VALUING THE INDIVIDUAL

(Click title above)

VALUING THE INDIVIDUAL:

To flourish, a civilization needs to sponsor incentives for measuring, prodding, rewarding, monitoring, leading, channeling, and limiting the work and creativity of its individual members.

When populations were smaller, so that each individual had proportionately more influence, it made more sense to conceptualize the operations of a marketplace of arms-length competitors, guided by a sort of generally beneficial “invisible hand.”

Nowadays, however, populations are much larger, yet the number of business competitors is continuously being ever-reduced, in respect of advantages of scale and monopolization. Thus, the influence of ordinary workers is being relentlessly devalued, as workers switch and move employment ever so much more often.

Old relations and loyalties now become easily diminished. Marriages, families, friends, fellow employees, churches, and communities now provide considerably less comfort or security.

Inexorably, society is becoming more organized in respect of advantages of scale. Labor and business competition is becoming more complex, multi-layered, and internationally interdependent. It begins to make less sense to defer only to the concept of “marketplace” in order to rationalize, justify, or set prices, wages, worth, value, and merit.

Are not small businesses going the way of the family farm? Is not all enterprise trending towards monopolization, in respect of advantages of scale? What, then, becomes the effect on social bonds and loyalties?

Has Radical Change become inevitable, requiring us to look to government to socialize and provide for our mutual security? Is a New World Order of International Socialism necessarily emerging, not altogether driven by competition among “evil power-lusters,” but in respect of emerging, inexorable forces of social organization and scale?

QUESTIONS:

Insofar as old bonds of family, friends, church, and workplace are being rendered ever-weaker, must socialistic government now fill much of the void, to meet at least minimal social and health needs in respect of the Maslow scale?

Must government now assume and ensure the portability of fellow-caring and health care?

Must International Socialism, inexorably, push us to erase differences in respect of borders, language, and culture?

Must we submit to detailed regulations, speech codes, and socio-political correctness, in order to live and work together, internationally and peacefully?

In respect of multi-cultural, international markets of scale, must most of us surrender substantial aspects of freedom and dignity?

In respect of organizational interchangeability, how should individual persons come to be valued, devalued, or evaluated?

Given modern necessities of scale, interdependence, and organization, how should the concept of “marketplace” be adjusted or changed, in order to help civilization moderate how to mete out its produce, carrots, and sticks?

How should the concept of “capitalism” move on, evolve, or morph?

Can International Socialism appropriately respect individual needs for autonomy, creativity, self-expression, freedom, and dignity?

Can the needs of individuals and communities be reconciled? How?

.

****

.

CONSPIRACY?

Are Republicans and Democrats both directed by a same evolving gang of conspiratorial power-lusters? If so, we might expect to find alignment evolving on big issues.

Well, among elites of both parties, we do find alignments evolving in significant affairs, such as:
1) Undermining national uniformity of language;
2) Weakening familial, social, religious, cultural, and national bonds;
3) Rationalizing an “anything-goes morality,” based only in secular humanism, calling it “science-based”;
4) Monopolizing media, academia, and means of indoctrination;
5) Leveraging means of instilling fear as means of control;
6) Undermining national borders;
7) Undermining national honor, independence, and sovereignty;
8) Facilitating international codependency and military alliances;
9) Establishing power-elite control over international currencies; and
10) Inspiring cultish beliefs that front-personalities (Obama) will rule a N.W.O. of “fair” International Socialism.

Yet, on some significant issues, the parties do “seem” to be opposed.

FAMILY: On respect for families, Republicans seem more to honor parents’ judgments for rearing and educating children. Yet, parents now are less backed by extended families, churches, or institutions for reinforcing cultural norms. Now, governments fill the vacuum, to require, facilitate, and extend debt-based public financing, to guide delivery of parameters of indoctrination for enslaving minds.

DECENCY: On public decency, enforcement of law and order, and strict interpretation of the Constitution, Republicans seem less inclined to facilitate justifying an “anything goes” breakdown in cultural norms. Yet, society is racing towards all manner of indecency, so that it hardly seems to matter which party is in power. Notwithstanding oratorical grandstanding, all significant political parties seem equally beholden to purveyors of all manner of indecent addictions.

GOVERNMENT: On size of government, Republicans seem more to favor deregulating and privatizing all functions that reasonably can be privatized to a marketplace of competition. Yet, recent Republican administrations have accelerated the size of governmental involvement significantly more than previous Democrat administrations. Simply put, modern monopoly-scale international-corporations are less subject to ordinary market-based competition. Rather, modern corporations call on a phalanx of agents (of nations, governments, regulators, mafia, and alliances) for cornering markets or for murdering competition. Neither regulation nor deregulation cows or tames large-scale business.

MILITARY: On supporting military presence in the Middle East in order to stabilize trade and to ensure access to oil markets, Republicans and Democrats seem opposed.
But, is that apparent difference bona fide, or is it just part of diversionary entertainment, as elites continue serving Money-Masters’ N.W.O. agenda?

ALLIANCES: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” How conditional, overlapping, divided, and complex have our alliances become? In what definable, divisive, and diversionary respects are Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, and Saudis co-invested and co-maneuvered as our friends versus as our enemies --- and vice versa?

PAWNS: Who runs them, as well as us? To whom, really, is all wealth and power being transferred? Are most of us just pawns in a polar-game, which is violent at our level, but more friendly at highest, unprincipled, indifferent levels? Who is buying us all up? Is lust for power their only constant?

DIVIDE AND RULE: Why do both Democrats and Republicans seem united against enforcing our borders, notwithstanding overwhelming public demand?

Why is Saudi money funding madrassas worldwide, bent on exporting and stirring up jihad, strife, instability, and volatility?

Assuming Bush did not know precisely when the attacks of 9-11 were coming, had the Saudis told him in advance that they were coming at some time?

BOTTOM LINE: A N.W.O. agenda seems to be evolving in respect of a gathering emergence of natural forces, on a scale too large and too insidious to avail easy measurement or observation.

The same alignment of natural forces seems to be animating those power-lusters who are most positioned to be sensitively receptive to, and to take advantage of, such forces.

If a N.W.O. is being inexorably promoted by a convergence of natural forces, does it even matter whether or not power-lusters are consciously aware of what may be animating such an evil conspiracy for devaluing human freedom, dignity, and individual worth?

Against such convergence, who or what can or should stand? When does it become not viable to deliver to people what they think they want? Does it remain viable to try to respect and deliver to people their own freedom and dignity?

Or, have we become reduced to a people of addicts --- addicted to fantasy, drugs, hedonism, debt, delusions, and escapism --- unable to elect an Advocate Of “Cold Turkey,” instead bent to elect whichever Front-For-Addiction (Obama?) seems most like our addicted selves?

Who among us can stand, both in principles and in effectiveness? What rules our fundamental being’ness: Evil-Callous-Will-To-Power, or Good-Empathetic-Will-To-Math? How should each of us best war against conflicting aspects of his/her fundamental essence or character?

.