Sunday, November 25, 2012

Libertarians need identity and support

Share |
Around the world we are presented with a false dichotomy; a false choice between two parties - The Democrats and the Republicans, whilst in the process being denied 'real choice'. Consider the nature of the 'choice' you have:
1. A choice between giving your vote (aka 'power of attorney') to a Democratic vision of a slave state, or alternatively, the Republican vision of a slave state. Now, given that you did not frame the 'choice', and given that neither 'choice' entailed you determining the candidates, it was not really a 'choice'. It was just a bad joke. 
2. Systems which discount the value of certain choices. i.e. In the 1990s, Ross Perot won 17% of the popular vote in the USA presidential elections, yet his supporters were entitled to No Representation. The First Past the Post (FPP) voting system in the USA entrenches the two main parties. Ross Perot, a billionaire, could not even sustain that type of spending. It pays to have friends in the media right! Well, you might wonder why. 

The media largely determines the choices you are presented with, who simplifies the message you are presented with. Why? I would suggest that the media wants to retain a centralised division of decision-making. If politics was divided by different schools of thought, you would need different newspapers or media outlet right. More critically, you would need different content to appeal to those different schools of thought. By controlling the content, the media largely determine how you think. They are actually more important than the education system, because the media went through the same education system as you, and so its only the media and their own 'passive', bureaucratic minds which are going to challenge the system. Sorry, no, the media wants to preserve a concentrated market share, and they want a favourable government to preserve that position. They have that from the two major parties. So what if there was ever an alternative? Well, there are alternatives. The Green Movement is a grassroots movement canvassed by the media. The media has been very sympathetic to its cause. Why? Because it is a grassroots collective, so a powerful threat; they have many members, they are ideologically powerful, and thus they are dedicated to their cause. They are a market which is very appealing to media groups. One hook for one collective head.
So what about individualists like me? Well, we are marginalised by several factors. Whilst collectivist do everything in their capacity to convey a sense of belonging to the collective; individualists like myself tend to differentiate or personalise any issue, so if we are not disagreeing, and even emphasising our point of differentiation, our line of thinking is destined to find a personal context in any such conception. We are notoriously difficult to organise, because we are self-assertive, critical, and running our own agenda. Not the mettle of a person who will proscribe to a single newspaper. We are more likely to critique it for its imperfections. We are often anti-institution. We project a pride in our own mental efficacy. You can therefore understand why a media group is likely to marginalise any such individualist. They are divisive. So when Ross Perot was able to get 17% of the popular election, he was able to win a lot of popular support from business, people who support entrepreneurism. Not the media; and most particularly any journalist who is going to fight to change the system to give the Libertarians the political identity they deserve. 
In terms of political identity however, libertarians are their own worst enemy. Consider New Zealand, where there are 3 libertarian groups - there is the campus based Libertarianz (mostly university students), and then there is the Christian dominated ACT Party (with one seat) and the Christian-led Conservative Party. That's right, you have two parties and another splitting their political identity, and thus their capacity to gain profile and extortion-power in our political system. The problem of course is that:
1. It is silly to have 2 Christian parties when there is no separate representation for atheist libertarians
2. It is silly for libertarians to sanction a political system that demands that they spurn their personal identity or political sovereignty to a collective identity which alienates their minds. It is most particularly senseless for atheist libertarians to surrender their personal identity to Christians who are as mindless as their political counterparts. They should instead forge their own political identity, and renounce the system which is destined to marginalise them. 

Here is a video which captures a 5-minute speech by former Supreme Court judge and media commentator Judge Napolitano. He lost his job from his Fox Cable TV show for this speech; in which he is critical of the media groups, and their coverage of Ron Paul in the last election. Hopefully, his Supreme Court buddies respond to his case. He was sacked for supporting Ron Paul; and criticising the mainstream media for not giving him air time. In case you are questioning the partisan support of the media groups, let's switch to New Zealand again. In NZ, the ACT Party holds the balance of power with the National Party. There parliament has just ended an inquiry into the curtailment of the MMP electoral system which favoured minor parties, i.e. The ACT Party. But more critically, the media showed a great deal of bias in this election on a number of occasions:
1. It was contemptuous and disrespectful of the former ACT Party leader - hounding him over non-issues, in order to take a political scalp.
2. It blew up the leader John Banks over a 'Tea gate' scandal which was not misconduct; scathing of him for doing what other MPs do all the time.
3. It dropped a case of Green supporters defacing electoral posters for the National Party.
There seems to be a complete over-statement of the ACT issues; but a dismissal of the issues of vandalism by supporters of the Green Party. Why is this important? Well, the Sea Shepherd incident, a litany of vandalism, break & enter cases by the Greens Movement are a reflection upon their lack of respect for human rights and due process. This perspective is of course sanctioned by the liberal media. 

You might wonder why. The reason is most poignantly conveyed in this series of interviews by a libertarian at a Democratic Party convention. He interviews democrats on the question of choice. Expect no better from Republicans. If libertarianism is going to advance, a number of things need to happen:
1. Atheist libertarians/individualists who possess a sense of mental efficacy or critical thinking skills need to distance themselves from Christian libertarians. The reason is that they are engendering moral ambivalence in their thinking. Christianity is incompatible with individualism or freedom. Causeless values are a contradiction in terms. Society is shifting towards collectivism by default. As long as true individualists don't have a legitimate political identity and 'organise' they will continue to be undermined. 
2. Libertarians need to highlight the ploy of the media and governments to marginalise them in order to preserve the two party system, or more importantly two-party coalitions. The left-right dichotomy is a false dichotomy. The media wants collective vs collective. It wants individualists out of the equation. 

If you short rights for minorities - support the rights of the smallest minority - the individual. There is no notion of personal sovereignty when the mind is subordinated to the collective, however that is a topic for another blog article.

Thursday, August 09, 2012

Divide and destroy?

Share |
Ever wondered how the world in future will be divided? The old paradigm was 'divide and conqueror'. The new paradigm is 'divide and destroy'. The fact is that life has gotten complicated. We were blissfully ignorant centuries ago; and now we think we are start. In this game its not a question of smart or dumb, its moral relativism. But here is the thing, aside from the absoluteness of truth, there is actually a context in which events occur. This is not a paradox, its a perspective. Conscious interprets a real world; but it does so from a particular context. This is true of facts and values. 
So the adage of 'divide and conqueror' is a little tired when the absolute state has already essentially won the game. There is just a few rogue states to rein in, but otherwise statehood is well-entrenched. The Wild West these days is one of the few places where you can actually have the freedom you might like, aside from Pakistan and those other rogue states. 
So its interesting that Julian Assange and others are controlling this space. Interesting however is that a group, claiming to be opposed to Wikileaks, has actually sought to 'destroy' his website. These people claim to be defending our state...defending justice. This organisation claims to be independent, but I would argue that this is an organisation set up and sponsored by the US government in order to attack Wikileaks. Why? Well, its a rationalisation for war isn't it. 
Justice is whatever the US wants it to be? They don't want to wait for a trial. They claim to be defenders of justice. But if that was the case, where is the moral principle directing their actions. There is none. This is a testament to the emptiness of the US Constitution. Yes, a framework of concrete law that makes no provisions for a moral context, unless they are talking about a vacuous, context-dropping, dogmatic religious 10 Commandments. This might well be the philosophical basis upon which the Anti-Leaks - the self-proclaimed defenders of justice was formed. I thought the US Constitution enacted a police and military force to defend ourselves from vigilantes. Well, this one seeks moral rectitude, not in legal means, but the anonymity of the internet. 
The practices of the government do not bother them because they are paid stooges of the US government seeking to avoid accountability. They are the terrorists. Does not the US government hunt down organisations that break into its 'secure' sites? Well, that is what Anti-Leaks claims to have done. They are not anarchists - they are politically-aligned bureaucratic despots.
There is no question in my mind that Julian Assange does not represent the best values in the world. There is no question that he is not a moral agent open to accountability. But by that standard of value, neither is the US government. It is even worse. In this context, I would far prefer to see the existence of WikiLeaks, than I would prefer to see their destruction. So I celebrate the disclosure of public information which would never see the light of day under Freedom of Information requests. Where is the evidence that any information released by WikiLeaks has done any damage to the US? 
In this context, I would prefer to see the retention of Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia and Syria, rather than see these states subordinate themselves to US values. To be sure these states do not represent the best of values, but for the mere sake of competition, I would prefer to preserve their existence - at least as some form of opposition to US complicity or moral relativism. For I know without any standard of comparison, we will surely face tyranny from the United States. Representative democracy, as we have discussed elsewhere, is a form of tyranny. It is the subjugation of freedom-loving people to the collective. You will derive no objective notion of rights from it. See Wikileaks here.
Andrew Sheldon: "AntiLeaks are either severely misguided people, or they are working for the US govt. Since when was US govt justice objective? Since when was justice the providence of internet vigilante groups? I thought hacking into web servers was a crime? Well, the US govt thought so, until they needed to stop some embarrassing press releases".

Thursday, July 26, 2012

America - the great and free-ain't

Share |
Here is a well-articulated speech about the legacy of US greatness. The problem is that it wreaks of moral relativism. All those other countries are not too much greater than the USA now; as much as we might condemn the USA for collapsing.

Kim Dotcom - making a case for political reform

Share |
Judging by Kim Dotcom's creation of the Mr President website, Kim Dotcom is attempting to gain some popular support with a campaign to attack the US for attempting to control internet content. His argument is that knowledge should be free; if the video is to be believed. The implication is that he opposes intellectual property. The problem with this position is that he needs to defend it; and it also implies that his intent was always to break the spirit of the law, and that his position is not an accidental 'legalistic' position. i.e. The law says this, so I did this. His position is apparently, I don't believe in intellectual property, so screw the law. That much I got from the website lyrics and footage. Ultimately it will be a court determination. But to me, he seems to be contradicting his 'legalistic' position with a moral condemnation of IP. 

Refer also to this story in the NZ Herald.

The right to bear arms - an American legacy

Share |
Over the years I have posted a number of articles on gun ownership - probably the best one was in June 2008. Hard to believe I wrote it in a single sitting in about 15 minutes. I am neither a liberal, nor a Conservative, and I dare say I do not fit conveniently into most people's political categorisations. My views most closely reflect an intellectual libertarian perspective. I tend to view most libertarians as anti-intellectual or economic rationalists lacking philosophical roots.

I will not redress what I wrote in that article; but will indeed update the article with an addendum which addresses the issues peculiar to this latest incident with James Holmes. I want to address some of the issues I saw on CNN with Michael Moore, who actually displayed sounder thinking than usual. Mention was made of an article by Max Fisher in The Atlantic, so I want to repudiate some of its arguments since I lived in Japan, and being from Australia, I want to make mention of that country as well.

It is indeed interesting (or paradoxical) that the US's framing of the Japanese Constitution in the wake of WWII was so different from that for the United States. In effect, both constitutions strike one as a 'reaction' to contemporary times, and not as a preamble to a coherent philosophical framework, as you might expect from a Constitution. More concerning than the pretext in which they were prepared is the nature of their content. Each constitution would strike one as 'very concrete'. The problem with concrete laws is that they derive from some flow of ideas; a line of argument, but in the case of a constitution, a Supreme Court judge is supposed to add an interpretation of the Founders ideas, as opposed to applying fundamental principles of  philosophy to practical circumstances. In this sense, constitutional law is highly twisted, and grossly in error. This is not how you frame a constitution, and the fact that the USA and Japanese constitutions are so divergent in their underlying values is a testament to that anti-intellectual rationalisation or contradiction. 

Fisher highlights the Japanese obsession with novelties such as 'guns', but Japan is just as crazed about a great many things. When Japan was hosting the World Cup soccer they were enthralled by 'soccer fever'; now I dare say they have forgotten how to get to the stadium. They have very fickle tastes which is the culmination of very superficial, materialistic values. So why would they display the American penchant for guns? Well, they will never grasp intellectually the significance of guns to Americans, and nor will many Americans I dare say. They mean different things to different people, and to differing degrees, but let's consider the main reasons:
1. Personal empowerment: A gun is a source of empowerment. Its a lot more concrete and tangible than an idea, or a political system which is supposed to protect, but which most Americans realise is inclined to violate you, and breach your deepest values. These are intellectual arguments. The problem is that many Americans don't have the intellectual skills to articulate those arguments, and to be sure they don't exactly convey the most coherent understanding, so a gun speaks louder than words. But there is no ambiguity about the power wielded by a gun. It would be nice to think that the American Rifle Association and affiliated organisations could actually articulate that argument on behalf of Americans, but I guess there are too many interest groups happy to keep Americans scared and anti-intellectual, rather than thinking about the deeper values which should underpin their Constitution and specifically gun ownership.
2. Self-defence: The US constitution means to Americans something important; the problem is that Americans don't get the deeper values inherent in their politics; and that is why their dogmatic deferment to the essentially arbitrary, context-dropping provisions of the Constitution are a source of moral confusion, rather than a source of guidance. Personally, without even thinking, I would not be given credence to a constitution which pre-dates the founder of psychology, Sigmund Freud; today mostly discredited. So, in this intellectual vacuum, Americans seize upon the Constitution as a source of wisdom, taking 'bite size' chunks they can understand, and drop all context or justification for that assertion, which served as a justification for a very specific problem hundreds of years ago. I would argue that there is probably a tendency to personalise that state-independence rationalisation as an arbitrary personal 'right to bear arms'. The problem is not our notion of rights; but ultimately how they are defined. Objective principle vs reactionary fears.
3. Allegiance: The ownership is a concrete issue upon which patriotic Americans can agree. If they reflected on the ideas underpinning their political allegiances, they would find a great deal of moral apprehension and confusion. There is no debate about concrete issues like guns. A gun speaks loudly for the unthinking. The faster the rounds, the higher the gauge, the louder a gun speaks....and they all pretty well have the same implications. It conveys what it means to the other gun owners 'Don't mess with me'. 

Fisher's article highlights in fact that Japanese people can be equally fascinated by guns; if only they were not oppressed, as they are in Japan. This is what some liberals would have us do. Outlaw everything which they find distasteful. This is the flipside of anti-intellectual American politics. We are really between a rock and a hard place, because we are given the anti-intellectualism of the Conservatives vs the anti-intellectualism of the liberals....and yes, America, like other Western democracies has been getting the same 'reactionary' thinking since the formation of the US Constitution. You will get the same on gun control at some point; just not prior to an election, and it will come from Democrats. 
No; Americans should not look to oppressed or repressed Japanese people for political guidance. They are deeply unhappy with their lot in life. I've had to perk up a few depressed Japanese people over the years. Its a very sick society. I might add that American could have learned something from the Japanese financial crisis, and recognise that Japan has an atrocious suicide rate. They don't shoot themselves; they jump in front of trains until they started fining their families. Now they just repress their happiness or live abroad. Or die shamelessly in their community. So the fact that Japan is a more peaceful place is telling. 

Kopel-Griffiths in this article suggests that gun control allowed Robert Mugabe and Adolf Hitler to perpetrate their heinous acts against their people. Well, that is true, but if one's country is destined to reach that point, is it not better to immigrate than buy a gun? As so many Germans did. I might add that both of these leaders came to power in democracies - Mugabe's party with a 71% majority, Hitler with just 38%, which from memory he raised to 43%. Irrespective, it is the dumbing down effective of democracy which leads to dictatorship - the practicality of guns is well-understood, but only pertinent after the population have spurned the application of their minds. If you think you are in a free country today, that is the rhetoric you have accepted. Read my other articles on democracy. 

In conclusion, the US needs to drop the US constitution, develop a new political system to replace its dysfunctional system in favour of a meritocracy with reason as the standard of value. How do you convince Americans to do that? You don't. You convince New Zealanders to do it. There are only 4mil idiots in that country, and after they have realised the benefits of a sound framework for political discourse, then the world notes the practical consequences of rationality, and they follow suit. Only then will you see anti-intellectual Americans embrace change. An idea is just way to nebulous for most voters at this time.

More specifically; there is really nothing the American government can do to prevent the use or misuse of guns. It would however be sensible to outlaw automatic and semi-automatic weapons. There really is no reason for people to hold such weapons. That ship has sailed as well I suspect, given that everyone probably has one buried under the house in case of war. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The fundamental problem is not a gun crisis; its an intellectual crisis. The fact that everyone focuses on 'guns' and not intellectual ideas is a testament to that. Deal with political reform, and you will help a great many Americans feel a little less disempowered or angry with their political system. Deal with the education system and you will also stop a great many personal killings as well. Yes, massacres are not personal; they are political. People loath the system. Change it! Protest about political reform - not inanimate guns. 

Thursday, July 12, 2012

The responsibility of judges - they don't understand

Share |

District Court Judge David Harvey: “New Zealanders need to involve themselves in a forthcoming review of copyright law or they will "suffer what the conglomerates and corporates" hand to them”. (1)
I have a huge problem with a judge telling me that my way of protecting myself from unfair laws is to participate in a process in which reason is not the standard of value; whether at the point of enacting legislation (because people are not participating in the process) or at the point of judicial consideration (because the judge seems impervious to the deeper philosophy of law). 
“Judge David Harvey said copyright concerned everybody and urged people to become interested”.  (2)
I wonder if it occurred to this judge that people are ‘not interested’ in the law, least of all copyright violation (when it’s so easy to transgress) because the political process does not reward participants. For anyone who has gone to the trouble of writing a submission, talking to a parliamentarian, etc, you are engaging in a process which offers no validation, no constructive engagement, no assurance that anyone has even bothered to read your submission, and no opportunity to challenge the law – except if you break it. Even then, you have little reason to have confidence in your legal counsels understanding of the law. Why? Because reason is not the standard. This is because judges have dispensed with the ‘spirit of the law’, which was supposed to protect people. Now it protects Conservative or liberal interests, and that ultimately depends on who controls the judiciary ‘majority’ and when. i.e. It’s another extortion racket our legislature. 
"We have to be interested in this, because if we aren't then we'll be told what will happen by the big, vested interests”.  (3)
This is an interesting statement because it conveys a liberal-Conservative dichotomy; that corporations are able to use the law to injury you; that the judiciary has no interest in protecting you (i.e. in accordance with some objective standard of law), and that you should fantasifully participate in a process which offers scant justification for thinking you will be protected, because at the end of the day, the politicians vetting your submissions will have the discretion (with their unlimited ‘power of attorney’ you have given them by voting) to decide your fate. I am personally more worried about the arbitrary powers that the legislature has – the arbitrary power to coerce, rather than the discretionary power any corporation has to impose its will upon me; yet this judge seems to be oblivious to his role as a ‘protector of the people’. He utterly conveys no respect for the facts of reality, or objectivity.
1.  “Judge tells Kiwis to speak up on copyright” by Hamish Fletcher, NZ Herald, website, Jul 12, 2012.
2.  “Judge tells Kiwis to speak up on copyright” by Hamish Fletcher, NZ Herald, website, Jul 12, 2012.
3.  “Judge tells Kiwis to speak up on copyright” by Hamish Fletcher, NZ Herald, website, Jul 12, 2012.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Jessica Sanchez should snub democracy - she moved the earth's axis

Share |
Its official - Philip Philips has won American Idol 2012, ousting Jessica Sanchez. This is tacky TV at its worst; highlighting the general stupidity and lack of objectivity of Americans; and also highlighting the incapacity of majoritive-based democracy to achieve objectivity. We already knew that right. Whether the problem was Philips mindless supporters or Sanchez's supporters belief that they did not need her vote, surely the biggest loser should be democracy....for it has affirmed its capacity to deliver injustice. Let us recall that Jessica had to be resurrected in order to place her in the top 5. Nothing to do with her performances; it was solely the result of American stupidity. 
If Philips had any respect for objectivity he would spurn the award and hand Sanchez the award - not as an act of altruism, but out of a sense of objectivity. i.e. Because he does not want to be elevated on the shoulders of idiots who might buy his albums. But alas, maybe this competition was not about talent; but more about 'who can sell albums to idiots'. Or maybe the show is about how to become an idiot. Who can tolerant idiocy. Well, I love all these talent shows - X Factor Australia particularly, as well as the Idol series. I love them for the talent developed and expressed. The 'democracy' I can do without...and the stupid voting system which denies talented people validation to appease stupid non-discerning idiots. 
The only defence I can make for Philips is that he does convey a style; but Sanchez trumps him in every respect. Teaming up with Jennifer Holliday only highlighted her maturity as a performer. I conclude that Jessica Sanchez shifted the earth's axis when she sings; Philips merely contributed to global warming. 

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Review of the Zeitgeist: Moving Forward Documentary

Share |
Several years ago there was a movie-length documentary on the internet which went viral. I sung its praises at the time because it offered a lot of compelling and factual evidence to support its arguments. This latest sequel 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward' strikes me as a bit of brand name expropriation because it conveys a subtle undercurrent of hatred of capitalism. This was not evident in the first documentary. It may be by the same people; which is all the sadder. The first documentary highlighted the development and institution of religion, money and the Federal Reserve. It was largely correct in its research and findings.
This latest movie is not 'moving forward' at all; its going full circle, back to collectivism. The contributors to this movie make it abundantly clear that:
1. We are radicals, but not all radicals are bad, evil collectivists
2. They are scientists and so their conclusions deserve respect

There are a great many problems with this documentary. In fact, its akin to Michael Moore efforts in its shortcomings. It would be a lengthy review to highlight all of its misconceptions, but let me raise the biggest blunders:
1. The contemporary 'mixed economy' is not capitalism; it combines the market system with socialism. If we understand capitalism we recognise that its a optimistic system that entails people trading value for value for 'mutual' self-interest. This is not compatible with socialism which entails the sacrifice of personal values for the sake of the 'common good'. I would argue that it is the 'altruism' in socialism which is incompatible with capitalism, and which is the corrupting influence of capitalism on so many levels.
2. They depict capitalism as some ruthless system and yet it was the collectivists like Stalin, Marx and Hitler (aka 'You are nothing, your nation is everything') whom they wish to distance themselves from, who caused so much suffering. There is no question that there is suffering and depravation in contemporary society; its origin was the legacy of suffering. The liberalisation of the 17th-18th century exposed the flaws in the collectivist system, just as the low-wage labour liberalisation or 'surplus' of the modern era is exposing the shortcomings in Chinese, Indian, Argentinian and Brazilian collectivism, as these economies discard thei last vestiges of socialism/collectivism....or so we hope. The reality is that this is not going to occur until people recognise the philosophical nature of capitalism. You cannot believe in capitalism (i.e. ethic of self-interest) and be a  collectivist or mystic; as these conceptions entail a repudiation of the self or ego. This raises a great many contradictions in people's minds because they think the hedonist is 'self-interested'. But getting an education is self-interested. Its a question of context. In a 'dog-eat-dog' system of shortages people resort to ruthless measures. In a wealth-creation system like capitalism, you witness 'mutual gain'. The problem is not capitalism; the problem is collectivists who fail to recognise their better nature as humans, and who are enabled by hypocritical feel-good liberals and indulgent parents who undermine the personal values of their 'beneficiaries'.
3. The documentary draws on scientists who posit a false dichotomy between genetic determinism vs free will; only to draw another false dichotomy between environment and free will. The implication of their proposition is that we are passive by-products of our environment. What they fail to realise is that we are neither, and that we have a personal context, where our minds are engaged if mental engagement is rewarded.
4. Convenient truth - They correctly attribute the development of oil to a great to deal of prosperity; but what they fail to see is that capitalism made it possible. Cars were a 'luxury' until capitalism mass produced them. In fact if you look back before the Industrial Revolution, even coffee and sugar were luxuries. How we have prospered thanks to capitalism. These 'scientists' posit that we face crisis because we are running out of oil....that capitalism is lagging in the development of solar cells. In fact, they would have us roll out non-commercial technology whilst there is actually plenty of oil still to be discovered. Consider that Indian, Australian, Argentinean, Africa, Asian offshore basins have yet to be explored to any significant degree. They are still finding oil in Mexico, and yet they have been drilling there for nearly a century. Already, the 'wealthy' people among us are lowering the cost of solar, just as wealthy people are underwriting the development of plasma TVs, coffee and other products which were previously luxuries. The cost of solar panels are falling as we speak. They will be commercially prudent within a decade. We already have enough nuclear fuel to power the world for 7000 years; and you can imagine that we have scarcely looked for it because there is so much of it. Australia has 1/3 of the world's resources, and yet it has a moratorium of mining it, i.e. the 3-mines policy. This is contemporary socialist policy. Three mines is just right. In the last 50 years of these mines operating, there has been no deleterious effects. At the concentration and generation stage, there has been problems like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima; however I would argue that these were 'government' regulatory issues, not private operation per se.
5. Addicted - The scientists talk about 'addiction' and surmise that we are addicted to oil. It goes without saying that people have taken oil for granted. That is understandable since they have only lived in a period of time in which oil was cheap. But energy is just getting cheaper in real terms, and it is scientific research which is driving prices lower. Solar power will essentially be free in future. 
6. Technological development is not due to capitalism - These scientists would have you believe that technology is not rewarded with money; that the inventor Tesla was not motivated by money. Typical of a socialist to only see the 'money' and not understand the egoism inherent in creativity; as well as the egoism. Do you think a socialist would have the mental efficacy to advance an invention despite persecution by the mindless collectivist? No. Just look how the collectivist in wartime Japan, Russia and the Middle East fell into compliance. Their mindless passivity is their issue, not their 'love of money'. A socialist of course does not even consider the origins of money; there soul concern is 'expropriating MONEY'. Marx and Keynes provided a rationalisation to sanction expropriation; they provided it, and the opportunistic politicians took it. The current high oil prices are preparing the world for a non-oil future. They are doing that by helping the development of other biofuels, solar, nuclear, wind, and even less energy-intensive applications, i.e. The miniaturisation of computers which draw less power.
7. Recycling is purported a failure of the current 'capitalist' system. This is a totally hypocritical argument because it is actually the socialist 'rules' which preclude capitalists from designing more efficient cities. How can you argue for more efficient cities and for recycling at the same time. The old is currently used because its making best use of old resources. I might add that placing waste in a landfill is recycling. It remains dormant in the ground until the technology is developed to extract it commercially. There will come a time when harvesting human waste will prove more viable than exploring for virgin metals and energy supplies.
8. The documentary makes the case that 'capitalism' fails society on the basis of a number of empirical measures. They subtly argue that capitalist competition causes stress and thus we need a community which gives greater care to people. This is the classic socialist flaw. Firstly, apprehension or anxiety is due to mental or physical disempowerment, i.e. An inability to cope with the world. It is the capitalist who etches out a place in the world; it is the collectivist who expects the world to take care of them. Why? Because they were made vulnerable very young, and then they experienced Christians and socialists promising them a world of plenty and unconditional love. The capitalist message is that you can have these things, but you have to earn them. The socialist gives them the rationalisation to expropriate these benefits because they are intrinsically good. Unfortunately, it is the socialist system which creates the 'expropriation' that makes the capitalist less intellectual, and less empathetic. When people want to steal your money, you are less inclined to empathise with their plight. When you believe others have a moral responsibility to care for you, you are less inclined to empathise with them. You will never hear a socialist give a though to the anxiety of a capitalist. They make no distinction between money earned and stolen. Why? Because they steal it. Is this the morality of a caring person? It is the socialism in our economy which undermines the prospects for empathy in our society. These socialists argue that social relations depend on empathy and reciprocity; but this is the foundation of capitalism; not socialist. Collectivism compels you to give; you have no discretion. Do you imagine these 'social planners' are going to give you the discretion to opt out of their system. You will be extorted; as they campaign for higher taxes. 
9. It is interesting that these scientists hark back to the days of 'hunter & gatherer', to a time when forest animals posed a threat to human existence. Their point is that these were times of non-violence. This is nonsense. They had no violence because they had no scarcity; and they also had no egoism. This is not a good thing; as its the values that have surely kept them there. There are people still living on these terms, and they rely on the modern world to deal with their issues, whether its climate change, disease, drought, etc. You can argue that 'civilised man caused these problems', and that is true to some extent, but that is not necessarily the case. The world will survive without us. Before humans 95% of all living species were wiped out before the mammals developed. It is advanced capitalists who offer the prospect of averting similar crises; and these collectivists are worried about the 'spotted owl' or the 5% of socialists who don't understand the proper values for humanity. There is a crisis of human values keeping people poor; both in the third world (systematically) and in the Western world (i.e. welfarism of liberals). The shared legacy is the collectivism of religion, socialism and now secular irrationalism. But note how this irrationalism posits as science.
10. Modern rationalism - In the 1960s people campaigned for civil rights and animal rights, etc and their appeal was emotive and demonstrative. We want action. They offered no argument. Their approach was intimidation and obstruction. They were an embarrassment for government. These people became ubiquitous; and people wanted justification. In opposition to science and evidence, these thugs lost credibility. All life is evolving....and so does the collectivist. The modern day collectivist repudiates socialism as a label. This is the name of the game. They disparage people with labels, while inventing their own. They have no notion of the meaning of these labels. They are objects of smear, designed to disparage. Now, watch how the collectivist uses your ambivalence of scientific evidence to say that you know nothing, when all they know is the label; and not the argument which gives it meaning. Climate change is a complex issue. It draws on a great deal of empirical research. Observe how these 'scientists' will repudiate analytical thinking; even though valid empirical science needs to rest upon assumptions. i.e. replicable results, validity of sampling method as well as sample inclusion. They use statistics as if they were causal arguments; in the process failing to consider the context, which would of course repudiate their argument. This is another false dichotomy; empiricism vs rationalism; when in fact science requires both empirical and analytical perspectives.
11. Human nature - This documentary suggests that humans are cooperative rather than competitive by nature. i.e. We are communal rather than antagonistic. The fact is that we are both, and that 'nature' rests on the nature of our knowledge - synergistic and differentiated positions. Reconciling these positions is what advances human understanding. Little surprise that periods of collectivist correlate with Dark Ages and cultural revolutions. Socialism or collectivism does not tolerate 'difference', which is why the Arabs are still living in the Dark Ages, i.e. pre-civilisation, profiting from oil developed by the West. 
12. Money according to this documentary is dehumanising. Money has destroyed human empathy apparently. This is nonsense. Money freed people from poverty, so they today have far greater capacity for empathy. In ancient societies; and whilst communities might have been harmonious in their immediate 'huddle'; that did not preclude them from escaping the folly of their vulnerability to drought and floods by raiding neighbouring communities. This was ancient Europe, China, and even the hunter & gatherer communities. The life expectancy was low despite their 'natural abundance'. Again, this is not to totally embrace the modern form of society; it is not a pure form of capitalism. i.e. I personally think land is not a legitimate form of property rights because its not an improvement. I thus see it as a form of expropriation and tyranny. Look how British property rights entailed alienating the Maori and aborigine. They people had no notion of property; but I don't believe the Western conception was fully legitimate either.
13. It argues that the modern economy does not measure social well-being; and gives greater regard to economic measures. This is nonsense. The people with money focus on money measures; and the people who are focused on the poor look at those measures. The problem is that the values of the modern liberal are antithetical to the intellectual and physical well-being of the poor. Why? Because teaching people to be parasites living off the rich is not a value proposition. It is the values of the indulgent parent who gives their children anything that pleases them, failing to recognise the culture of entitlement that it engenders.
14. Waste - Listening to this movie, you could be forgiven for thinking that waste is bad. Waste is not actually or necessarily bad; its a material that can be used. If it was valued in a capitalist economy, then it would be used; if its not viable, the implication is that its costly, and thus an imposition to use it. These socialists suggest that they can design a city to avoid these 'waste streams' or to use them; but capitalism can do that too if any corporation had the moral sanction of force of government. The problem is - what else can this moral sanction for coercion be used for. This is of course the danger of these people. These liberals will be swept aside as 'well-intentioned' Maynard Keynes was; thanks to whom we ended up with a welfare state. He said after the fact that he only intended the welfare state as a temporary measure. I guess the government had only a selective need for him. They needed a scientific justification for slavery, and like the scientists in this documentary, Keynes provided the rationalisation. So did Marx. 
15. Built in obsolescence is indeed an attribute of the capitalist system. This is because capitalism is a growth system; whereas socialism or collectivism is a stagnant system. You cannot grow when people have no respect for your rights. You can't grow when people are undercutting your basic means of survival. That is after all why the hunter & gatherers lived in groups. Privacy or personal autonomy is a modern conception, and insofar as we live in a 'mixed economy' we have failed to actually fully comprehend the opportunity. We are denied it by the anti-intellectual statist; as well as the ambivalent 'practical' businessman focused on material prosperity; who spurns all ideas in the process; including good ideas. He spurns all ideas; all that which disempowers or raises apprehension. Ask yourself why many business people spurn parenting responsibilities; its because it raises moral dilemmas which are a source of moral ambivalence. Socialists are not winning the debate; businessmen are handing it to them on a plate. If businessmen engaged their minds; socialism would disappear within 10-20 years. 
16. Materialism - This brings us to another argument from this documentary....that capitalism actually rewards vice. They argue that it allows doctors to profit from fixing people rather than curing them. My favourite example is Pro-Active, the zit cream which claims in their advert to overcome low self-esteem...and yet it displays a litany of famous people, as if to imply that self-esteem or success is about looking good. This is such poor science that it borders on child abuse. There is a counter-argument to make. They might argue that its not their argument to make, that they are not psychologists. I would argue that its the role of courts to settle such issues....not for social planners. Any perceived injustice in our contemporary society arises because justice is in the hands of government, not corporations. The government has become the collectivists instrument of systematic abuse. Stalin, Marx and Hitler used government to achieve their power; the sanction of government to 'coerce', and yet these people advance a different 'scientific' rhetoric for more of the same. Is that 'moving forward' or repeating the past? 
17. Brands - The documentary makes the point that people are presented with the false economy which allows people to pay $1000 for a handbag which cost $10 to produce in China. The implied injustice is lost on the fact that pretentious people are not capitalists; they are the children of rich liberals, or the wealthy who have actually earned their wealth. Brands are a symbol; collectivists use symbols as a substitute for reality. The modern representative democracy system subverts facts (i.e. rational debate) with influence (i.e. collectivist majoritivism - using the sanction of the uneducated masses to expropriate wealth from the rich). The lobbyist rather than the lone rational counterpart is the basis of money discourse. The middlemen representing 'money' and 'collectivist (brute mob rule). This is a false dichotomy; we need rational life-affirming political discourse. This is not the argument rendered in this documentary. They do not repudiate the irrationality of the current system. They make no epistemological argument at all. They are materialists wanting your money. Entitled academics; parasites who live off university grants, or custodians of wealth they did not earn. 
18. Debt splurge - They lambust the debt bubble. The problem of the modern and historical debt crises was not debt per se; but the government as a custodian of the 'common good'. When the government has arbitrary power to manipulate interest rates or print money, then you have an instrument for the systematic abuse of those who are forced to acquiesce; which is the taxpayer. There is private debt excesses as well, but witness how that is precipitated by governmemts offering incredibly low interest rates, even first home grants to encourage (premature) home ownership, and zoning restrictions which keep property prices arbitrarily high. This is not capitalism; its statist, collectivist extortion and it requires the sanctioning of force by government, i.e. the initiation of force. 
19. Correlation - I raised above the tendency for 'collectivist' scientists to misuse science insofar as this misappropriation of the scientific method. In no sense do they sink to their anti-intellectual lowest than with statistical databases, such as can be found at Equality Trust. This empirical evidence offers a range of social well-being indices correlating income disparity with 'good news' factors. The problem with this analysis is that is raises a blatant false dichotomy. They are comparing - not capitalism with social redistribution, but some redistribution with more redistribution, and concluding that more is best. Unsurprisingly it does not draw data from the Middle East or other highly collectivist countries; and for good reason it does not draw data from a libertarian economy. Why? Well, its too practical to allow people to have freedom, so we enslave people for others. I would argue that there would be near 'zero' social disharmony in a capitalist country, but no tyrant will grant me or others the freedom to prove otherwise. You'd think there would be room for a society to test that theory....but no, libertarians are destined to be marginalised. The most equal societies in the world are those which are collectivist because they have no egoism at all, i.e. Iraq, Iran, Egypt. Well, no material expression of egoism because its difficult to spurn your own mind. Mixed economies have a bad track record because the issue is not self-interest; the issue is what collectivist values do to how people interpret self interest. In a society that sanctions self interest, in which values are considered subjective, mindless people will do as they please; whether within the law, or in defiance of it, if they think they can get away with in. These empirical studies therefore are subject to misinterpretation because their researchers simply don't understand psychology. 

The documentary is not entirely invalid or useless. It makes several pertinent points - if not original:
1. It argues that humans have been stressed by prenatal stage, though it might be construed as attributing this to capitalism. Poor mothers are driven to drugs and alcohol by capitalist marginalisation. I would argue that the moral ambivalence of our contemporary system is the blame. 
2. It argues that our modern statist economy pursues 'economic activity'. This is true enough; however this measure of economic well-being was forged by government, not the private sector. The private sector, whilst not terribly intellectual, are focused on their compartmentalised goals. I would argue that coercion as practiced by the government and advanced by modern-day liberals actually makes business people more collectivist, i.e. more materialist and compartmentalised. Look how people who disempowered seek tangible, isolated outlets which entail personal autonomy. The businessman is repressing the outside coercion by focusing on business, material well-being, because this is the only field of endeavour that gives them any pleasure. I will argue that unless the business reclaims their mental efficacy and right to live, they will be occupying an even smaller space than the Jews.
3. This documentary does not make a case for the legitimate injustices in the contemporary system. I am not a fan of private 'land' property because I think its a framework for extortion. You could argue the same about all wealth; but wealth is not a basis for extortion in a free market; land is. This is particularly the case with government-sanctioned zoning regimes. A person might argue that you don't need to preclude land ownership; but I would argue that the right to 'improvement' is critical, not the land or subsoil itself. For the same reason, I'd not recognise a farmers right to mineral wealth until his soil. He did not find it; but he ought to be compensated. I'm not an advocate of expropriating land; just not a supporter of people profiting from land speculation; but rather speculation related to the productive value of the land; which they actually created. i.e. Any farm value which rests on rises in commodity prices is reasonable. 

The contributors to this documentary posit as 'non-socialists' and yet they are highly ambivalent about the mechanism for 'redistribution' and their social planning. The problem is of course it is socialism. But don't expect people to learn from history. People, if they are desperate enough, will not stop to ask why they are destitute, they will simply accept anyone who offers a moral sanction for the looting of wealth. 

Sunday, April 08, 2012

Is the US looking at a war with Islam?

Share |
Here is another good post which conveys the problem with American values. It conveys how the anti-intellectualism in America, and even more so in the Arab world, is driving us towards another war. I of course expect America to be more intellectual than the pre-Industrial Arab world, but then I'm accustomed to not getting what I want.

Tom Treadtoe, from the Florida Security Council argues that there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom think that Muslims did not cause the terrorist attacks. I don't think you can take such assertions at case value because we must remember that these people live in the totalitarian Arab would. But let's concede that there are a great many Arabs who will believe their own conspiracy theory, who will be Arab nationalists, and who will accept any opportunity to spurn the West, and America in particular.
In the West, if you ask people if they know who President Obama is, 30% will say they don't, and they are probably joking. Many say 'terrorism is justified to advance Islam'. Is that not the same as saying that the West believes in fighting for values.
This is not scary - at least not in the way he presents it. People should put values ahead of 'country' loyalty; irrespective religious or national loyalty is a source of collectivism. This is why we will drift towards war. We are presented with this false dichotomy - country or religion? Duh! Wrong question. You should retain your own judgement and values, and not renounce either to God (Mohhammed or Jesus), nor country, as Hitler demanded ("You are nothing, your country is everything). So the fact that I am not a proud Australian makes me a terrorist? :)
The fact that I want to change Australia and NZ makes me a terrorist? This nonsense is coming from a think-tank....mind you its probably a Christian group peddling their 'science' looking agenda.
Yep, as we already knew they are racially prejudiced...they hate Asians, Jews, they even don't like other Arabs. They are collectivists; that is what you get. Muslims are probably the worst collectivists, so they will resort to coercion to get what they want.
He asserts that religion and law is integrated...does that not answer his issue of why they place religion above country. They are not allowed another religion...hence this is why they accept they cannot change their values...that Islam cannot be questioned. Sharia Law is of course contrary to the US Constitution....but how good is the US Constutution? It's just relatively better. They will attack you as hypocrites because in many respects Muslims are more consistent...until you get down to metaphysics, they repudiate objectivity, and yet they use your arguments against you. Unless the West gets its act together has displays some consistency, the West is going to self-destruct with some presence of democratic nirvana whilst the Muslims take over.
So rest assured there will be a war with Islam because there are not enough smart people like myself in the world, and we do not live in a meritocratic democracy, so rational arguments do not prevail. Sorry....I didn't vote. :)

How long before civil war in Europe?

Share |
People, this is a good example of why Britain and the rest of Europe is doing to the dogs - by 'dogs' - I mean the collectivists on both sides - the Brits and the Muslim Brits. The dialogue in this video conveys a great deal of moral ambivalence. Let me demonstrate by quoting and commenting on their statements. Their contradictions lead them into positions neither side can defend....which means that, like in WWII we will end up with a European war where people don't know what they are fighting for. Consider that prior to WWII a great many of Europe's intellectuals and academics escaped to Britain and America and resulted in the socialisation of these countries, adopting the same time of polcies, i.e. The New Deal which they rejected from Germany before the war. This was of course the 'post-WWII emergency', the difference was, they never dropped the welfare state. Learn why history is destined to be repeated from this video.

Lucy: "Is is true that Muslim extremists are taking over my town"
What exactly is an extremist. I guess you could argue they are because they don't dress like you, and they were not born in Luton, or if they were, they have different values. In this video, we see her getting more aggressive than the Muslims, who are placating her. I would argue that this is an anti-intellectual spoilt brat who does not even understand the values of her own country. Let me demonstrate my point later.
Muslim loudspeaker: "Police go to hell"
Lucy says Muslims have a right to protest but they are going to extremes because they are critical of the police for abducting the wife of a terrorist suspect. I would however argue that these Muslims are far more civil than the labour unionists we have seen in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, in previous decades...I take it, that was the period in which she grew up at Luton. I would argue that Muslims and unionists have learned that aggression tends to alienate few resort to such efforts least for now. That will of course change.
So, based on this video, it seems Lucy is in fact getting in the face of Muslims because she has this sense of entitlement that 'she grew up in Luton'...though she does concede that they are people too.
Muslim loudspeaker: "UK go to hell"
Well, these are silly things to say because they will only alienate these Muslims from the majority. The problem is that you have this unthinking Brit (essentially a collectivist) repudiating the Muslim collectivism. The implication is that in ethics, they are actually more consistent than her, as they show in this dialogue:
Muslim loudspeaker: "Hands off Muslims"
That does not seem terribly threatening....mind you there is implicit racial superiority and judgement here. The issue however is - what is wrong with judging others? Apparently in Muslim, there is nothing wrong with it, and good for her, because this is the ultimate hypocrisy in Christianity, that you should not judge others.
Lucy: "Everyone has a right to protest, but I found their protesting provocative and extreme".
I don't know a country where protesting is not "provocate and extreme'; insofar as its the last straw that breaks the metaphoric 'Arab camel's back'.
Muslim lady: "This is a protest to stop oppression".
The Muslim makes the statement that she is their to fight oppression. What is wrong with that if she makes a valid position. The problem is that there is no issue here of 'a breach in the procedures of law', the issue is being raised in terms of collectives, them and us, and this is not the way to deal with the issue. It will ultimately lead to civil destruction. The Brits should no better; but because the Muslims are even bigger collectivists, they are going to drag Briton into a civil war.
Lucy says "no one should want anyone (ant police) to burn in hell".
Muslim lady says ".....because of what they have done"...."you either believe or you disbelieve"...."You choose to wear that and I choose to wear this".
You have the Muslim woman giving Lucy a lesson in individual rights; and yet both collectivise these rights or issues when it suits them. For the Muslim lady, the issue of rights is arbitrary, and so it is for Lucy.
Muslim lady says Lucy "looks are you trying to seduce".
Lucy: You shouldn't judge I choose to dress"...."I don't judge you"
Muslim lady: "I am judging you".
Lucy: "Well, I don't judge you....because I'm above that".
Muslim lady: "Go put some clothes on".
Lucy: "You choose to dress like that, I choose to dress like this....don't start"
Lucy's early premise was that these Muslims are extremists; now she is saying she is above judgement. Early the Muslim was saying that values are subjective (I choose) and now Lucy is agreeing...values are subjective. The difference is Lucy is inconsistent. Everyone is morally compelled to make choices; that demands a standard of value, a standard of what constitutes the good, or bad. In this case, the standard is not clear, but they are arguing about who is 'provocative' in terms of politics, and on another issue, who is provocative in terms of dress.
This is ultimately a crisis of values, and the issue will deteriorate into war if we retain our system of representative democracy.
Lucy: "Do you think its fair that you should say that the police should burn in hell"
Muslim man: "Its freedom of speech so we can say what we say"
Lucy: "In Islam does it not say that you ought to respect the law of the land you live in"
Muslim man: "No it doesn't".
This is important because in the West we are raised with such silly conceptions as 'the rule of law'; whether that means due process, or respecting the law 'because no one is above the law'. This is not true; the Muslims have it right. The law serves the people; at least so long as its consistent. If its not, none of us are above the facts of reality, but the law is merely a person's interpretation of the reality. They are legitimately campaigning; that's freedom of speech. I have no idea whether there is an injustice here, and I suspect they have no idea either because their sense of injustice is 'collectivised' and its because of Brits like Lucy, but also the Arabs who see the American clergy burning a Koran (yes one man) and we are all infidels.
Muslim leader: "If the law of the land is Islamic, then we would respect the law of the land"
He then quotes the prophet Mohammed "I do not obey the disbelievers or the hypocrites". He has a point. Moral ambivalence is driving the West into a war with the Muslims.
Lucy: "That really hurts me to hear you say that because you don't really know me"
Muslim leader: "Its enough for me to know that you are not a Muslim".
This is where the dogmatism are a you are evil and not to be respected. This deeply expressed dogmatism is going to drive the Britain towards war. These people are bad for Britain and should be removed. When you consider 'rights', you need to understand that the precondition for rights are:
1. Ethics: Respect for personal sovereignty - this is not evident
2. Epistemology: Respect for rationality - this is not evident in the Muslim leader at the end. He is dangerous, and should be removed from Britain...along with Lucy...she learnt nothing abroad...she needs to go back to la-la-land.
3. Metaphysics - Respect for objectivity - this was repudiated by both parties on occasion with 'dress sense' and 'judgement'.

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Racial prejudice attributed to Labor's Bob Katter MP

Share |
It seems there are a great many people being fooled by a hoax - at least on some level. There is a speech being passed around Australia which is attributed to Bob Katter MP, the sitting member for Kennedy in Queensland. Clearly people want to celebrate him as a beacon of nationalistic pride. On many levels he might represent nationalists, but he did not write the following speech - it was a plagiarism attributed to him according to this article.
We cannot however dismiss the speech simply because it was not written by an MP. More worrisome perhaps is that:
1. A person thought so much of it to propagate it
2. A great many other people thought so much of it to celebrate it, whether they posted it on their blog or pass it round as a chain email.

I think so little of it - that I'm going to repudiate its shallow premises. Firstly - the speech WRONGLY attributed to Bob Katter is:

“My great, great, great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Boer War. My grandfather watched and bled as his friends died in World Wars 1&2. My grandfather watched as his friends & brothers died in the Depression of 32. My father watched as his friends died in Korea. I watched as my friends died in Vietnam, East Timor & Desert Storm. Our sons and daughters watched & bled as their friends died in Afghanistan and Iraq. None of them died for the Afghanistan and Iraq Flag. Every Australian died for the Australian flag.

At a Victorian high school foreign students raised a Middle East flag on a school flag pole. Australian students took it down. Guess who was expelled...the students who took it down.
West Australian high school students were sent home, because they wore T-shirts with the Australian flag printed on them.

Enough is enough.

This message needs to be viewed by every Australian; and every Australian needs to stand up for Australia. We've bent over to appease the Aussie-haters long enough. I'm taking a stand.

I'm standing up because of the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the Australian flag.

And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.

AUSTRALIANS, stop giving away Your RIGHTS!


This statement DOES NOT mean I'm against immigration!

YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY, welcome to come legally:

1. Get a sponsor!

2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past!

3. Live by OUR rules! Dress as we Australians Do

4. Get a job!

5. Pay YOUR Taxes!

6. No Social Security until you have earned it and Paid for it!

7. NOW find a place to lay your head!

If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

We've gone so far the other way...bent over backwards not to offend anyone.

Only AUSTRALIANS seem to care when Australian Citizens are being offended!


If you do not Pass this on, may your fingers cramp!


There are so many problems with this speech. Here is MY REPLY!!

Australians did not die for the Australian flag, the flag is just a symbol of the values embodied by (some of) the nation's people and its institutions. If you actually critically review those values, you realise how little has been learnt in the last 100 years in the realm of ethics and political philosophy. Go to your local war memorial and you often see the expression 'Service before self" or "They died for their country". This of course is the values of our past enemies - the Japanese and Germans. Consider the famed 'kamakasi' Japanese pilots - or a quote from Adolf Hitler 'You are nothing, your nation is everything".
You think you have more freedom today because you have a Bill of Rights. This is a facade, for if you realised that the govt has no interest in killing you, but in enslaving you, you'd realise that you have 'political rights' but no 'economic rights' (i.e. taxation is expropriation with no discretion). The reason they give you political rights is because now the majority have wealth, they are scared to lose. Two hundred years ago the majority had no wealth, that is they have nothing to lose but their lives. So, what did your grandpas die for? Political freedoms right? Well, far from living or dying for economic freedoms, every year you confront chronically deprave political values - yet every year you pony up - and vote for Labor (heads you lose), or Liberals (tails - you lose).

We might have won the battles in WWI & II, but we lost the war. In the wake of WWII, the West adopted the welfare state. Far from the enfranchisement of the poor, landless class being a development, it was a shift to a broader based of extortion, i.e. We diversified the foundation for extortion. The coalition of MPs into the 2 main parties is a framework for extortion. Ultimately however, it is representative democracy, and substitution of 'numbers' for 'reasons' that is destined to retain or entrenches the slavery system. Until you are treated as sovereign individuals with the right to choose the system which you join - you remain a slave. Impractical you say? That implies that you have no interest in accountability/reconciliation of ideas, or do not believe rationality, objectivity is possible. Might that be because you were never trained to think - only to memorise? Might it because you never had the discretion to make terribly profound philosophical choices; spared the responsibility by our political system. Spared the choice in the early years because you were not educated or wealthy enough; today for the sake of efficiency or harmony.
The article suggests Australians are giving away their rights by appeasing 'foreign values'. If such people actually understood their values, they would realise that the mindless, nationalism/collectivism (i.e. repudiation of self) is exactly the values celebrated in Australia by Christians, socialists and liberals. Christianity and Islam are very close in terms of their values; understandably so, since Islam was derived from Judaism as well. Islam might be a more violent expression; but that has more to do with the dynamics of ancient Europe and the Middle East.
Anyway, we have established that anyone who supports this guy is associating themselves with a 'school of thought' which embraces lying, nationalism, and possibly racial prejudice. Perhaps it was advanced by some white supremacist, nationalist political group who want to advance Katter as some great 'white hope'. Sadly, not the case.
So what are the rights under threat? The right to impose your values upon others, since there is an implied act of coercion. Or do they simply want to restrict who comes into their country. Well, I can understand that because there does need to be regulation of borders in the current context. But this guy is advancing a race-based distinction, as opposed to vetting people on the basis of their political motives for coming to Australia. He is also disparaging Arabs who came to Australia legitimately, and why not other races? Cheap populism to be sure.
The guy purports to impose rules on how to live, how to dress, and what language to speak! If I'm not mistaken, this guy would assimilate very well in Syria; unfortunately they don't want him either. It goes to show that nationalist bigots do not fit anywhere; which is probably why you find them mostly in rural areas, where they can be sure they have maximised the practicable distance between themselves. Basically his message is 'obey' his rules.
Andrew Sheldon

Friday, January 27, 2012

Images less than prime ministerial

Share |
Photography does not get any better than this. We have images of the Prime Minister of Australia, Labor leader Julia Gillard, being mobbed by rioters. Catch this series of images:
1. We have Julia clinging for dear life to a party colleague
2. We have Julia being protected by her collleague
3. We have Julia missing a shoe
There is another photo of her recuperating in a staff vehicle. These images can do nothing for her credibility. The interesting issue is how she came to be mobbed for the outspoken comments of the Opposition Leader who is trailing behind in one of the photos.
Andrew Sheldon

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?