Thursday, October 21, 2010

Movement towards fascism

Share |
It is apparent that the West is moving towards fascism. It matters little what type it takes, or whether it is some new variety. Socialists like to lump all capitalists together so they can smear them in one fowl swoop. This collectivist thinking is described in the Socialist Manifesto. The reality is that we are moving towards fascism for two reasons:
1. Business leaders are so anti-intellectual, so antagonistic towards ideas, that they regard philosophy as all nonsense. For them its all about the practicalities. This is why in the face of a tax increase, they end up split, rather than united. We saw this with the Resource Rent Tax. The government did a deal with the two majors Rio Tinto and BHP, leaving the smaller industry players in a corner licking their wounds. Andrew Forrest, CEO of Fortescue Metals, was flip flopping from one side to the other. The problem is - they were split on their narrowly defined self-interests, and they ended up selling themselves off to the lowest bidder. Why? Because they did not understand the nature of ideology. They left small and large business divided, and now they have made government look 'reasonable' middlemen. This happened in previous wars as well. Historians will say capitalists sided with the govt. The CEOs of BHP and Rio Tinto are NOT capitalists, they are 'middlemen' or politicians with very little equity in the companies they control. Forrest is a capitalist, but sadly he is not a terribly smart one, and few among capitalists are great thinkers because they are 'practical people'. i.e. Goal motivated rather than with lofty, and most often detached ideas, which is why philosophy gets a bad name.
2. Ambivalent populous moved easily by any ideas. Yep, this is the Western population which had us going to war, the population which thinks rights are 'obligations and entitlements, rather than protections from such impositions. They are a product of religious and state-funded education and academia.

So are we going to war? Well I would suggest it will not be world war but sporadic periods of civil war. The reason I say this is because Western democracy is perfectly compatible with Chinese style government. The Chinese are docile under a hard-line government, but they will be no less collectivist under a more popular leader - the current deputy leader of the Community Military Council. He is married to a folk singer.
The only threat to this trend is really the internet. So how might government deal with that? Well, we can get a clue already. In the name of child protection, websites like mine will be blocked. If I put up any protestations, I will be threatened and then assassinated in the spirit of Philippines politics. This is collectivism.. the greatest good for the greatest number.

Capitalism will be claimed. The problem is the 'famed' market participants or 'pin up boys' of capitalism are not the CEOs...they are few and far between. I am one, the taxi driver who took you to work today might be one. You will not find them in government. They are people with a respect for freedom and ideas. But more importantly, their notion of freedom is not a subjective conception. It is an idea that coheres and corresponds to the rest of their knowledge.
It will be truly interesting to see where the Cameron bros take England in the next few years. I'll read with interest. Closer to home... I will watch with dismay as Australians 'capitalists' allow the Gillard government to expropriate their wealth with the Resource Rent Tax. Unsurprisingly the parasites are circling. State governments are fighting with the federal government for a cut. They are like 7 thieves trying to split with the cash. We can only hope they kill each other in a shoot out. But in the tradition of Western style democracy, I am sure that they will realise the greater practicality of splitting the loot...just as the Liberals and Labor agree to share power.

Are you expecting any protection from the courts. Don't. The courts are interpreting an arbitrary statutory law, which they consider has higher standing than common law. That is apparently because the people support statutory law. Such is the standing of democracy that the empty symbolism seems to carry so much significance. I don't vote, but I can't remember the last time I votes on any legislation. Nor can I remember an occasion when there was a party who represented me. I can't even conceive of a world where there was any prospect of a MP agreeing with me on everything. And I know these people don't have much life experience. They can't even get a job after parliament.
Andrew Sheldon

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?