Re: Allah-Borg-Corp
To force a human being, physically or by whip of necessity, to act, profess, and believe other than consistent with his authentic self is very nearly to rob him of the potential of his soul. It is to force him to surrender and submit to an Allah-Borg-Corp.
Islam and Marxism are only derivatives, not the essence of soul succubi. They are secondary to their men behind the curtain, i.e., their funders. In modern times, these funders tend to be international-corporate-banking-securities-hedge-artists and government-favor-trading-influence-peddlers. Such artistry is now mainly performed under cover of international corporatism, because corporations respect no boundaries in territory, culture, or mores. To put those international corporatists, whose confluent effluent undermines America, under America’s supervision would be to shrivel the lifeblood that funnels to Islam and Marxism. So, how can that kind of adult supervision be invigorated?
For that, there is no perfect constitution, empirical solution, or model. If there is truth in the idealism of George Berkeley, it is because those aspects of physics which we take to be amenable of modeling in terms of pure, empirical massiveness are artifactually and ultimately dependent upon forms and organizations of rules for forming in-form-ation. Those are availed by a holistic source of consciousness; they are availed as our ground of being and basis for communication. The physical signposts we talk about and model are not means for the explicating of their own ends. They are only means for appreciating and communicating such pursuits as we perspectives of consciousness happen to find ourselves pursuing within any slice of space-time. The only true north star for moral interaction abides not in absolutist rationalism or empiricism, but in a spiritual basis, i.e., an ineffable capacity for empathy in communication among perspectives of the One same fundamental consciousness.
The faster an intellectually honest person tries to model and push a narrow slice of empirical experience into duty for focusing and clearly explicating and communicating all of "reality," the sooner his empirical delusions reach the absurd. The more complex the "physical" system, the more often and more quickly the absurd is reached and ignored. Thus, imagination begets information, begets “mass,” begets surprising potentials, uncertainties, and conundrums. All abides in God's good time. IOW, adult supervision necessitates spiritual adults. Indeed, the idea of America can hardly survive without idealists. So, we have no choice but to muddle about, seeking balance while we apprehend only our pursuits of fulfillment, not our actual fulfillment, tinkering with those forms which avail tinkering.
To my taste, we desperately need forms for putting international corporatists on probation. The issue is: Should corporations properly be considered as citizens of the world and also as simultaneous citizens of various States to which they owe no particular loyalty? When should corporations and their main shareholders be considered akin to illegal aliens or traitorous citizens? For that, consider some temporal measures for "comprehensive tinkering" and, if necessary, constitutional amendments, to wit:
ADULT GROUNDING OF PAID TO BE CORRUPT FEDS (to stop the treasonous, corporate-sponsored sell out of America to global collectivism):
1) Stoutly identify that which is the enemy of human freedom and dignity, i.e., the enemy of the idea of America (which includes Islamism, Marxism, and Globalism);
2) Follow the money (cui bono) and learn to spot the language of collectivizing deceivers, communalist and corporatist, alike;
3) Require detailed accounting by corporations of all domestic business that is in any respect done in corporate form within America;
4) Prohibit any corporation that fails to organize a financially solvent domestic subsidiary from transacting any business or transferring any goods, funds, credits, or stocks in America or across America’s borders;
5) Put a sur tax of 10 percent on every extra territorial transfer or investment of domestic corporate goods, funds, credits, wire transfers, or stocks that cross national borders;
6) Prohibit any foreign national, or non-domestic corporation, from owning more than 10 percent of the goods, funds, credits, or stocks of any domestic corporation;
7) Prohibit foreign nationals and non-domestic corporations from aggregating to own more than 20 percent of the goods, funds, credits, or stocks of any domestic corporation;
8) Allow domestic corporations to obtain finder’s fees and to sue for unfair competition in instances where other corporations are found to have failed to pay the 10 percent sur tax on extra national transactions;
9) Give domestic shareholders authority to bring class actions to forfeit (or acquire) stocks of all foreign nationals found individually, in organized groups, or in joint stock companies to hold more than 10 percent of the stock of a domestic corporation;
10) Rescind the limited liability of every stockholder (whether person or organized group) who owns more than 10 percent of a corporation that is found liable for penalties or damages in contract, tort, or civil liability;
11) Establish parameters and procedures to identify abusers and to cashier or forfeit their rights to buy, inherit, or own property in the form of corporate stocks;
12) Put a 25 percent “political consumption tax” per annum on every political contribution that accumulates, per individual or per organized bundle, that amounts to more than $10,000, and then apply the tax revenues exclusively to retiring public debt;
13) Include for calculating such tax all salaries and payments for all activities designed to increase political influence or to influence political action, including: indirect payments to otherwise unpaid czars, community organizers, political propagandists, op-ed writers, political pundits, political satirists, political fund raisers, and political parties;
14) Prohibit all contributions and measurable enhancements to American politicians from non-domestic, extra-national corporations or foreign nationals, and establish forfeitures and jail terms violators and their agents;
15) Require every lobbyist and corporation that contacts or contracts with the federal government to keep open books to identify in detail its history of: campaign contributions; contacts with federal officials above a certain grade; all federal laws and regulations promulgated with regard to clients or products;
16) Require that no lobbyist, governmental employee, official, or “unpaid czar” be allowed to hold stock – in any company that sells products to the federal government – that is valued at more than $200,000 or that person’s gross annual income, whichever is less;
17) Require that a person who runs or works for a regulatory agency, who writes or enforces federal regulations, must not have worked for, been salaried by, be married to, or a partner with a person who has worked for, any corporation that remains subject to specific and detailed regulation under such agency ... unless such person is vouched for, on the record, by the committee in Congress that happens specifically to be charged with oversight of such affairs;
18) Require that every person whose income or salary exceeds $100,000 per annum — who runs, works for, or is given detailed access to (i.e., “czars”), a federal regulatory agency – must provide a complete and verifiable resume of his or her birth, residence, passport travels, education, employment, stock ownership, history of official and elective offices, political affiliations; and verifiable list of his or her political donations made to any person or cause in an accumulated amount of more than $500;
19) Entitle each candidate for federal office to require all other such candidates to provide complete and verifiable resumes of birth, residence, passport travels, education, employment, stock ownership, history of official and elective offices, political affiliations, and verifiable list of political donors (individuals and organizations) who have donated or bundled more than $500;
20) End federal interference with States in the enforcement of their international borders;
21) Prohibit the immigration and naturalization of members of all groups, clubs, and creeds that are inimical to, or on any kind of jihad against, the culture of freedom and dignity of Americans, to include communists and Islamists;
22) Require that the federal government not budget expenditures in any fiscal year that would allow any State to receive per capita federal funding for total internal construction, expenditures, and salaries that would accumulate to more than 200 percent of the per capita funding of any other State – absent 2/3 approval of both the House and the Senate;
23) End the income tax and replace it with sales/consumption/transaction taxes, to include a tax on retail sales and a progressive tax only against individuals, based on annual accumulated consumption. Use it to "spread wealth" indirectly and to a level closer to the people, by returning much of it directly to the States on a per capita basis.
24) Empower governors of the States at any time to remove a sitting President, upon a 3/5 vote of no confidence by 30 or more governors, provided they represent at least 2/3 of the general population.
Admittedly, these are filled with loopholes that would eventually be exploited. That is unavoidable. After all, we can only pursue the destruction of evil; we cannot actually accomplish it.
... Or, we can watch idly as Corp Sponsored Noble Progs "fundamentally change" (i.e., globally collectivize) America into a third world, lowest common denominator of serfs. Can aristocratic stock ownership in serf companies be far behind?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
As one considers the models and math of Krugman, Obama, and Soros, as if the same were intended to facilitate jobs and prosperity for a free and independent America, at some point, seeing the models and math make no sense, should one reassess one's premises? What if the goal has little to do with jobs and prosperity for a free and independent America? What if the goal of Krugman and Obama is to reduce America, in order to facilitate some kind of worldwide, economic kum ba yah? What if the goal of Soros is to front the cohort that is to feed from the economic open society? What if Krugman and Obama are deluded about the capacity for mankind to live in worldwide harmony, while Soros is deluded about the capacity of his cohort to lead Americans and mankind into worldwide, Chinese style villeinage? So long as Soros retains his delusions, won't he simply reposition, to attract Rinos? Won't he simply ride with Rinos along the parallel path of free trade with China? Why can't we have both jobs and a strong America (with not open-society open-borders, thank you)?
How is our trade relationship with China helping with this issue: Is humanity better served (1) by availing the various countries and cultures with the possibility of availing their peoples with freedom of expression and enterprise, or is humanity better served (2) by reducing the masses worldwide to the supervision of an elitist cohort of corporatist collectivists who know best? China is hardly friendly to option (1). Unfortunately, neither are America's Ainos, Rinos, and Dinos friendly to option (1).
We are at a tipping point. The great economic question before us is not jobs. It is whether the mass of human beings are to be free of elitist absolutism anywhere on the planet. Of that, too many Americans and too many of America's economists have lost sight. Reforming politics is a diversion. Something needs to be done to reform the fundamental nature of international corporatism, as it is practiced to undermine entire nations.
For those whose loyalty is to option (1), how can we afford to abandon allies under the economic collectivism that is proceeding apace under cover of international corporatism? China is hardly stupid. It hardly helps our cause, psychologically, that they clearly perceive the Obama admin as being friendly to option (2).
I don't see wealth as the culprit. But I do agree with Rand that the corporate wealth whose produce is trade in government pull, rather than in competitive production, is a very big problem. That was the monstrosity that brought down the system in Atlas Shrugged. IOW, there is something rotten in how the world has allowed international corporatists to buy and sell influence in nations and governments.
It's not wealth, per se, that needs regulation, but wealth that is byproduct of corporatist trading in government influence. That is what needs to be reined in. Even were we to begin to control our physical borders, that would go for naught, so long as our legal and regulatory borders are subverted at will by international corporatists. Ex: Shenanigans whereby America's oil production in the gulf is shut down even as Soros proceeds with his Brazilian adventures.
The main problem is not about wealth, per se; the problem is about the political fallout from shakedowns powered by international corporatists. So long as they can twist our policies and laws, what does it matter whether we think we have national borders? We badly need some reforms in how business is allowed to proceed under the corporate form. As things are, the notion of nations is becoming quaint. Is that what we want ... to have America's work ethic and moral values reduced to a lowest common international denominator?
In the name of saving the planet, have Americans and short term economists slept while foreign interests, under cover of the corporate form, have purchased our politicians, sent our industries overseas, and left our carcass to be carved up and auctioned off to canibals?
Are those canibals now subjugating masses worldwide into involuntary serfdom, in order to save the planet? Save it to whose purposes? If the ruling class has no qualms against such outrage, why expect it to have qualms against an Islamic jihad that subjugates the masses worldwide to involuntary obeisance to a primitive idea of God? Do Progressives, by "saving the planet," mean to subjugate the labor and minds of all of mankind? This is "progress?"
Suppose a large group affiliated with and sympathized with a movement bent to force masses worldwide to submit to a detailed regimen of forced tent wearing, diet, sexual disfigurement, psychological warping, and abject political submissiveness. Suppose this group readily identified itself, and members routinely committed random acts of terror. Would we continue to allow identified members of such a movement to immigrate? Would homeland security decline to acquire means to identify every one of them? If a gang came to your town, camped nearby, and routinely disseminated literature championing the destruction of your town, would you be as clueless as DHS and Progs about what to do? If you lived away from such town, separated by a large body of water, would you require that town to tolerate the gang's amassing of innumerable rocket bombs?
Why, for goodness sakes, must we tolerate, encourage, and pretend that such values are in any way consistent with decent American values? Why must we cripple our economy with billions of extra costs bent on humiliating and inconveniencing everyone else merely to preserve a pretense of respect for an ideology that deserves no respect whatsoever?
Here's a lesson: Put the burden of proof on Islamists, not ordinary Americans. Make the Islamists prove they are peaceable. Search the Islamists. Put them on the list, not American vets. What has been put into our water, air, and schools, to so rot and malform the Prog brain that it lacks basic survival instinct to apprehend where to put the burden of proof? How can we intelligently trust any of the Prog leaders who have been offered up to America for the last 22 years when every one of them has rebelled against defending our borders and promoted Islam as a religion of peace? The electorate needs to wake up and set right the burden of proof.
From A.T.--
Re: A Muslim woman ... asked to remove her medieval hood at a skating rink. The rink had a policy of no headgear because hats and scarves could cause injury on the floor. She claims that she needed to wear her hijab for "religious reasons."
Why shouldn't private establishments be entitled to impose safety rules, so long as their rules are founded in reason? They are the ones potentially liable for injuries on their premises. Why should government be entitled to insist such rules not be enforced, just because diversity headcases think they know the best system of detailed rules to control every breath we take?
Take Standing Wolf's religion. Is is open to gangsters? Couldn't criminal gangs take a page or two from the Islamist's game book? Say gangs start claiming their ideal is Beezle, god patron of robbers, rapers, and all who intend to do as they wilt. They have a uniform or gang sign. It entails hollowing out a pig snout and wearing it while skating. Worshippers bring statistics showing none of their members have ever fallen or injured anyone while skating and wearing a pig snout. Should the rink operator nonetheless be entitled to prohibit pig snouts?
No doubt, libs will claim the example is stretched. Really? Do gangs ever take over establishments? Inner cities? Border towns? Countries? How? Begin with graffiti. Show the law and respectable society to be impotent and ridiculous. What becomes the message to every fatherless kid who wants exemplars with machismo? Is not Che Guevara their favorite visage for wearing on their t-shirts and tattoos? A little encroachment here, there, a little swagger, a little demoralization, augh, it's only a hajib for goodness sakes. Not like sky falling. Not like America rotting from within. Is it?
Send rotten feds packing; businesses apply common sense. Red states -- get machismo. Wear Patton t-shirts and scatter Che-mites. Why is America being run by lunatic blue staters? Let American states and businesses send Sharia and Beezle packing.
I have not reached the point of wishing to burn a Koran. I have reached a point of despairing as to what it will take to get the Left to think and realize that Islam is not compatible with Western Civ and that Islam will not be fixed by tolerating its increasing infiltration among us. I do not believe indoctrinated Muslims can be fixed. I begin to doubt that indoctrinated Leftists can be fixed. I expect that mere reason in passing will not suffice. Somehow, thoughtful attention must be obtained. More and more, I become aware of what a losing strategy it is to wait until our kids have been so far indoctrinated in p.c. as to be beyond the point of ever being able to muster what it takes to stop tolerating the intolerable. The purpose of not tolerating the intolerable ought not be to hurt feelings of those who cannot be fixed, but to obtain the attention of Westerners whose thinking can be aroused. My sympathy for the feelings of Muslims and their loony abetters has just about petered out.
Why does Islam so often seem like the logical, religious side of the coin of fascism (false liberalism)? Don't islamists and liberal fascists both: recruit for followers from the lowest common base of degenerates; rationalize unearned self esteem for the most shiftless, ignorant, and corrupt; continuously recalibrate in order to meet each new crisis by recruiting a new round of bottom dwellers; for chieftains, promote hating, conniving narcissists and sociopaths; pretend to value the earth or umma, while actually working to behead decency and empathy; by their policies, necessarily promote an ever increasing population of replacement drones, losers, and environmental despoilers; promote entitlement to unearned equality over individual responsibility and liberty?
Bottom line: A modern Liberal or Prog (like Senator Graham) tends to be an Islamist in waiting (waiting for dhimminitude), who hasn't yet adopted a consistent religion for justifying a worldwide cult for losers. This kind of stupidity cannot be fixed. It is a 100 ton anchor, and it will always pull a society to the bottom. Once it organizes, even to the point of fanatical or civic religion, it becomes metastasized evil, and cannot intelligently be confronted except as such. Anyone who can read the relentless hate and bile in the Koran and persist in calling it a recital for a religion of peace, even as it is practiced to this day, cannot be other than a 100 percent skull and bonehead, entirely unworthy of being entrusted to higher office.
Post a Comment