POLITICS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CONTRAFLOP -- THE NON-CONSPIRACY -- WELFEDUCATION --FOCUS, FOCUS, PLEASE -- LEADING FROM BOOKS -- JUDGING THE JUDGES -- DESPOTISM REEXAMINED -- TODAY'S INQUISITION -- THE LIB ESTABLISHMENT -- REVOLUTIONARY LOLLIPOPPOLOGY -- WASTE USA -- SERVICE MIRAGE -- THE FAIRY AND THE DRILL -- BOA CONSTRICTOR SYNDROME --  FAMINE & IDEALS --WELFARE & JUSTICE -- COVERT EXPOSED -- THE GOVERNMENT MOLOCH -- THE HILLARY SYNDROME -- THE FILTHY RICH -- THE POOR POOR

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CONTRAFLOP

Liberty, equality, social justice, racial integration, welfare help, total employment, redistributed wealth, general education, and the other humanitarian ideals are not less dear to free-enterprise democracies than to socialistic dictatorships, not less to conservatives than to liberals.

The disagreements toward those goals are in how to define and achieve them.

In general, the conservatives believe that they must first develop competence to achieve progress; otherwise any attempt can worsen the situation too seriously.

The liberals expect immediate results from legislation.

For many people, it is unthinkable not to vote for the immediate realization of those ideals.
They are easy pray of the liberals, who want them to believe that the conservatives are against liberty, justice, racial integration, welfare help, total employment etc.

Those goals, however, are only deceiving labels for "contraflops".

"CONTRAFLOP" is an action or process that produces results opposite to the intended purpose. Its manifestations are unpredictable, but they are a direct consequence of incompetent delusions about the pursued goal, as endemic in most socialist pursuits.

The "liberty" of the socialist is a CONTRAFLOP: it forces people into a defined "freedom" and reaches unpredictable patterns of oppression, dictatorship, thought control, distortion of "moral" values (socialists and ultra-feminists say they believe in "justice", not in morality).

To wit: the former German Democratic Republic, the People's Republic of China, Cuba, the former Soviet Union and countless worldwide and American organizations sincerely or apparently devoted to "liberty".

The leftist "justice" is a CONTRAFLOP: ruthless, righteous enforcement of the rules as dictated by the socialist or liberal dogmas about "fair share" (a notorious Clinton euphemism for his "sock-it-to-them"), social leveling at the cost of creativity, talent and excellence (which are disparaged as "elitism").

The "equal rights" of the socialist-liberals is a CONTRAFLOP: it results in a perverse distortion of individual rights, suffocated in group-rights favoritism. Equal rights are already guaranteed in the principle that "the law is equal for all people" of any race, gender, age, wealth and whatever other attributes are considered.

Proclaiming equal rights for special individuals or groups is, therefore, a counter producing and frivolous redundancy.

The present liberal "Equal rights" can only be for groups such as blacks, women, homosexuals... rather than for George, Mavis or Butch, who are already protected as equal human beings. The excuse that to protect "gay" Butch, one must issue a group-equal-rights law for homosexuals cannot be less than group rights added to individual rights.

That is unmitigated favoritism with so many unsuspected privileges (lawyers can dig them in any number, anytime, anywhere), that it positions the "gays", women and blacks against the rest of society, and vice versa.

The "right" to be gay, or to obtain some goals as a "woman", a "black", or a "disabled" person is radically more than the "freedom" to achieve the same goals.

Freedom stops where it limits or damages other people.

A right can be like a bull in a china shop: it can empower a person or group to obtain its goal literally at any cost, be it what it may, no matter who else gets deprived or hurt, regardless of cost.

Most lawyers and politicians cannot resist the temptation of demanding equal results on the bizarre basis that equal rights are not satisfied when equal results are not obtained.

We have the right to apply for a job or to make a million, but we must earn it.

Demanding equal outcomes from equal rights results in the most virulent kind of unequal rights, oppression, and forced consequences that punish productivity and reward parasitism.

The viciousness of the consequences literally zigzags through so many manifestations of the human condition that they are impossible to predict.

"Equal rights" and "civil rights" are the pious masks worn by the balkanizers of our society.

We are already experiencing the hatred, discord and irreconcilable hostilities ultra-feminist and racial group "rights" have started in our society: subtly worse than segregation and male chauvinism.

Liberal welfare is the most notorious and most proven CONTRAFLOP: it lobotomizes the help recipients into the most debilitating of permanent dependencies.

Leftist liberal education is less obviously counter producing, but it is even worse than liberal welfare, for it sacrifices reasoning and knowledge to political correctness.

Freedom, justice, equality, welfare are concepts that virtually everyone would fight for.

They are so immaculately noble, that everyone should be dedicated to them.

When a politician declares himself for them, the average person almost cannot help voting for him.

But, as they are implemented by leftists, they are CONTRAFLOPS: they produce, intentionally or not, the most blundering opposites of the intended goals.

The "general public" is so effectively manipulated by the leftist media and politicians, that anyone who tries to protect his country from any CONTRAFLOP is considered a cynical egotist who hates his fellow men.

THE NON-CONSPIRACY

1993. We are living in a condition our political system has trained us to ignore: a concerted effort to discredit and supplant the Western culture and morality, the Free Enterprise System, Capitalism, the family, Christianity, the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the white male, "heterosexuality".

The phenomenon started to become more evident in the demagogy of the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign.

First, it took a typically conspiratorial form: all the known liberals ("liberal" is still a dirty word) were carefully kept out of sight and hearing, no longer prominently interviewed or shown in important functions.

The words "liberal", "taxes", "welfare", "spending" even "money" were meticulously avoided.

When Clinton spoke about his taxes, he called them "investments" or "contributions", like those who call welfare "entitlements", hoping that the word manipulation could con the public into believing that welfare was no longer the addictive waste leading to national decay.

The liberals are now risking subversion of their country to prove their point and to get the votes of the "needy", whose number must be increased to produce more captive votes.

They draw votes by promising instant-solutions for "human rights", "justice", "equality", "environment", "women rights", "gay rights", "ozone layer", "acid rain", "minorities", "inner city", "busing", "affirmative action", and more contraflops that are either childish labels for the edification of the uninformed, or flying-saucer-type scare/hopes for those who can only handle the comfort of a belief rather than the laborious acquisition of knowledge.

For the liberal politicians, this constituency means votes, votes, power, and impregnable power tenure.

Anything that may reduce the misery of the "needy" will reduce the poverty pimps' power.

The politicians know it and, consciously or not, they promote whatever increases their constituency: either increase the misery or raise whatever misery index they can contrive, to inflate the number of the "needy".

As a consequence, we have now the richest "poor" in the world: with multiple TV sets, cars, telephones, refrigerators, stereo sets, etc.

They use the truly poor like disposable human shields.

The truly poor are cynically neglected, because their votes are not significant.

Some of the last brilliant ideas are:

- mushroom the number of "homeless" by expanding the definition (e.g. anyone who lives with his parents, employer, etc.),

- reduce the major age -or age of independence from parents- as low as possible,

- increase the number of "single families" (now, 1993, about 70% among the blacks),

- thwart parental authority,

- make the family meaningless,

- eliminate morality from sex,

- support abortion on demand,

- make divorce just a source of income for lawyers,

---and more ideas won't fail to come up to make anyone able to become homeless, indigent, or dependent, with interchangeable and duplicating lists.

The more the better: more votes for the political maggots, more government controls (= tenure for the pimping of misery) more power to tax the opponents (those who produce the wealth sucked by the taxes).

These manipulations are badly needed, in order to extract the money for over 7-10 million claimed homeless, whereas the census can only account for a maximum of 300-500,000, two thirds of which being incurable mental cases, dope addicts, hobos, and other unalterable cases.

The number is bloated with adults who live with their parents, retirees living with their children, unemployed or between-jobs persons living with friends or relatives, household employees and anyone living temporarily with hosts.

The inflation of these numbers knows no limits, for they are needed to milk more money from the "rich", and more votes, for the poverty pimps.

What happens when the "rich" (the "greedy" ones who produce the money and the jobs) have no more money left?

Socialism, no matter under what name.

Sure, we may have intermediate steps, but the end is the same: socialism and/or government controls.

What about those rich liberals, like Ted Kennedy?

Aren't they going to lose under socialism?

No, they will lose under the free enterprise system.
They are the rich who have lost the ability to produce wealth with useful activities.

They know that they cannot avoid loosing against free competition.

Historically, the unproductive rich (spoiled heirs, corrupted and emasculated by undeserved power, lazy, incompetent or dishonest rich people) have always been terrified by competition, paranoid against any kind of enterprising people. Their only security lies in dictatorship or any form of tenured, impregnable power, as in socialism.

There, they can continue to enjoy their privileges as apparatchiks or leaders, with full protection by a government that compensates for all the lost strength, competence and productivity (they love to think they produce justice, equality and whatever they are less and less able to understand), which the free enterprise system would require of them.

Many of them fall victims of their own propaganda and become believers of their contraflops.

With socialism, the powerful parasites need no talent, hard work or creativity. All they need is the power and security the government is eager to offer to its high and lower apparatchiks. Socialism needs compliant sycophants with the power to help squeeze the wealth out of a nation that is thereby being deprived of the initiative to produce it.

In a capitalistic society, a parasitic rich person is condemned to lose against productive competition. For him and his kind, socialism is much more comfortable: positioning, scheming, conspiring collusion and pretentious Inquisition is what they can master.

The open possibilities of a free enterprise system are too scary: call them "greed", "insensitivity", "selfishness", and the college-educated insecure puppies will come bright-eyed and bushy-tailed to "liberalism".

They really don't need a conspiracy: they know by instinct and by sad awareness that a free enterprise system would ultimately  resolve the problems they must keep unresolved to get votes.

They have no choice: they instinctively, or also subconsciously, oppose the true solutions, or they lose their jobs, their power. Irreversibly.

There are still those who speak of a communist-Jewish-black conspiracy. Why not a feminist-gay-lesbian-communist-Jewish-Moslem-black-anti western-deconstructionist-anti family-abortion-welfare conspiracy?

It is hard to imagine them together in a conspiracy.
Yet, from some debatable perspective, we could ascribe to each of them deleterious attributes that could (intentionally or not) conspire toward the destruction of our culture.

Even if most of them loath each other.

As much as all the above could be interpreted as a conspiracy, it really doesn't need to be, because the "big-government" missionaries know too well that big government is impossible if they don't fight, with any open or hidden means, against:

- THE FAMILY, nuclear or extended, which is anti-socialist and anti-liberal, insofar as it is structured by evolutionary experience, devoted to the individual members, not to the grouping and depersonalization big government needs. The leftist "individual rights", "human rights", "social justice" are anti-individual oximorons.

- THE FATHER AUTHORITY, which is in clear antithesis to the government's Moloch.

- PARENTAL AUTHORITY, in direct contrast with the control the teachers and apparatchiks want to exert on the youth.

- PERSONAL INITIATIVE, which would be oxymoronic if directed by the government.

- PERSONAL PROPERTY, because it is the greatest hindrance against socialism.

- ENTREPRENEURSHIP, which is the best proof that private motivation, or even "greed", no matter how "evil”, is more productive and beneficial than any government "humanitarian" enterprise.

- MARRIAGE. Permanent devotion of man and woman to each other, and to the individual children and vice versa, more than to the state, makes socialism futile, meddlesome and awkward.

- WESTERN CULTURE. The most stupendous, most comprehensive, most elegant multi-cultural achievement of mankind, Western civilization has already gathered all the evidence proving the failure of socialism, the cruelty of incompetent idealism and the traps of "liberalism".

Therefore it is a mortal enemy of the new socialist anti-Americans.

- CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH RELIGION. Their demands for self-discipline for ALL, for morality without compromises, are a lethal poison for socialism.

- BELIEF IN A BEING SUPERIOR TO THE GOVERNMENT: an intolerable hindrance for liberals and socialists.

- LOWER TAXATION: absolutely taboo, lest the countless apparatchiks would lose their jobs, not to mention their control over the nation.

The taxes must increase as much as possible, to consolidate and increase the power of the apparatchiks, who are secure only with an unshakable dependence of the general public.

- CAPITALIST FREE MARKET. Impossible to reconcile socialism and capitalism. Socialism can never produce even one fifth (or tenth) of so much wealth and freedom.

- COMPETITION. Not only capitalistic competition is the death of socialism, but also any sort of ambitious striving for any intellectual improvement and free expression (politically incorrect).

- REWARD FOR PERFORMANCE. Ditto. Downward leveling is imperative.

- INFORMATION RATHER THAN FORMATION IN EDUCATION. Socialism cannot survive without brainwashing or at least slanting, forming education.
Education that informs instead of forming allows informed individual choices in freedom. Liberals and socialists are disturbed by such a prospect. Therefore they begin with "political correctness" to form the national thinking into prescribed opinions, rather than free it with knowledge.

- FREE SPEECH (instead of "politically correct" Inquisition). Ditto.

- MORAL VALUES. Citizens with moral values are unreliable sycophants for socialism, because they have an independent conscience.

- INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM  must be substituted with group rights, which balkanize a society and neutralize its capability to rebel against state oppression.

-

®MD-BO

WELFEDUCATION

It is possible that  the American leftist liberal welfare and education started as sincere ideals, but generations of evidence have shown that their results are the opposite of their goals:

Liberal welfare spreads poverty and overstrains the national economy.

Liberal education spreads misconceptions and prejudices.

First, only a minute fraction of the welfare tax money reaches the needy: well under 28 cents for every dollar.

Namely: over 70 cents of every welfare dollar goes to the welfare apparatchiks, their unions, their travels, conventions and other business expenses, office equipment, literature, forms, office rentals, conventions, "workshops", political campaigns, seminars about how to extract more tax dollars, overhead, and hidden expenses.

The evil is then hidden beyond help: enterprise lobotomy, suffocating individual self-help in bureaucratic rules, forcing the recipients into procedures that help the welfare Moloch grow, spreading the notion that private initiative is guided by "greed", that devotion to productive work is "work-alcoholism"...

The malignancy caused by liberal welfare is so pervading that it spawns poverty to generate more power for the poverty pimps and new worshipers for the Welfare cult.

Leftist liberal education is still worse, because it immunizes the population against real education, knowledge, culture, progress.

As in socialist societies, it is primarily political.
It substitutes political correctness for knowledge, it conditions innocent youth into accepting the new unproven fads, into rejecting the proven standards that produced our culture and progress.

One cannot help thinking that those standards are too high and difficult to learn (let alone understand) for the present leftist teachers and teacher-unions, who are only taught how to raise more funds and to fight for their "rights".

Further, the teachers are schooled about teaching, not about the subjects to be taught.
Good teachers, however, excel in spite of the controlling unions.

At every election time, teacher unions spend vast amounts of energy and money to campaign for more money, higher teacher salaries and benefits.

They advertise their purposes disguised behind "help our children", "invest in our kids", "a young mind is the worst thing to waste"...

Yet, the subjects and methods of education are never discussed, lest teachers would be required to learn.

History and geography are carefully hidden in "social studies" to be used only as handcrafted evidence for rationalizing the present deconstructionist fads.

Mathematics and scientific subjects are diluted in fun, simplifications and glamorized presentations that serve public relation purposes instead of knowledge.

Students are graduated like manufactured items to show successful results, no matter how under-educated they are.

When bad results are unmasked, the educational establishment uses its consummated techniques of blaming "underfunding" to obtain overfunding.

Teacher salaries are increased again, classes are made smaller, pupils are divided in artificial "under...", "special...", "over...", "average...", "handicapped...", "problem..." and whatever, and consigned to more and more under-trained teachers who generate more subcategories, with more money and power for the unionized establishment...

The ignorance establishment grows more powerful with more ignorance, which causes the establishment to blame underfunding and obtain more money and power "to help our kids...". No one seems to notice that the more money we pay to education, the worse it empowers the status quo keepers.

No one seems to notice that the best private schools in U.S.A. have the lower paid teachers, and the worst schools are the public schools, where the most money is spent for salaries, equipment, buildings... Which proves the obvious.

No one seems to notice that American public schools spend far more per pupil and teacher than public schools of all the other nations which obtain vastly better educational results than U.S.A.

FOCUS, FOCUS, PLEASE                        ***/

1993. Congress, the Senate, the Justice Department, the press, the television networks..., and whoever wants to gain public favor, are concentrated in splashy public proclamations on sex misconduct cases, abortion rights, condoms in the schools, teaching children to love  homosexuals...

The issues are of the kind that should remain in the back pages of sensational tabloids, but the politicians are dressing them with pompous meanings that sound noble, important and ominous.

The fake social disaster scenario is one of the main means the leftist liberals exploit to push through their government-control measures.

Even if the issues were so momentous, it would be astounding that immensely more significant issues are not granted the same attention.

For instance:

          What about properly focused and publicized investigations on why we are losing the battle against:

- Crime.

- Corruption.

- Poor education.

- Foreign competition.

- Drug traffic and addiction.

- The decay of American competence.

- The spreading cancer of welfare addiction.

- The suffocation of America by government controls.

They are only a few examples.

Government agencies, the media, every sector of America seem unable to focus on positive goals.

The continuous publicizing of issues on the frivolous "news-making" level of the media's interest seems to be numbing American sensitivity to basic issues like:

- Education: how to improve and increase it. How and what to teach of each subject is so misunderstood that it is equated with brainwashing.

No civilization can function and compete with less than some quantitatively specified minima of native and foreign languages, communication, mathematics, history, geography, art, literature and knowledge in general. In other words, children should not be taught less than the four math operations at, say, second elementary grade, not less than algebra, trigonometry and logarithms at high school level...

That is survival knowledge, not oppression.

It is vastly different from the negative goal of merely correcting poor education. It is so foreign to the guidelines of the National Educational Association, that it sounds strange to propose it as an object of congressional action.

The teaching establishment contrives to keep the educational issues within the confines of teachers' salaries, class sizes, "special education" funding, more spending for tools, money for buildings, money for new teachers....

They eschew responsible analysis of what to teach, teacher's competence on the subjects to be taught, how much to teach of what subject on what level...

- Competence: the same approach as for education.

The people involved with cultivation of competence are now shifting the responsibility to financing and legislation.

Like the teachers and bureaucrats, they don't even know what else can be done.

Decisions requiring competence are being made and implemented by the incompetent, like judges being elected by a general electorate incompetent in juridical matters.

It would be the same as letting the general public electing nuclear physicists, genetic biologists, neurosurgeons, astronomers, paleontologists.

The insinuation that judges' decisions require less specific competence and responsibility than physicists' is frightening.

- Morality: now in the hands of "realists", debated by religious demagogues and demanded by righteous rednecks.

- Welfare. The more welfare is adopted, the more controls of abuses are needed.

As this spreads, society becomes so regulated and controlled that dictatorship emerges, which is made palatable by just labeling it as democracy, freedom, social justice, human rights etc..

Communist countries adopted names like "German Democratic Republic", "People's Republic of China", bandits and terrorists call themselves "Freedom Fighters", just to mention a few.

- National goals: Empty words, pompous assurances. Nothing.

Slogans instead of goals.

Freedom, justice, equality, human rights are no goals.

Like breathing, heart-beat, blood-pressure, they are too elemental to be goals.

If anything, they are consequences or premises of proper conditions.

As goals, they tend to divert us from constructive endeavors and trap us into finding faults in other human beings.

As goals, they decoy our focus from the basic individual -as opposed to group- education, competence, responsibility that are the source and foundation of freedom, justice, equality, human rights.

A government that tries to impose them aborts their development as consequences of their premises.

Two men with nothing to keep them busy end up sinking in problems caused by judging and dawdling on each other.

The same two men get along fine if they get interested and busy on a project that keeps them marching together toward a goal rather than toward each other. [By the way, they get along best if they have a common enemy to hate or fight...]

Liberal governments believe in collecting taxes to finance establishments that resolve nothing by themselves, but are empowered to judge, reward and punish the citizens in the name of "justice", "freedom", "equality", "rights" and blame them, and impose more taxes, when the problems persist.

The present liberalism extols individualism and liberty from government oppression.

Yet, it demands government support and guaranties that are possible only with increased government control and authority.

It is a contraflop that kills individuality and individual initiative from the individuals it purports to protect.

This cycle of condemning government control and then making it more oppressive with new controls to liberate the oppressed has happened many times before in history.

“We don’t want to talk about the past.” Again, we ignore history and repeat it.

Individuality and creativity can only prosper in a society that does not regulate ("protect") them.

The most dangerous governments have often been and are those who claim "justice", "freedom", "equality", "rights" as their goals, for such stated goals are what dictatorship, oppression, Inquisition and the liberal groups use as dogmatic excuses.

More than direct goals, justice, freedom, rights, equality are like happiness are consequences of the hard work, learning, skill, self-discipline, productivity, initiative and dedication that are unpopular with the leftist demagogues and the voting majority.

LEADING FROM BOOKS

Heard from a fashionable writer: "President Reagan's library burned down. Both books have been destroyed".

Witty, but fraudulent. So are many useless, superfluous or damaging writings, philosophies, plays, theories, religions, political and economic ideologies.

It is so, even if this statement seems to support the opposite menace from religious fanatics, fascists, dictators, inquisitions, and socialist-liberal governments (who, unfortunately, believe to be informed and "intellectually refined" with their sophisticated primitivism).

Many lives have been sacrificed to learned ideologies that turned out to be destructive for both their followers and enemies.

If the intellectual originators of those motivations had relied more on common sense, the world would be a better place.

Ronald Reagan did a lot of good reading, for sure, but he let his judgment master it, not fall pray to it.

Of course, there are many intellectuals whose learning caused numerous improvements.

If we sort the improvements and separate the technological and the humanistic (or social-moral), we have very little left for the latter.

These observations are fitting only to deflate the importance of the present glib intellectuals.

Even the anti-intellectuals do it; anti-intellectualism itself proves it. There is no "anti-carpenterism, anti-matematicianism..., anti-salesmanism" etc. because those human endeavors are recognized as simply specialized and well defined functions.

To elect a president on the basis of his being a good scholar would be no better than electing him because he is a good taxidermist, physician, wine-maker, or -for that matter- a good politician.

Even the expectation that the president be a good reader (whatever that means) is a pro-"intellectual" bias, because it would refer to humanistic subjects (conventional object of cultural "reading"). If it referred to other limited subjects, it would be no better.

If we sorted out all the scholarly world leaders, we would discover that they don't outnumber or outperform the non-scholarly ones.

If we take only the good and the great, most of them are not less doers than thinkers. Of them, most scholarly leaders were more doers than scholars.

The above-mentioned writer who quipped against Reagan tried to enter the political life on his intellectual reputation. He was defeated for the same reason that should defeat one who wants to be elected president for being a good archaeologist, pharmacist or karate expert.

All he can do, now, is quip.

JUDGING THE JUDGES

"Who judges the judges" is the paralyzing objection popular wisdom raises against a structured society with a guiding authority.

That same wisdom accepts that corporations, schools, scientific organizations, research, the military and any achievement-oriented organization be guided by what society would call a dictatorial management system . This is the incongruous democratic bigotry.

The most recent and greatest victim of this bigotry has been the family.

As long as the family had one top authority (the father or mother, in a patriarchal or matriarchal society), marriages lasted and children could be guided into and through adulthood.

Then, a new breed of "enlightened" people gained support from the populace, with revelations that attributed most evils to the "Establishment" (scapegoat for those who didn't succeed in the life competition) and its most revered institutions.

Thus, the legends against the traditional family and its abuses were fertilized...

To achieve that, one had to attack its core: authority, fidelity, devotion, difficulty to divorce, filial obedience, mutual devotion of wife and husband (which displeases promiscuous pundits)...

The sophisticated rationalizations of the "experts" advocating the modern "improvements" of today's family are appealing for the uninformed, but they are not even capable of avoiding the elemental "throwing away the baby with the bath water".

A common objection to tradition is that the spouse or parent cannot be infallible.

They sacrifice the family on the altars of their fetishes with "innocent" callousness.

They fail to realize that infallibility, or being right, is not the issue, just as it is not in the organizations that accept authority.

The issue is more subtle. One could attempt to mention some goals like: to get somewhere, to survive, to make the least possible mistakes and the least possible damages. But this is only a partial list of what the well-intentioned destroyers of the traditional family don't know how to approach.

When it comes to endangering the earning of money, few dare to attack the dictatorial organization of business and other goal-minded organizations.

When it comes to the very survival of the nation that keeps the politicians and pundits in power, no one dares to attack the dictatorial organization of the army and government agencies...

Similarly, no one dares to attack the rigid structure of churches and other institutions...

Some are beginning to attempt that too. Cancer always tries to take hold.

The family... Well, the family can be sacrificed to the leftist democratic orthodoxy... It is evident, in such case, that someone has judged that the father (in our patriarchal society) should not judge.

Then, "who judges the judge" is obviously self-disqualifying...

Perhaps, we should find some path, in this strange development, that could guide us from "who judges the judges" to an apparently unrelated "who supports the supporters".

There is a category of people who produces all the financing taxes, the competence, the means and the tools essential to support those who arrogate to themselves the authority to conduct the present decay, as well as the right of being supported.

The number of these parasites increases so relentlessly that one day the remaining productive elements of our society won't have anything left to contribute.

If our eyes open only when we get there, it will be futile.

DESPOTISM REEXAMINED

There are many forms of undisputable power we cannot do without, such as private property,  parental authority, vested rights, business hierarchy, military command, several kinds of uncompromising structures.

Each of those forms is based on an executive efficiency, or "need to get things done", which is remarkably more desirable than "justice" (under quotation marks because we are at a loss to define it).

Take, for instance, private-property.

It seems obvious that one is entitled to dispose of his own property as he wishes. Such property can be real estate, money, food, things or ideas.

As long as property is undisputable and as such protected by the law, there are no disputes or troubles. Nor would anyone think of causing any.

Should the law open any property right to challenge, a Pandora-box is open.

First, the idea of property itself loses its basic validity. The present self-evidence of property-rights becomes a ridiculous or arrogant distortion of the natural order of things, as it presumably was to some American Indians when they first heard of white-man's land-ownership.

Now, of course, the above mentioned Indians maintain the opposite view...

The legally-protected right to property, however, is an element of peaceful coexistence that is far more desirable than the interminable litigations caused by anyone's rights to propose his own improved version of the uses of any wealth.

Not to mention that taxes on property with expropriation when taxes are not paid makes of the owner a hapless tenant.

Chaotic consequences would also ensue from the democratization of a business.

A business needs coordinated and harmonious operation, unfettered creativity, efficiency, product quality, finances and marketing.

Nothing would succeed, however, without the ability of getting things done.

Loyal implementation of mediocre ideas is statistically more productive than disputed execution of brilliant plans.

This productivity is not possible without a hierarchy of people who give orders and people who execute them without dispute.

All this is considered logical, obvious... until someone comes up with laws that authorize dispute.

Then, anyone can find any reason to begin interminable series of paralyzing litigations.

No matter how frivolous the reasons may be, there are plenty of lawyers specialized in giving long-fighting substance to any specious pretext. For a fee.

There are about 300 million potential clients in our parts of the world; and 80% of the lawyers in the entire world are in the U.S.A.

Even more obvious would be the chaos that could be caused by democratization of the military.

The family is probably the most solid example of necessary authority, despotic or not.

The family never succeeded without parental hierarchy.

A convincing prove is today's American family, devoid of parental authority, afflicted by divorces and general decay.

This is the main "Satanic" element Moslems see in the American culture.

They have a good point. Really, an almost "Satanic" fault in our culture is the distorted opinion we have of the genuine (or ideal, to be precise) Moslem culture (which incredibly distorted by the militants and terrorists).

All the present laws to "protect" the children against parental authority contribute to the erosion of the family.

Some liberal members of our government would do anything to have the State take over the family.

Socialism has provided telling historical precedents.

Hollowed parental leadership makes even a good leader into a frustrated wimp.

Where the law and custom protect parental authority, no family member is inspired to rebel against the father or mother.

Support of the parent becomes practical even when the parent shows wrong judgment.

In this case, the family members eagerly advise and help the parent, which can certainly improve the situation and the parent himself better than the government.

In other words, today we are throwing away the baby with the bath water, whereas the evolution-conditioned system preserved the water -even if dirty- as long as necessary, in order to protect the baby.

TODAY'S INQUISITION

The suffocating fear of the Spanish Inquisition was not limited to that period of Middle Ages history.

It lingers now in many forms in our society.

Relatively to the deviations from the norms of centuries ago, today's room for deviations is considerably narrower, because the spreading of education has transformed the originally thin trickle of literacy into an immense river of general awareness.

As a result, individual ideas and attitudes are much more standardized, and deviations far more noticeable, than in a population not homogenized by con"forming" (rather than "informing") education.

The standard used to affect less than 2-10% of the population.

Now, with literacy above the 90% level, the standard has become an insidious rule that submerges anything that dares to flow against the current.

We have the assurance of freedom of speech, but no sure protection against the debilitating consequences suffered by those who sustain views against the Establishment's beliefs.

In the Middle Ages, the Inquisition was used to enforce one particular line of thinking, lest the populace would not know where the norm was.

Now, with the ubiquitous media, general opinion can be manipulated into taking the place of the Inquisition.

The consequences can be even more devastating than under the Inquisition, because of their controllable and hidden pervasiveness.

Besides, for everyone affected by the Inquisition of yore, there are now thousands affected by ruthless conformity rules.

The present rules of thought function similarly to the taboos in primitive societies. Breaking them is an ominous ripple in the stagnant conformity, if not an offense against despotic regulations.

People are afraid to be caught in sympathetic listening to the unholy word.

The maverick thinker is isolated and avoided. He will lose his job, or at least promotion opportunities.

A teacher in a day-care center lost her job for encouraging the use of the right hand in children who showed no definite tendency yet.

She did not think that left handedness was abnormality, but that right handedness offered obvious advantages in a world where tools, instruments, utilities, controls and even kitchen appliances are made for right handed people.

Parents and teachers have done it for millennia, with no recorded damages.

The teaching establishment has decreed that teaching or even showing right-handedness is taboo.

This not-so-subtle despotism is a crime with life-long consequences, as it denies a hapless child the opportunity of enjoying the advantages he could use, had he been properly guided.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with left-handedness, but the right-handedness is more convenient.

It would be the same as preventing the development of good health, strength, skills, intelligence, learning, because people lacking them are no lesser human beings.

By the way, it is now taboo, in schools, to teach morality, but teaching oral and anal sex is allowed; it is taboo to give children Aspirin without parental permission, but not to help them to get an  abortion without parental permission.

An insidious damage is caused to children who are not allowed to know that racial differences can hurt, as in the cases of intermarriages, in which both parties find out too late that they become social outcasts and their children are left with lifelong emotional scars that they transmit to their own offspring...

We know that such consequences are unjust, but they have survived millennia of futile trials to eliminate them.

As we are still unable to obviate them, we forbid awareness of the problem and deliver our innocent children to the hell of our arrogant incompetence.

Not only families are sacrificed to our Inquisitors, but careers, enterprises, public services, our cities, our military...

We don't undertake the historically proven educational approach because we lack the necessary self-discipline ourselves.

Our Inquisitors resolve the problem by just forbidding any mention of its existence.

The Inquisition has less and less need for jail, torture or execution, for swimming against the stream transforms the swimmer into a helpless flotsam.

Those born in today's environment are often not as aware of the local taboos as newcomers who were raised elsewhere (often with other taboos).

When I landed in USA, I was struck by experiences that looked like taboos to me, and not to the locals. Some of them were: segregation against the "colored" people, obstacles against Jews, prejudices against the Catholics, Italians, the holiness of FBI, American family, children, most things American.

The sex taboo, one of the most peculiar in the Western World, was slowly being eroded. It started with the Victorian extremes like covering table-legs with pants, and it had reached the bosom phase. That is, bosom prominence -albeit never naked- was the most one could show in pictures.

Descriptions of the sexual act were taboo. Yet, the general tension about the subject was even more intense than now, especially because of the pressurized-steam kind of tension created by the taboo.

Subsequently, what one could interpret as a rational analytical reaction became an iconoclastic revolution.

In a surprisingly short time, traditional taboos were shattered. But, as often the case in revolutions, the good was thrown out with the evil.

Many virtues protected by the rules were lost, and evils to be exorcised were unleashed.

As in the past, new taboos entered the scene as the old exited.

One of them, to protect the taboos, is that the most sacred taboos are not to be noticed and called what they are.

The most sacred, now, are about the blacks and the feminists.

No one should dare to criticize or limit pro-black racism.

The problem started in a mild and good-natured fashion. It was rationalized that the long-disadvantaged blacks were entitled to a compensating distortion in their favor, as long as it was temporary.

Now, however, the trend has assumed hostile cancerous proportions that are metastasizing into the most critical aspects of the American culture.

Just as our environment is damaged by incompetent ecologic measures, the situation of the blacks is worsened by the very measures intended to help them. It is a veritable contraflop, like many others.

The worse it gets, the stronger the taboo against criticism of the pro-black cancer is becoming. The cancer is made worse by fatuous laws... And the hidden resentment against the blacks mounts...

Politicians and others in public eye are afraid to express their true feelings. They may be businessmen, ministers, bureaucrats, soldiers, educators or professionals of any kind.

They are all afraid of a vague doom lurking for anyone who does not actively support the prescribed racism, no matter how it may damage the domestic health and international interests of the American blacks.

A similar, though more subtly damaging, taboo exists against opposing the bizarre male-aping and male-blaming feminism that started to corrode the American family after 1960.

What Joseph McCarthy was maligned of attempting to do to the liberals is now succeeding against genuine Americanism, family, traditional honor and morality, the work ethics, meritocracy, competition, religion, patriotism, competence.

Even against normal sex, which now must be called "heterosexuality".

Historical examples of these perversions show that they may last long enough to destroy a whole culture.

At times, however, where enough vitality is still available, resentment builds up like vapor under pressure, until the momentum for a restoration is created.

Do we have this vitality?

THE LIB ESTABLISHMENT

Power corrupts, for those in power draw all the available water to their mill.

Years ago, the Power-Establishment was conservative.

It abused its power, and public reaction delivered it to the liberals.

The liberals were the do-gooders bent on correcting the evils of alleged callousness against the poor, unfortunate and losers.

Now, the Establishment is pro-liberal.

That means, it is the liberals who are now abusing the power.

Worse than callous, they are ruthless and cruel. Unintentionally, we want to believe.

They are entrenched in their welfare and bureaucratic empire more "comfortably" than any previous class in any environment.

They have bought big business with huge contracts and enslaved the poor with addictive welfare.

They are more powerful than the largest corporations, which they can bring to their knees with the stick of government controls and with the carrot of government favors.

They go on unrestrained because they can hide under the clever mask of being “against big business”

At the end, the large corporations, the bureaucrats, the military and the politicians are so inextricably enmeshed in interdependence, that their survival depends on supporting each other at bloody expense of the productive citizens.

The previous Establishment was indicted of cruelty against poverty, weakness and helplessness.

It was charged with equating money, strength and professionalism with virtue.

It had the Puritan image; and also a Puritan anti-intellectual posture.

Now, the new Establishment has declared open season against competence, "work-alcoholism", private enterprise, personal independence.

It is "pro-intellectual" in a perverse sense.

Whereas intellectualism was motivated by the pursuit of knowledge, the present Establishment uses its intellectual cloak as a pretentious substitute for knowledge and as disparagement of talent, traditional virtues, patriotism, religion, morality...

They  are now substituted with display of "concern", "toleration", "rights", "love", and other contraflops  which are not as demanding as the previous virtues.

They dispense ruthlessness, intolerance, banishment and hatred to those who disagree with the new amoral elite...

Both the old and new Establishments oppose change, as a menace to their entrenched power.

When faced with the inevitability of change and progress, the old Establishment objected against the untried or "pie-in-the-sky".

Now, Establishment high priests like the social workers oppose progress because their source of power, the welfare addicts, have no "job-readiness". But the can surely vote as wished by the politicians who tell them: "Vote for me if you want to keep getting your welfare money".

The liberals used to claim that welfare was only temporary, like priming a pump.

Now they insist that welfare must remain permanent for the poor, because they have lost the ability to make it on their own, like zoo-animals.

Given a chance, welfare activists and bureaucrats would transform the whole American society into a government-kept zoo.

Their method makes it inescapable; the bureaucracy and politicians’ survival makes it necessary.

Their power increases as they spread poverty. If they cannot spread poverty itself, they spread a new definition of poverty, with worse results yet than poverty itself.

REVOLUTIONARY LOLLYPOPPOLOGY

During the "revolution" of the 60's I was a liberal. But I was disturbed by the wrong twists, just as I am now.

What I published then, could be valid today with few changes:

1964

The capitalist, communist, military and other establishments will soon be submerged by the cybernetic revolution. Groovy.

What about Lollypoppia, then?

Let's try a reputable Freudian approach.

Lollypoppia is a subculture, an infantile-libido growth menacing the revolution's metabolism.

Well, you see, it is something caused by the imbalance between an unrestrained ID, an underdeveloped EGO, and an inhibited SUPEREGO.

Let's start with the whatsthat.

ID is our set of primitive impulses and blind cravings demanding satisfaction from the emotive depths of human nature.

The complex of its cravings is called "libido". Passions, feelings, impulses, moods, erotic desires are components of our libido.

A new-born baby is just an ID craving and yelling for ruthless satisfaction. It has neither EGO not SUPEREGO.

EGO is the self-aware personality developing from interaction between the ID and the external world. The clearer the awareness of self and "others", the healthier the EGO.

The EGO develops experience, knowledge, reason and the other components of the conscious personality. These are necessary to control the ID.

SUPEREGO is similar to the "conscience" and includes it.

The child receives moral and ethical rules, prescribed feelings, punishments, taboos, and other formative influences from his parents, teachers and others in authority. These formative persons and factors are "internalized" and permanently fixated to form the SUPEREGO, even if the individual loses contact with them.

The SUPEREGO keeps controlling, dictating and punishing from within, consciously or not.

If the ID and SUPEREGO are suppressed into subconsciousness, they become ruthless and disruptive.

The ID causes the unexplainable and enslaves reason.

It is thus that many believe that they are reasoning, when all they do is rationalizing their emotions.

The suppressed SUPEREGO causes self-induced failures or even fatal accidents to punish alleged "bad" deeds or thoughts.

As ruthlessly as the ID.

"Complexes" also derive from ID and/or SUPEREGO suppression by a weak EGO. The common "complex of inferiority", for instance, occurs when the EGO refuses to acknowledge unpleasant "feelings of inferiority".

Instead of endeavoring to rise from the alleged "inferiority", the EGO suppresses and ignores the messages from within (and from without), and covers them with tensely contrived proofs of superiority, approval-seeking behavior, and other means. Thus, most bullies, braggarts, compulsive competitors, overbearing people, and also oversexed people suffer from some complex of inferiority, which is subconscious, as opposed to the conscious "feeling of inferiority" which is easier to deal with.

In Freud's puritanical environment at the turn of our century, many neuroses accrued from an over-developed SUPEREGO, over-repressed ID, and stifled EGO, due to the extremely rigid morals of the time.

Got it? Well, read it again slowly.

Believe me, it looks weird, but many professors (some of them future patients) can use it to fit you back together, if you can afford the fee.

Nowadays, in USA, while we profess a puritanical attitude -properly spiced with hypocrisy- in business, law, politics, and institutions, we have adopted a sacred permissiveness toward our children, in the family and school.

It started as a reaction to Victorian excesses, but it has become a malefic cult that promotes abhorrence of discipline and guidance.

This is masked as "free expression" or "achievement needs", pampers the ID and inhibits the development of a healthy SUPEREGO, which is as necessary for personality as the brakes for a car.

Thus, an unrestrained ID is allowed to tyrannize both an underdeveloped SUPEREGO and a shallow EGO.

Probably this "permissiveness" started with interpretations of Dr. Spock's theories on feeding and attending to babies whenever they demand it, rather than according to a rigid timetable.

If this is coupled with the present taboo against discipline and "structure", it creates the latest models of "spoiled brats", protected by the new faith in permissiveness, but condemned to a weird kind of approved schizophrenia in a complex society in which all determining and operative functions are rigidly structured.

In other words, we raise narcissistic buffaloes and expect them to dance the Swan Ballet in a china shop... for the rest of their lives.

Now, we have all these wild IDs who see nothing but self-gratification.

The Establishment tries to make the best of it and tries to lure them with "you are the most important person in the world", "you deserve the best", "we are here to serve you", "we serve the most sophisticated: people like YOU"... 

Business, politicians, unions, civil-rights movements and all kinds of do-gooders join the choir and carefully avoid telling them they also have duties and responsibilities.

The right to instant-gratification and the necessity to instant-success are rationalized into self-evidence.

Self-discipline and laborious endeavors are obsoleted by "...made easy"-books and "infallible" methods to become nuclear physicists, mental wizards, ballet-dancing fatsos, or almost anything in hours or days. Just like that.

Every endeavor, then, must be "fun", or it isn't worth our attention.

Success, or its appearance, is what counts.

Losers are ignored out of existence: to help them is too demanding.

Just throw money at them and then hire more apparatchiks to take care of the victims and to join the militias of the leaders.

The substance of virtue and merit is substituted by the fiction of pompous self-congratulation, once called "sinful pride". The most vulgar pride replaces social grace. The new dutiful virtue is to brazenly flaunt: "I am proud of...": being member of (a worthless association), belonging to (a shabby corporation), being a citizen of (an insignificant and corrupt town), etc. etc.

The generally known lie becomes an accepted ritual, as if to assure the spoiled brats that they too can obtain instant gratification by demanding instead of deserving.

Why go through the old-fashion processes of self-discipline to become a lady, to know history, to master logical thinking, when one can simply say: "I am a lady", "History is crap", "Logic kills the finest human emotions"..., and look with defiant pride at the spoiled listeners eager to applaud.

Even patriotism wears this pride mask.

Love, the most misused, least known, most demanding , most necessary of all virtues, is the most distorted by ersatz.

The anti-love extremes: prudery and lechery, Puritanism and promiscuity, priggishness and prostitution fill the public arena in a war of hatred, to tear from each other the official flag of a love none of them knows.

The ones gratify their hatred-compulsion against sinners; the others gratify erotic urges. Both parade the mask of love.

Any attempt to clarify the truth is met with stubborn defenses disguised under: "Do you not have a solution? Then, be quiet", or :"Don't give me a lecture", "Why be such a bore? Can't you write about pleasant things?", "You are entitled to your own opinion"...

They don't want to define the problem after laborious analysis, focus the attention of the reluctant on it, proposing, debating, testing.

All this requires an impartial logic they have lost in rationalizations, mental discipline they abhor, competence far beyond instant-knowledge, judgment far above the easy "common sense", involvement beyond their tantrum-thresholds...

They want the instant-solution: an easy and fast one that requires one hand only, for the other hand holds the lollipop...

Most of these brats have permeated the Establishment, which provides them with the lollipops, and more lollipops, improved lollipops, and better lollipops yet with addictive features and Pavlovian rewards for behavioral fidelity.

Many, however, can also be found hiding in the ranks of the Revolution. Most of them, however, join the Revolution (what Revolution? Change things, man! Dig it?) only because they couldn't “make” the Establishment.

It is peculiar how readily they change sides as soon as they get a house, a good job, or other value-substitutes.

Meanwhile, they remain in the Revolution with a rock in one hand and the lollipop in the other.

Some of them are school dropouts who organize "free", "unstructured" or whatever schools where children are supposed to "do their own thing", without a "conventional curriculum", which is very convenient when the educators lack skills.

They "give themselves" to the children, that is, they give their own hangups and whatever is infectious.

Some of them read A.S. Neill's "Summerhill" about unconventional teaching with little structure; but Neill's children still learned the "old-fashion" geography, history, mathematics, English und so weiter.

These revolutionary mental giants assert that they don't need geography and biology.

They are the same who thunder wraths and curses on ecologic crimes. They know it all without geography, geology, chemistry, meteorology and "all that Establishment crap".

All they need is a protest sign, a rubber band around their heads and eager TV-cameramen.

And so, the pretzels of mistruths spawn.

The Revolution starts as a noble and humanistic impulse to reform a hypocritical Establishment.

Then, the frustrated lollipoppists creep into the rebellious ranks.

They yell and bark louder than the others, and claim for themselves, as virtues, the sins of the Establishment. That nauseates even the Establishment lollipoppists.

The Establishment's lollipoppists point the finger at the Revolution's lollipoppists, to claim for themselves the virtues of the Revolution, and to ascribe to the Revolution the sins of the Establishment...

Those who have managed to preserve a tolerably healthy mind have the difficult task of maintaining a clear focus on the real issues, above the level of the "common-sense" platitudes.

It ain't easy.

First, the Establishment is a foggy semantic notion in the way of both its believers and those who want to dismantle it.

Those who are allegedly responsible for the present injustices and errors avoid acknowledging them for fear of punishment.

But there is no necessity of punishment, because we possess the means for evolution.

The competence is available, but we need more sincere good will than the available competence.

We must at long last learn from history, which is not what the lollipoppists think.

If more people than just a few scholars took the trouble to analyze the past failures and successes, we would not repeat the evils to which all are condemned who ignore history.

And, to be sure, let us not believe that history started with the Pilgrims.

Probably, avoiding the  black/white judgment polarization is he most difficult task.

To know good, evil, and the vast territories in between requires much more learning, self-discipline and culture than is now permitted in our schools, courts and business.

WASTE USA

¯

My first impression, when I came to USA, in 1955, was the incredible waste: all those boxes, packagings, discarded used/repairable things, car sizes, wasted fuel, heating, electricity, food, built-in obsolescence...

I couldn't help thinking that we could do well with less than half the driving, less than 1/4 of the heating (think of the millennia without any central heating and with not less happiness and health), half the food (Americans are notoriously overfed), one third the fuel, one tenth the boxes, discards....

Would this collapse our economy?

Rather, it would shift it.

We would multiply our garment industry, the insulation business, smaller vehicles like bicycles and motorcycles, mass transit systems, sports, spas, arts, cultural activities.

Our reason-motivated activities would become more numerous than fad-motivated ones. We would become more efficient and our evolution would accelerate, if we didn't make fetishes out of the new methods.

SERVICE MIRAGE

¯

An economic theory is spreading the conviction that our country's economy is evolving into a service form.

This seems to be a convenient theory that substitutes for the measures necessary to revive American industrial leadership.