Questioning Authority


The Bastille was stormed because women had no bread to feed their families. The royalty was desacralized, dethroned and sentenced to death.  Five decades later Karl Marx wrote his manifesto on the plight of the working class. Ironically Marx did not work, but lived off the money of wealthy patrons.  Even when his child was dying as a result of being underfed, he did not go out and search for work, but searched instead for more entitlements.  How did his manifesto promulgate to a major economic movement?

Socialism and internationalism: the “theory” can be summarized in the well known oft repeated affirmation by Stalin that “the death of one man is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.”  Socialism, above all else, is  a condemnation of capitalism. It’s the attempt to level the playing field for all mankind, that no one be rich or poor, that all men are equal- and not just within a community or a county,  now the goal has become to socialize the planet.  The economic theory is a massive failure at all levels, yet it perpetuates.

Why does it fail?

Socialism in its attempt to redistribute wealth essentially means that as soon as a person or an entity builds a safety net, it needs to be taken away to provide for those who have yet to create their own. In the process of taking from one to give to the other, no one ever attains the security of a safe and happy existence.  It dooms everyone to fail, not just the few. When no one is allowed a safety net,  no one will have one:  under these circumstances it becomes impossible for an economy to improve.  Competition to survive will increase because no one is surviving. Mankind will live in a state of increased and perpetual chaos; mankind will fail, humanity will fail.

Of  capitalist corporations, however, I will say this: They have purchased many a presidency in many a country.  Off the backs of the workers, they have made many a man at the top  filthy rich and with unlimited power the likes rarely seen in the years of monarchy. And when the monarchies over-reached, they were overthrown by various means of riot and war to be replaced with democracy.  It will be the same for the corporations. Not if, but when. In the eras of  kings and queens, the intermarriages between families were carefully planned to extend their reach of wealth and power; this model which proved to be so successful in building empires did the same for executives, corporations and corporate power.

At this point, how can people revolt, overthrow and dethrone that overreach of power? If we boycott their products, their profits crash and because our savings were pushed into their egg basket, we’ll crash and burn,- the executives will just cash out and move on. Must we sacrifice our-self to secure a future not harnessed under their control?

Breaking up the monopolies is one answer, but unfortunately the politicians are not willing to do this because they’re empowered by these corporation.  These corporations, including the stock markets, hold so much power they control the future of the planet; unfortunately – at least here in the United States they have shown little regard for the person and are wholly consumed with the manifestation of profit.

Corporations and their top tiers, including the stock market which serves them,  have grown so huge and so powerful they don’t see the loss of one job as a tragedy, they don’t see the loss of millions of jobs as a tragedy, all they see is statistics. The planet is going to exist in perpetuated chaos until the corporations recognize that there are people behind the numbers.  One day as the world is crashing around those on whose backs the corporations created their wealth, executives will look to the horizon and see that their Bastille is going to be stormed. They will be dethroned.  -Not because capitalism doesn’t work, it does- but because the people are starving, and they’re starving at the expense of corporate greed.  the kings and queens faced the axe because of their greed and overreach; likewise, corporations and the politicians who supported them, to prevent tragedy of a statistical proportion, need to seek a peace treaty while they have the chance.

UPDATE:

London is under the siege of riots. It isn’t the first time.  The tax riots that defeated Thatcher were led by communists, socialists and anarchists but there seems to be  no organized party or leader of these riots.  If there is a leader, they haven’t come forward yet. To organize, they use  Facebook,  the same method used in the Arab -spring protests. They’re not burning government property, but instead they’ve chosen to loot or destroy private property and businesses. This isn’t a group seeking change or trying to defeat the current crop of politicians, but a deliberate act of class warfare, against business, against property.  In Europe protests usually result in riots and destruction of property but  rarely in the United States do protests lead to violence.  Perhaps in America we have a sense of hope that the European youth lack, or disregard. We protest our politicians, not our neighbors or their property.

At Commentary Magazine, Jonathan Tobin has an article about anti-Semitism. Full article at  Contentions:

Should the federal government intervene when an American university permits its campus to become unsafe for Jews? When the prevailing atmosphere on campus is hatred against Israel and all things associated with the Jewish people?After a long and involved debate, the Obama administration finally did the right thing last October and stated definitively that such conduct is impermissible at institutions that receive federal funding. While that ruling, which was prompted by an epidemic of anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students at the University of California at Irvine, ought to have been welcomed by both academia and the organized Jewish world, it has now been challenged by the American Association of University Professors. In a newsletter on the AAUP website, Cary Nelson (the association’s president) and Kenneth Stern of the American Jewish Committee contend that recent events on American university campuses—at Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Rutgers in addition to Irvine—do not rise to the level of a “working definition” of anti-Semitism. Calls for redress by Jewish students and professors are nothing more, they conclude, than an unscrupulous effort to “censor anti-Israel remarks.”

For my experience I’ve not heard of antisemitism or antisemitic actions on any of the Fenway campuses, in fact it’s been the opposite with a great diversity and tolerance. I can say the same for Harvard and MIT. However, I made a very deliberate choice to not attend Smith College because of the intolerance.  I made my choice; rather than change the campus, the students  and the professors who propagate intolerance I elected to attend a campus where I felt at home. Yes, Smith had a program I very much wanted to study, but not enough that I was willing to sacrifice who I am and what I hope to be that I would make myself over to reflect their politics . I have to assume that those who do attend universities such as Smith where Israel can’t seem to do anything “right”  in the eyes of the professors, attend knowing the politics in advance and feel as much at home as I felt alienated. I have said many times, we seem to be unremembering everything we should have learned.  I have no answer as to why anti-Semitism  is on the rise in the US,  except it has to be taught; that it’s coming from our college campuses- therein lies the tragedy. Not to be forgotten is that in many cases this fervor against Israel is purchased, not inspired. The same for environmentalism and political campaigns.    If you’re young and looking for a good job this summer in the Boston area, Craigslist is listing many opportunities for activists at Downtown Crossing.  The positions are paid- not volunteer- and well above minimum wage.  I don’t know the source(s) of this fountain of money. But how easily the heart and mind of these “activists” are purchased is something I’ve yet to see put into a chart or analyzed by an academic institution.  No doubt we’d be shocked. Shocked! The UN is the bigger problem, if not the root.   Not only is there little interest in protecting democracy and nurturing  freedoms it has become incapable of it. Few politicians stand up to their intolerance  or dares debate the depth and breadth of the problem. Evidently the importance of  not offending world opinion, even when it supports and propagates oppression and destruction, has become more valuable than the importance of truth,tolerance,  ethics and equality.  America has a unique history as a stalwart and steady voice for democracy so we should not be surprised that leftists and socialists want that  history tarnished and the future altered, but what is surprising is the degree to which they are able to achieve it and to the peril of this once great  country.

A comment I made, that included the China Digital Times and their weekly list of stories suppressed by the Chinese Ministry of Truth, was moderated and removed  last week from a newspaper. Not once but twice.  As a result, I am banned and can no longer post. No, not from a socialist or communist newspaper, but from a very ordinary newspaper. Or so I thought.  As of this week the majority of the comments  are from paid Chinese posters about how the US has faked the death of OBL.  The other commenters follow along like mice hearing their Pied Piper.  And so the creeping of communism,  and with it all the suppression of anything of which it does not approve, has expanded from an oozing trickle to a rising tide. When the waves become a deluge it will of course be too late.

I wonder what the people  who took the  money offered by the Chinese (in exchange for their freedom) will think- will they rejoice in the suppression, will they bear guilt for falling prey, or will they be elated and join the ranks of the repressive? What of the many  who sit by and watch the debacle  unfold before their very eyes… and say nothing and do nothing… except to buy more products manufactured by the regime which serves to give the communist government even more profits which they use to spread that power. And now Iran is building a rocket launching site in Venezuela? Surely with the help of China.

You would think by now that we would know better  than to empower the forces that seek to control us. Why don’t these manufacturing concerns, such as Apple, conduct their business in countries that are democratic, countries which are friends to our belief in freedom and equality? Why do business with a country who pursues values opposite to ours?

There are thousands, tens of thousands, who knows- maybe it’s millions of people who believe that the US orchestrated the attacks of 9-11 and now we have large numbers who believe that OBL has NOT been killed, they believe that was staged as well;  plus the equally huge numbers who believe US is the Evil Empire, not China.  Hmmmm. Obviously people don’t conjure up these ideas themselves.  They have to be taught. These ideas and those who spread them they have to be supported, otherwise they’d be powerless. We lost a generation in the fight to preserve democracy and freedom only to lose the next entire generation to the voodoo of moral relativism, and now, another  generation is falling to the spell of communist propaganda. Now what?

All this Marxist Theology, Communism, Liberation Theology, Progressivism, -call it what you will, all this repressive propaganda has filled our sewers and now runs freely down our streets.

I really,  really, really do not know how this country is going to stay a democracy when so many work so hard at making “fuzzy” anything that confronts evil. I know evil when I see it, hear it, read it. Perhaps that’s why I’m willing to stand up, be counted, be heard and be banned for it. And if banned, protest it. Loudly. Legally. Morally.

Mises Daily: Monday, March 21, 2011 by Jeffrey A. Tucker

http://mises.org/daily/5130/The-Real-Meaning-of-Defense

“The horror of Muammar Gaddafi’s approach to keeping power in Libya boggles the mind and shocks the moral conscience. But how different is his approach from the way most all governments behave in the face of citizen revolt? There are differences among them with regard to how far they will go to force submission, but the methods and the rationale everywhere are the same in all times and places.

In 2006, Gaddafi told the students at Columbia University: “There is no state with a democracy except Libya on the whole planet.” Five years later, the people themselves are revealed as his ultimate enemies, and for one reason: he wants to stay whereas they want him gone. Therefore he must stop at nothing. He must kill them: “We will come house by house, room by room. … It’s over. The issue has been decided…. We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity.”

To his mind, it’s not complicated. This is how a peaceful protest against dictatorship became what is called a “civil war,” which is really just a despot’s war against freedom. People holding signs and vigils were forced into a defensive mode and are now full-time “rebels” against the regime, the entire country torn to pieces by one’s man’s stubbornness and megalomania. The state that had always promised to defend the people — that is why Gaddafi had rule with an iron hand — is now slaughtering them so that the state can live.

There is something to learn from this. The issue of who owns the guns, who or what possesses the military power, who or what is charged with “national defense,” is not some abstract problem of economic or political theory. It is not an issue to be considered in the appendix of a public finance text or debated in the hallways of think tanks.

No, the issue of defense services might in fact be the central issue that determines whether or not a society is and can remain free. Without getting rid of the “defense” power of the state, any and every state, the people will always be subject to the discretionary will of those in power, and there is nothing apart from conscience, to stop any state in the world from becoming the killing field of Libya today…”

I have never owned a gun and never will; I won’t even live in a house with a gun, but I would join ranks and defend my family and community from an act of  seizure. And if handed one, I would fire a gun if attacked. I would not die defenseless or a pacifist.  I’m not alone in that decision.  History certainly supports Tucker’s argument that a defenseless citizen has everything to lose.  If the Nazis had not taken the guns from their opponents, Kristallnacht might never have happened.  After that bloody night Jews were forbidden from owning guns, pointed weapons or even blunted weapons. If  Kristallnacht and stripping the people of their self-defense failed would there have been a Final Solution? Would there have been a World War? I answer no.

In an age of Stuxnet, drones, Growlers, Prowlers and the ability to freeze bank accounts there is absolutely no need for the US and its ‘coalition of the willing’ to be bombing anything or anyone, except to deliver food and medical supplies to those who need it.