Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Economic Shell Game

A shell game that commonly pollutes logics of individual versus group economics relates to slips between wholes and parts. Between those who play within the system and those who play above it. Between those to whom the law applies and those to whom the law does not apply. The twilight zone of international relations among crony corporatists.

Economic trade between societies organized as nations can never be "free," because each trading nation will always seek to advantage its economic controllers by influencing the politics of all other traders.

The U.S.'s economic controllers are not the people, but the people-farming cronies that treat people, politicians, and even governments as commoditities. They are quite amenable of selling out the people, nation, and its resources for corruptly laundered personal profit. The same applies to the despotic gangs that rule foreign nations, especially third world nations.

As a nation, our ordinary citizens are not benefitting, politically, by our trade policies -- regardless of whether one calls those policies free or fair. Rather, as a nation, our troops and workers who bled and sweated to defend our country are put under the thumbs of crony corporatists bent on selling them out. The consequence, worldwide, is a movement to reduce the masses to the lowest common status of desperate serf laborers. In this, those who run our major political parties are united.

The economic wealth that does accrue to ordinary Americans tends to come more from inheriting the work of people killed and replaced by abuse and war than from increases in efficiency brought on by "division of labor." The U.S., from sea to shining sea, has little need of most labor or resources from other parts of the world. To a large extent, what trickles down to ordinary Americans is a consequence of the dollar being the world's reserve currency. Other nations presently have little choice but to work for the dollar -- even though Americans nowadays produce mostly fluff. That, however, will soon leach out, like a back-washing tsunami. By then, most of our cronies will have found their safe harbors and islands.

Cronies, on the other hand, need one another to keep rolling their schemes for laundering political favors -- the consequence of which tends to be to hollow out the jobs and resources of their fellow countrymen -- the ones who actually bled and sweated to build and defend the nation.

"Free trade" tends to be a shell game by which cronies who rule above the game pick the pockets of individuals who play within the game. (They even inspire followers among unionists and homies by promising "free stuff." They own the ghetto people, because they own both major political parties and all significant institutions of political persuasion.)

The ordinary rules simply aren't applied to well connected cronies, and likely never will be. If Americans want to be "free," they will need periodically to overturn the tables of the crony money masters. (Water the tree of liberty.) Otherwise, no representative republic can long survive the cronies that will buy and sell its politicians and their "laws" as if they were little more than the devil's commodities. The biggest threat to the republic is the lack of effective spiritual and formal checks against the influence laundering of faith-breaching cronies.

By itself, no flat tax against crony consumptions can ever be effective to impede their snowballing agglomerations of political influence, that will always tend to the destruction of republics.


Socialists love Big Brother.  However, the Bill of Rights is concerned with the freedom and dignity of individuals within States.  To maximize individual freedom of thought, expression, and enterprise, provided it is not tolerated to destroy the freedom of thought, expression, and enterprise of others.  Islam, like socialism, trades with the devil by destroying freedom in phony trade for safe spaces for the hiveminded. 

There is no freedom among Muslims in Islam to express disbelief.  That will cost you your head.  There is little freedom in socialism to go against the line of the ruling party.  That will get you an ice pick in the head, as Trotsky found out.  There is no honest dealing in the Dem Party, as those who believed in Debbie Wasserman Schultz found out. 

Islam, communism, radical socialism, and militant atheism are all intolerant of non-believers.  For them, "progress" is the spreading of their intolerance.   Those who believe in human freedom and dignity too often and too short sightedly condemn themselves by being so tolerant that they tolerate that which means to destroy them -- whether immediately or by a thousand cuts.  Hive minds lack the freedom that is essential to mend them.  Once sufficiently in power, the hive-borg kills freedom, relentlessly and permanently.  Once enough voters elect to be ruled by despotic elitists who promise they will be benign, they forfeit their dignity and become reduced to subhuman status.  That kind of socialism becomes a big-brother religion for subhumans.

People will work for themselves, their families, their significant others, and to improve their property.  They will not long work for others if they can find ways to bilk the system.  Socialists never learn this.  People who use gov property do not respect such property -- even when socialists try to force such respect by lining up and shooting offenders in order to make examples.  Elites are human beings, not angels.  To give them the kind of unlimited power over others that socialists lean to, unmoderated by religious like faith, is to corrupt them, absolutely. 

If socialists have any "red lines" they would enforce against the degradation of humanity and its children, what are they?  They have none.  Define your red lines and your non-religious science that proves them, that defend the innocence of children.  You have none.  You would replace the love of  parents with the diktat of soulless statists, and then sell children for their body parts.

Whether you believe in Jesus or not, He gave the essence of the spiritual, moral law:  Love God, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  That is a basis for human freedom and dignity, property rights, individual enterprise, and freedom of thought.  Jesus did not send Apostles to demand belief in trade for not having your head cut.

Among decent, thinking people in the West, those two laws have taught intuition and empathy to moderate the Mosaic law.  That is why you do not see modern Christians acting like primitive 7th Century islamists.  To pretend modern Christianity is comparable to the depravity of Stalinism and Islamism is uninformed nonsense.

To denigrate all religions is also uninformed nonsense.  You say you believe in socialism.  Is your belief based in insight, intuition, and empathy, or is it based in empirical science?  You do not say socialism is per se proven good by science.  So you recognize it itself is a religion.  Now, if you base it in a spiritual, interpenetrating, perpetual, immeasurable, empathetic, feedback aspect of the cosmos that is beyond empirical proof, then I am partly with you.  The difference is this:  My idea of "good socialism" (civilization) entails maximal respect for human freedom and dignity, which I would not, without overpowering reason, surrender to immediate gratifications or "safe spaces" for hive minds.  I suspect, notwithstanding the abominations of the 20th Century, that socialists suffer from historical illiteracy that renders them excessively vulnerable to phony fallen elitists.

Regarding religious tests:  The First Amendment gives the right to the free exercise of religion.  In Islam, as in the Mafia, there is no free exercise.  Apostasy will get you stoned.

Regarding Article VI, see http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438536/immigration-religious-test-constitution-does-not-ban-vetting-immigrants-religion:

"Of all all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants."

"The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI.  As you’ll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration. The clause states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”. On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials — specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions."

Bottom line:  Because socialists apparently only read drivel, they only spread drivel.  No doubt, however, drivel-spreading, socialistic Progs will find some idiot judge to rule.  And why?  Why, because Prog phonies have utterly corrupted our demographics.



Anonymous said...

Re "link is blank" -- It's in National Review archives. But let me walk you through it: Google this: "Of all all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants". When you do, you will have access to the article from a number of published sources. Including http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3455100/posts?page=23.

As to what is "not socialism": Yup. They just haven't gotten it right -- yet. Give it time for some more death squads. S/

How many republics do you have to pollute before you figure this out?

Re "criminalize": How intellectually dishonest can you be? I said nothing about criminalize. I say they are liberty-illiterate, antithetical to the Bill of Rights, and ought not be invited into the country. Get it right.

Re First Amendment: The First Amendment does not require that we pull down our borders or invite invasions by cultures that are fundamentally antithetical to the Bill of Rights. Pull your head into the sunlight.

Re "constant referrals to me as an idiot, without actually using the term": Well, that's your interpretation. Mine is that I find you incredibly uninformed, intellectually dishonest, and warped by socialistic metromen. Now go find yourself a safe space. And work some more on getting rid of that hateful First Amendment. Or twisting it to allow the destruction of the republic in order to replace it with New Venezuela.

Anonymous said...

Check the definition of socialism at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism:
- any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
- a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

So, socialism is a political system where gov is looked to for solving problems. It is an eco-political system. To say socialism is not a political system is absurd, because, by definition, socialism entails gov (or political community) ownership of means of production.

You need to re-read 1984 and Animal Farm (assuming you have read them). You cannot give some the power to redistribute the wealth of others without making out that "some are more equal than others." You say you are not a communist, but then you seem to imagine some kind of withering away of the State.

Regarding socialistic states: Except so long as they remain demographically homogenous, have abundant natural resources, practice eugenics (as in the case of Sweden), and/or remain under the protective military umbrella of other nations, socialist nations tend not so much to thrive. And to the extent they do, it tends to be at the cost of sacrificing individual freedom of expression and enterprise. IOW -- not compatible with the First Amendment. For general information, see https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-examples-of-socialism-working-in-countries.

Socialism is the idea that the gov should own the means of production and distribute wealth through its functionaries (elites). Because there is no withering away of the State, it is absurd to say socialism does not entail political force. Socialism is a form of gov, and gov IS political force. (Maybe it would work better if we put it under the control of starry eyed kiddos?)

By eliminated disparaties between people who work and have talent and initiative, socialists would, by definition, promote parasitism.

Socialistic societies may have less unemployment to the extent they promote inefficiencies and make work.

My opinion is borne of worldly experience, intellectual curiosity, considerable reading, and a well functioning brain. Yours seems to be borne of 20-year something gulped indoctrination.

BTW, please tell me: What are jihadists doing that violates the Koran? Have you told ISIS they aren't following Islam?


I do not dispute that civilization necessitates levels of gov. (And gov tends by nature to be socialistic.) Nor do I dispute that I would rather people work on infrastructure in temporary gov jobs instead of indefinitely drawing welfare. However, the goal should be to take up slack, not to encourage a permanent condition of more of it. The goal should be a safety net, not a hammock.

For an alternative take on Sweden circa 2002, see http://www.paoracle.com/SocialismWORKS!/?sw=Sweden.

Bottom Line: Bernie fooled ya.