New Threshold for expanding consciousness to the stars. It is also an interface between free enterprise for the Republic and social regulation for the Borg. Artificially Intelligent Robotics are bound to impact: Population reduction; environmental improvement; redefinition of merit-based redistribution; and moral distribution of material goods and services. If the world does not first blow itself up, the NWM (New World Morality) may be based, not on two-class sadomasochism or primitive monster-god death cults, but on reinspired reawakening and reinterpretation of spiritually empathetic concerns. This is bound to entail rephasing of traditionally assigned social roles and opportunities and expansion of new pursuits for meaningfulness. Who can say?