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

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

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

- 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),

---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?

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

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

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.

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".

- 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).

- 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.

- 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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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...

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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...

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

The Japanese and other countries have outperformed USA for a long while, that our export of raw materials and import of technical articles were both increasing to a point that USA could have become a "middle-tech" or second-rate "high-tech" country.

If we accepted the idea that American ingenuity was to win again by dedicating itself to servicing what others produce, we deliberately escaped the unpleasant task of improving our productivity.

First, service existed as an activity peripheral to the manufacturing industry.

Second, services are low-income activity, 25% less than industry. They would have transformed USA into a second-rate economy, subordinated to industrial cultures.

If we didn’t realize it, we would have waked up too late in a lost primacy.

Private initiative, creativity and free enterprise saved us by creating the computers and their cybernetic age.

Contrary to our hopes, human nature does not prosper in a welfare atmosphere.

We could say this is objectionable only because we have the prejudice that work is virtuous and leisure is a vice.

One could think that leisure would promote refinement and sophistication that would be otherwise impeded by the necessity to work for someone else's profit and wishes.

We must often be motivated by some necessity or even fear of distress, in order to do good for others and for ourselves.

This is not as negative as it sounds, but it is as true as the extreme observation that life would not be possible without death.

We harvest more advantage for ourselves if we achieve what pleases others first.

When we are not "compelled" to earn a living -that is: somebody else's approval-, we fall too easily into wishful convictions and unchallenged conclusions that are like quicksand.

Solid knowledge requires strong discipline to collect, cull and absorb facts that exist independently of our taste.

Scientists, scholars, managerial and business people must go through the hard apprenticeship of reality.

On the other hand, there are incompetent people who draw all their wisdom from "facts" contained only in their wishes.

Too many of them are self-informed psychologists, theologians and "intellectuals" with only enough knowledge to cover their incompetence with verbal tinsel.

They select only the evidence that confirms their prejudices and fall prey of their own rationalizations.

One way to enlighten these people would be to give them proven facts and reliable mental skills.

But we don't know how to implement that without desecrating the holy cows of freedom and individualism.

Having to work and meet requirements set by others is often a sobering experience.

The boa constrictor does not kill by crushing to the prey death, but by tightening its grip more and irreversibly every time its victim exhales.

The victim dies of suffocation, from the final impossibility to expand and inhale after the narrowest contraction.

I would call "boa constrictor syndrome" the style many have, consciously or not, to do damage through exclusively negative influence.

A spouse, friend, partner who only communicates criticism and discontent ultimately destroy the marriage, friendship or business in question.

They act like the boa constrictor: an irreversible tightening to the narrower every time they find something wrong.

The grip is never loosened when anything positive happens that deserves a positive reaction or remark.

The victim of this treatment may resist desperately, but the grip can only tighten, never loosen: soon or later, that irreversible tightening finds its lethal end...

The press and news media, for instance, can be an excellent example of the boa constrictor syndrome.

Many publications and broadcasters are alert to bad news more than to anything else.

When such an approach is consistent in any particular field, the readers, listeners and viewers can be lead to dangerously negative images and decisions on the subject in question, if no active reaction stops the negative process. Politically biased media, for instance, do it masterfully.

They only notice the negative in whatever they observe. This is not difficult, because there is hardly anything without dark sides.

Imagine a room filled with jewels, art objects, delicious food as well as some debris or other undesirable objects.

One could enter it and be shocked that such undesirable things are allowed to be next to precious and beautiful ones, rather than being overjoyed by the presence of such riches and beauty.

Some people actually stop at the debris and unwanted items, talk and insist without end about them to the point that the chance to enjoy the positive is lost entirely.

This is the way many marriages, partnerships, organizations or even nations fall into ruin.

All that is needed is a negative premise on which to build an entire structure of self spawning negative factors.

Everywhere there are people with an uncanny ability to approach a subject by only dwelling on the very little that is wrong with it.

They dwell forever on criticism; they wallow in it to the point of generating an interminable series of related negative comments, examples and articulations, so that the chance to notice the wealth of possibilities, and to build on them is lost irreversibly.

Today's 2 major ideological camps are still the (neo)socialistic and capitalistic. Both are as vigorous and demanding as religions.

Then, just for the sake of definitions, we have a third world which conveniently comprises more ideologies and faiths than we know of.

They also cling to traditions, beliefs and rules that have as much influence as religions.

We may call them religions, ideologies, truth, laws, social or philosophical systems, but we follow them and are helped and victimized by them.

One of the worst consequences is in the criminal irresponsibility toward the fate of billions of children that we bring to a life of famine, suffering and hopelessness.

There are many areas, in our world, where poverty, social and economic conditions are so bad that it would be cruel to let children be born there.

In these cases, it would be humane to regulate birth rate in some way or another.

It is generally accepted that we cannot do it without limiting human freedom.

I suspect that we surrender to that taboo because we are afraid to do the right thing when it is unpopular.

We are paralyzed by conflicting opinions and we use them as excuses for doing nothing.

We are being inhuman toward the children we allow to be born into suffering, sickness, famine, tragic existence.

Some think that we should control birth because overpopulation is the evil to fight. Others neutralize that theory with the objection that the evil is in the distribution of goods, rather than overpopulation.

And the children are born just the same, and suffer, and grow sick, hungry and in the worst conditions even unfit for animals.

Obviously, we have no solution yet, no matter what the reason is. American dogs live better than many of those children.

In the meanwhile, we should have enough sense and take the necessary measures to limit the growth of population wherever there are no survival conditions fit for human beings. These measures are already being implemented in many countries, in many manners and in various degrees.

Some industrialized countries restrict pernicious urban immigration by issuing residential permits to outsiders only if they have employment or other support in the location they want to move to. This simple means would save productive areas from becoming slums of spreading decay.

That would benefit our whole country if applied to immigration, as it was in the first half of the 20^th century. It was done successfully with immigration quotas and other selective measures. I was subjected to them, and it pleased me immensely, for it gave me the assurance that Americans were serious about avoiding decay.

As a result, every large city attracts parasites who want to be supported by public welfare.

This lowers the local standards, brings irreversible deterioration, promotes unemployment, crime, vice, total decay and multiplication of parasites, together with consequent higher taxes that provokes the productive elements to move away.

This starts the self-destructive cycle that is crippling most American large cities..

Some countries have birth control programs that can be expanded and modified according to any conceivable condition.

Some demagogues accused those programs of genocidal motivations. That was enough to stop the rescue.

Unfortunately, there are people with racist motivations, but there is also a racist paranoia by people that truly believe they are under attack.

I do not thing that any race (white, black or whatever) is worth saving as such.

This can be misunderstood -and many wallow in orgies of such misunderstandings-, but races and cultures are in a continuous evolutionary change.

No individual should be sacrificed, or be born, for the sake of any racial concept. Nor for any other political, social, philosophical or religious belief.

As to immigration into the USA, avoiding selectivity is like destroying our borders, security, prosperity and any form of patriotism.

Only the international Socialism has ever supported such a disaster, which is worse than can be described here.

There are people who believe in the American public welfare, and others who consider it a waste that corrupts.

In any economic crisis or difficulty, there are less means of support. Therefore the number of destitute or failures increases. As the population increases, this number becomes legions of destitute, unfortunate, poor or helpless.

People who believe in welfare, then, have a good chance to prevail in times of scarcity, when this welfare is the most needed and the least available, because they receive the votes of the unfortunate, who constitute the majority.

The democrats, therefore, have the most power when they are the most damaging to the public wellbeing, for they disrupt it with economically crippling welfare.

They try to spawn their waste in form of education by incompetent teachers, job-training by ignorant bureaucrats, wasteful public works, inept help here, addictive help there.

They make it worse by spreading the notion that everyone is entitled to all the cornucopia.

The rules of the welfare game work in a way that the less you try to become productive, the more you get.

Don't try anything productive if you want help. If you only show that you can try, help is denied, the do-gooders will find reasons to check on you, find fault and fine you.

The IRS vultures will come down on you. The government parasites will feed on you.

Welfare advocacy is a sure way to get more votes from uninformed and unskilled people.

It proliferates the number of unproductive people and diminishes the number of those who deserve help.

In fact, those who deserve help end up finding ways to avoid the addicting welfare and join the conservative trends.

The situation is complicated by the fact that there are innocent altruistic people attracted to the liberals and ruthless egotists attracted to the conservatives.

But the number of parasites and welfare addicts increases as a result of the above situation.

So, it increases the votes for the democrats and more misery, which produces more votes for the democrats and more misery, which....

Obviously, they are so classified that they are led to believe that only the democratic party can help them.

The democrats help them become more and more addicted to the dope of welfare and to the democrats.

That weakens the blacks, increases dependency on welfare and fortifies the democrats.

I don't understand how our CIA can function, when its actions must be discussed publicly.

First, we have Congress that wants to know and openly debate CIA covert plans and actions. Nothing could be more asinine.

News media take one event, like a bombing, and reveal to any reader that the CIA did or promoted, or was accused of promoting it. We know how eager our enemies are to pick up this kind of information and use it to inflame world opinion and provoke fanatic attacks that kill innocent Americans.

Even if it causes world-wide anti-American feelings and attacks, deaths and disasters.

Moloch was a Phoenician and Ammonite god in Carthage. Children were sacrificed by throwing them alive in the flaming mouth of his enormous statue in periods of crisis or distress.

Like Moloch, increasing government controls tend toward uncontrollable government power, which ultimately devours its citizens or, at least, their freedom.

The lure of government controls begins with the necessity of correcting abuses by private power. This necessity, however, becomes a trap. Defining the need for control is not the same as knowing how to control. It is one of the many leftist contraflops.

We know clearly that we need to control AIDS, and we also know that we have not yet found the means to control it.

We may have the means to precisely define the presence and the cure of AIDS.

Not so with national or private economy, education, poverty, liberty, rights, justice, "right and wrong".

We need to improve our economy, education, justice, equality etc.. Therefore, the government believes that it must just go ahead and "improve our society".

How? By undertaking measures and issuing laws that will worsen the problems -and create worse ones-, if they don't work.

This is done with laws and government controls the ideologues love to enforce.

They can become self-sacrificing crusaders, when they have faith in their methods.

Therefore, liberals and socialists are so attractive to the general uninformed public.

Faith, however, is to be suspected exactly because it is faith, rather than knowledge.

Faith gives the wishful inspiration and contentment that the interminable work of knowledge pursuit cannot easily provide.

When someone reveals to us that reality requires more work, more learning, responsibility and sacrifices than we wish, we prefer to believe the one who assures us that, instead, we deserve and can have what we want, and that we are being victimized by those who want to exploit us.

They are like the man who says that the patient needs brain surgery; therefore he is going to operate, whether he can operate or not.

1993. The Clinton administration plans to set up something like offices nationwide to train small businessmen to succeed.

When I started my chemical business in 1959, I was told by an economics college professor that I would go bankrupt within 4-8 months.

Now, my business is thriving nationwide and exporting. I work at it most of my wake hours, 7 days a week, give seminars to professional builders, chemists and other specialists.

Yet, with all my managerial experience, education and scientific knowledge, I still need to learn a lot more about running a business.

Clinton's men in those offices to help business are much less than college professors, and much less than entrepreneurs. Therefore, it is hard to imagine a surer way to waste money and time than to let government bureaucrats teach or advise entrepreneurs...

Our government has tried repeatedly, under many administrations, to help the economy, improve education, fight crime, eliminate racial strife,, equalizing men and women...

It has not only failed, but, the more controls it issued, the more it worsened the economy, education, racial strife, gender hostility..

The contraflop result, contrary to the intended, is also reached in the opposite direction: beneficial consequences of ruthlessly selfish actions.

One typical example is the fantastic castle of Neuschwanstein, in Bavaria, built by the insane king Ludwig II over one century ago: an unneeded, useless, enormously expensive whim, in callous disregard for the needs of the contemporary society.

It became one of the most lucrative and beneficial sources of touristic and cultural income for the local population, since then, nowadays and in the foreseeable future.

Imagine what failure it would have been, if the purpose of the building had been to help the poor: most probably a drab, economically built structure with beds, kitchens, some cheap altars (money would be needed for food, clothing, etc.), a park for the children and the elders and other forgettable "essentials".

It would have been a great humanitarian deed that would have lived a short drab life and disappeared into oblivion.

Virtually most, if not all, of the artistically and touristically lucrative castles, monuments, royal palaces, temples and other famous structures were built for selfish glory, vanity and other purposes far removed from the public welfare.

From the Wall Street Journal of Sept. 24, 1993: "On one of her many treks to Capitol Hill, Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked by Norman Sisisky, a Virginia Democrat, what might be done to ease the burden of her health care plan on small business. 'I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America' replied the Fist Lady, in her best matter-of-fact tone..."

That epitomizes the callous presumption of liberal do-gooders who assume that anyone would want to be "saved" by government meddling.

Besides, there is hardly a more deeply anti-American posture than Hillary's, probably unintentional, because the greatness of America is being the country where the "undercapitalized" entrepreneur has a chance.

This is much more compelling for anyone who moves to America, than any liberty and equality, important as they may be.

"The land of opportunity" is the main reason that fascinates the entire world about America, the reason why people emigrated to USA, including me.

I was long time undercapitalized and I never got government help. When I inquired about it, I met the same arrogance syndrome as Hillary's.

Hillary's small-business Nemesis would have aborted my business then, countless enterprises now and the future of America beyond imagination: beyond the imagination of those who would have aborted Edison, du Pont, Walt Disney and others who started "incorrectly".

Every entrepreneur knows how every business can go through "undercapitalization" phases, and how government can kill any business enterprise with incompetent evaluations, crippling regulations and obtuse controls executed by inept bureaucrats following rules based on scatterbrained assumptions.

Hillary unwittingly wants the government to suffocate the nation's creativity with presumptuous regulations.

Allowing Hillary her unprecedented super-power because she is married to Billy is far from orthodox.

Helping the poor, the disabled, giving free lunches to the children in the schools? Isn't that what killed socialism?

How would the pioneers have conquered the West -let alone dared the adventure of crossing the ocean to settle on hostile unknown territories- built railroads, industrial empires, cities, dams, if they had had to report their incomes, pay taxes, fill forms to obtain permits, help, SBA financing, inspection , inspections, investigations, pay preposterous penalties for breaking rules only the enforcers knew and could interpret?...
What if lawyers had been "helping" them?

People from all countries were attracted to America not just to survive (for that, pay homage to anyone with power where you are, and you survive), not just for freedom and equality, but precisely for the opportunity to succeed and then become rich and secure.

It is a fact that virtually everyone wants to become and stay rich. How seriously and effectively, it depends on how much one is willing to work for it.

But then, why do the voting crowds flock to those who want to punish the rich for being rich?

If we dig into history, we find an uncontrolled pioneering start in most civilizations, then some administrative and police controls to check abuses. As the latter grew in power, also their abuses needed to be restrained.

At this point, the rich and the political abusers started to interact in either fusion or conflict, or endless combinations of both.

Meanwhile, competition (a form of evolution) was already stratifying people in various categories, from slaves to rich and/or powerful. Naturally, the rich and powerful also competed among themselves, and their number diminished accordingly.

Dictatorship, benevolent or evil, was the unfettered triumph of the few winners; democracy -or its degeneration into socialism- if the powerful used the help of the masses of losers or unambitious.

Nowadays, the conquest of power is more insidious than ever before, before the powerful use their political or financial means to slant the public opinion in their favor.

In this process, we see that the supposedly popular demagogy is to assure the public that we have to "sock it to the rich". A fail-proof demagogic complaint is that some action or proposed law favors the rich more than the poor.

Mind you that no one would make a big deal out of something that favors the lawyers more than the orthopedic surgeons, or the fat teenagers more than the red-headed taxidermists (even when the latter are teenagers too).

Besides, how many orthopedic surgeons and red-headed taxidermists are there to make trouble? But there are plenty, and more, failed or unfortunate would-have-been-millionaires who are still far removed from their goals.
Many of them see the incongruity of taxing the "rich" more than the "middle class" (words that mean whatever fits the politicians), because the "rich" are the best source of jobs and financing for whatever is needed.
But the would-be-rich, like the rich, are after whatever they can get, from the government or any other source, in order to become as rich as the rich the government uses as scapegoats.

The politicians are also greedy for money. But they can only get their money with the means used by abusive dictators: through power. Power to tax, to control, to force the governed to pay fines and other penalties for crimes created by ad-hoc laws; power to blackmail or extort (under "compassion" and "concern" masks) the successful citizens (the most powerful anti-oppression people) into whatever the politicians (= government) want.

The heroic claims of the politicians against the "big corporations" are typically false.

The "big corporations" can be the best allies of an oppressive government, because they can use the government to promulgate laws and endless regulations to prevent smaller and more competent companies to compete (see Hillary's comment against "undercapitalized" entrepreneurs, and how she and her husband profited from political clout with big money interests, without producing any damn thing).

The public awareness of big "evil" corporations is exploited by the politicians by making political opponents appear helpful to the "rich".

For instance, they know that the more money is made available to the "rich" (really, all entrepreneurs, big or small), the more jobs and taxes are created.

Even the "selfish" and "wasteful" expenses by the rich cannot help but create more jobs and taxes. Also money going to gambling, prostitutes, or luxuries like ostentatious mansions, yachts, personal jets, jewelry, fancy clothing and food, as well as "frivolous" (none more frivolous than the government financed "Christ in the Piss" crucifix-in-urine artifact) caprices produce plenty of jobs for architects, contractors, artists, bankers, boat builders, aircraft manufacturers, mechanics, electricians, carpenters, insurers, designers, engineers, lawyers, cooks, hoteliers and the whole gamut of human activities.

Sooner or later, the political turpitude of arousing class hatred against the "rich" and of falsely accusing the conservatives of "taking food from the mouths of the children" will be fully exposed, as it began to happen in the November 1994 American votes in favor of the conservatives.

With exception of a few spoiled inheritors of great fortunes (who will lose them sooner or later), most "filthy rich" have earned their fortunes with much more endeavor than the 8-hour working days of the unionized rich-bashers. No union worker or common person would work the "24-hour-days" (yes, I even dreamed about my work projects while asleep), without weekends and vacations, like most entrepreneurs especially in the first years .

The politicians make them appear like greedy exploiting oppressors of the "working man", who is never asked to work as hard and for so little as the "greedy" entrepreneur.

No politician is willing to remind the public that 4 out of 5 entrepreneurs end in bankruptcy in the first 4 or 5 years.

No politicians reveals to the public how the small entrepreneurs are continuously victimized by sadistic bureaucrats, extremely expensive regulations, incomprehensible rules only the regulators understand.

Recently (end of 1994), for instance, a couple of representatives of the Department of Transportation came into my office "to find our how we can be of service". They expressed interest to see our shipping room. There, they surprisingly took pictures and assured us it was routine. Shortly thereafter, they sent us a letter with a request that we pay a $9,000.00 fine for having boxes on our shelves with one arrow instead of 2 arrows printed on them, as the law allegedly required for some types of shipments. We tried to object that we could have explained if we had been told, and that nothing was being shipped in those boxes. Besides, no poisoning, spillage, pollution or accident had occurred. Moreover, our firm had the unique record of no work accidents, fires or any pollution in 35 years. What are they going to do with those $9,000.00 that my firm could use for production, better salaries and better working conditions? We all know...

Should we write a letter to our representatives? Our lawyer said we'd better pay the fine, because the court costs would be much higher...

It occurs to very few that bureaucrats, many politicians and very large corporations love to see struggling small entrepreneurs shackled in all kinds of impossible regulations that prevent their growth.

Then, politicians and bureaucrats want to give contracts and favors to the large corporations who can give them comfortable retirement jobs, which small enterprises cannot afford to give.

Contrary to all official descriptions, most government controls, regulations, labor laws, fines, penalties, even civil rights, affirmative action, most of the welfare rules are primarily used to preserve and increase the government power over the citizenry.

In conclusion, the greatest hostility is between the comfortably tenured bureaucrats and the the small, incredibly hard-working and risk-taking entrepreneurs: the former lose their power and cannot justify their own jobs if the latter succeed; the latter can hardly progress if the former vampirize them.

Finally, the major source of progress and jobs, in America and elsewhere, are the small entrepreneurs, not the government, and not the large super-corporations.

The politicians know it too well. That is, if the public realizes that jobs are created by helping the small entrepreneurs with less taxes and less regulations, they will ask the government to stop creating sterile, artificial "jobs" that still need more financing milked from the already overburdened business people.

That would mean not only a rebirth of prosperity for the nation, but the worst blow to the evil fortress of big government and bureaucracy.

==============================================================================================================================

- It is not generally perceived that socialism and leftist liberalism are the equivalent of a huge capitalistic contraflop.

It is well known that capitalism tries to correct its own excesses with anti-trust legislation, which is an indirect confession that the ultimate result of unregulated competition is a large despotic monopoly.

Leftist liberals, on the other hand, start with the pretense of protecting the "little guy" against "big business", which is the most fashionable evil all politicians claim to fight against.

Yet, socialism and leftist liberalism tend to concentrate all economic and social activities in the government Moloch, thereby accelerating the worst evil of ruthless capitalism.

The Clinton administration tried to achieve that final evil under the pretense of having the government "help" or "manage" all the economic and social activities of the nation.

The U. S. Census Bureau September 2003 annual report about poverty in U.S.A. states the following percentages of

"Poor U.S. Households" Owning These Amenities (from Oct. 13 "Human Events"):

Own Home	45.9 %	Microwave	73.3 %
Car or Truck	72.8 %	Color Television	97.3 %
2+ Color Television	55.3 %	Cable or Satellite TV	62.6 %
Air Conditioner	75.6 %	Large Screen TV	25.3 %
Refrigerator	98.9 %	Video Recorder or DVD	78.0 %
Clothes Washer	64.7 %	2+ VCR or DVDs	25.3 %
Clothes Dryer	55.6 %	Stereo	58.6 %
Dishwasher	33.9 %	Phone Answering Machine	35.3 %
Garbage Disposer	29.7 %	Cell Phone	26.6 %
Personal Computer	24.6 %	Internet Access	18.0 %

- A murderer-rapist confesses, all the evidence is undisputable. No one can argue against his guilt.

Yet, our laws allow him to be set free on the basis that some evidence was collected illegally or for some other technical irregularity.

It is true that the law is above the individual, but this concept is brought to the absurdity that people, justice and public safety are sacrificed to technicalities.

We are unable to create laws that can prevent, punish and stop crime, narcotics traffic, racketeering.

We know that some individuals are racketeers, we know their names, addresses and what crimes they have committed. Yet, we elect to do nothing against them, because we don't have enough evidence with the technical characteristics that would be acceptable in court.

On the other hand, we have no hesitation to disregard justice and even our constitution in order to grant a sticky assistance to "minorities", who would not care to demand it, were we not suborning them into it: a classic contraflop that worsens the misery of the "minorities" and the resentment against them.

Our welfare itself has become a farcical contraflop. It has become the addictive drug that debilitates the very people it is supposed to help.

It has given many black women the delusion that their best hopes lie in generating illegitimate children in order to be supported by the government.

TV-shown interviews insinuate that black men take the position that they can have all the "fun" they want with women and expect that the government be responsible for the children.

We know that such an attitude is antisocial, primitive, even criminal, as well as brainless. But we don't dare to make much of it because our politicians are afraid to offend the blacks and lose their votes.

Normal people resent fellow-citizens who debilitate our society and demand ever increasing taxes, support and protection that relentlessly corrode the wealth of the nation and reduce the number of the few citizens who are left to produce whatever is left.

We hear arguments in favor of the destitute mothers and children our welfare produces, and we forget that our condoning attitude promotes life-long unhappiness, dope addiction, prostitution, and crime in those we help.

We know who the dope-peddlers are and how they exploit the victims of our welfare.

But we do nothing about them because we want to be scrupulously pedantic about technical "due process".

We don't find ways to punish the human vermin who cause so much evil, who create children condemned to hopeless unhappiness, but we are adamant about persecuting hapless citizens who don't pay the taxes used to create so much evil.

We don't forgive those who don't pay a toll way fee, we charge huge fines to the productive hard-workers who neglect to observe some bureaucratic requirement...

One category of worthy citizens is abused in the process: the very large number of blacks who can be as productive and moral as any other ethnic group but are arbitrarily associated with the black trash.

If we took the same position with the black trash as with the white trash, both blacks and whites would weed out both black and white parasites, leeches and trouble-makers.

This process would obviously diminish the undesirables among the blacks and whites; but it would also cripple the political power of the poverty pimps.

Liberal politicians want us to confuse a few undesirables with the whole race. We also develop partiality toward the whole race from a conviction that they are victims of white persecution.

This encourages them to blame us for their crimes, which, consequently, are committed with a twisted zeal of revenge against the white.

It is not surprising that the white masochistic guilt attitude encourages black crime, destruction of the black family, spawning of black addiction to hostile parasitism, proliferation of black and white politicians who thrive on black distress.

Never before have we experienced the present sympathy toward criminals of one race and blaming their crimes on the law-abiding citizens of another.

Never before have we experienced tainting a whole race by transforming the crimes of a few of them into the "entitlements" of their whole race.

Their victims are lured into becoming more virulent as their failures and moroseness increase.

This multiplies their disgrace, hatred and hopelessness, which increases their number and their votes for the political maggots.

The power of the political manipulators increases thus with the suffering of their voters....

- Legislative proposals to increase taxes on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, luxury and pleasure expenses are vehemently opposed by lobbying groups that claim the proposed increases are to protect the business tax loopholes at the expense of the private citizens.

Such reasoning is facilitated by a general assumptions that business is evil, greedy and malefic.

Business is the overall source of our wealth, power, progress, welfare, freedom and everything productive in our world.

Government agencies have a level of general hostility against the very businesses that make the very agencies possible, against the business that pays the taxes that produce the salaries of the persecutors of our businesses.

1994 President Clinton's claim that "the rich must pay their fair share" in taxes is dishonest or incompetent.

Even the rich who produce nothing and keep their money in banks instead of reinvesting it are very beneficial to society. The money they leave "just lying" in savings accounts, or in stocks and bonds, is profitably invested by the banks and other enterprises.

Furthermore, even the money spent by the rich for frivolous activities or pleasure is used to give work and salaries to those who produce whatever, tasteful or not, the rich indulge in.

They should go after productivity, productivity, productivity, for jobs can result only from productivity.

Jobs for job's sake result in ultimate job destruction, because they devastate productivity and the economy.

This goal-reversion is confirmed in the opposite direction: job elimination with increased productivity results in ultimate job multiplication stemming from the increased activity, wealth, consumption, services and other peripheral results.

- "Separation of church and state"? Then, why "in God we trust" on our money, the Bible in courts of law, "So help me God" in swear-in ceremonies, clergymen introducing political gatherings and ceremonies?

In the oath of allegiance, we must declare: "..one Nation under God". Which god: the Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Catholic, Lutheran, Mormon, Unitarian, or the one of the Satanic Church of America? They are all protected, with equal rights and privileges, by the Constitution. "Why, any of them: it doesn't make any difference". Oh yeah?...

- Politicians know how to make the rich poor, not how to make the poor rich.

- The impartiality of the law is majestic: both the rich and the poor earn the same interest from stocks or bank deposits, both pay the same price for a yacht or a private jet, both pay the same fine for sleeping under a viaduct.

- While the conservative refuse to cross an abyss, the liberals want to do it in 2 jumps.

- Of all the political evils, the cancer of bureaucracy is the least understood and the most understated.

Bureaucrats sooner or later develop a keen perception of the most subtle clues in any action, law, ideology or trend that may support and increase the power and financing of bureaucracy.

They come up with new arms of government, new controls, regulations, longer and more complex procedures, longer and more extended investigations, transfers of document, processes, issuance of new and more complex forms, increased expenditures, new taxes, increased specifications, new agencies and sub-agencies...

Any policy, theory, and related findings that promote more expenses, more hiring, higher salaries, more power and perpetuation of bureaucratic jobs are supported at any cost.

This attitude has not only entrenched itself, but it has found unconditional allies in unions, institutions, government agencies and the teaching establishment.

This cancer is spreading in our society to become as paralyzing as in the communist societies who were destroyed by it.

- Our institutions begin to decay as soon as their goals are attained. They were conceived for those who needed and missed them. Once the institutions are in place, what was formerly a goal to strive for becomes an available resource to exploit.

- Nietzsche: "Democracy has always been the declining form of the power to organize".

It is true. But there is no need to be alarmed and conclude that accepting Nietzsche's statement means rejecting democracy.

We can safely accept democracy because we know that governments can neither plan, nor organize more efficiently than we can correct them.

- The more the Americans dwell on the conviction that they are the best in the world, the less chances they have to succeed in the international competition.

While other countries concentrate in improving their education, skills and productivity, USA is totally mired in bloated obsessions like: feminism, racial integration, "affirmative action", abortion rights, homosexual rights, sex education for children, "minority" quotas.

When we decide to focus on something as significant as education, the best we can come up with is higher salaries for teachers who cannot teach, and higher taxes for more expenditures on building and equipment that are either incompetently conceived or incompetently used at higher cost.

- Common people are more impressed by politicians who parade care than by those who show how to solve problems.

They are inspired by promises rather than by facts. Facts tend to be disappointing by their very nature of fitting the goal rather than the wishes.

- "Helping the poor" and "fighting poverty" may -and should- mean the same, but they become antithetic because people are imprisoned by the wordings of the two statements.

"Helping the poor" tends to focus only on the symptoms, such as giving food, shelter, health care and similar help.

This posture is very popular with politicians and public figures, for it generates instant-gratification and votes. However, it is mainly cosmetic, for it perpetuates poverty by alleviating the symptoms without removing the causes. It tends to reinforce the causes because it gives more room and power to the symptoms.

"Fighting poverty" is effective, because it addresses the causes: economics, lack of opportunities, ignorance, lack of skills, malnutrition, health, social problems, racial prejudices.

- 1986. Am I am seeing things? Martin Luther King has been granted a national holiday all for himself, January 15.

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, were squeezed together into February 17.

Is Martin Luther King's stature equal to that of George Washington plus Abraham Lincoln?

Those who perpetrated this historical blunder should have their names recorded in the legislative records.

- The most active grass-roots members of a political movement are often unemployed or underemployed people who have nothing more important to do.

Take some aspects of our electoral system, which selects people an the basis of their popularity, not of their real merit. Even when the merit is measurable, as in the cases of some high-level professionals, like the judges.

In other civilized countries, the judges are chosen through specialized exams, on the basis of measurable parameters that can only be evaluated by experts in law and jurisprudence.

What do physicists, sailors or brick-layers know about the qualifications of a judge, unless they develop experienced competence in jurisprudence?

- 1989. People are now suing tobacco manufacturers for emphysema and cancer damage, asbestos vendors for cancer... Many of these suits are strange, considering that the defendants were innocent of intent and even knowledge until very recently.

We are now unknowingly producing and consuming goods that may later be found to cause diseases or other damages. They may be special foods, drinks, medicines or other products that only later will be recognized as dangerous or even lethal. It would be unreasonable to punish the manufacturers who now have no idea that they are doing something wrong.

When the anti-business attitude is so successful and supported by so many in our democracy, it becomes a tempting evidence against the desirability of democracy.

- The liberals are becoming the new snobs and elitists, against which we must develop the new Sophists, then Socrates, then Plato... Then, the Sophists will become the new elitists. Nothing new under the sun...

- The truth message is really successful when it is convincing and pleasing for everybody.

On the other hand, when something is said primarily with the purpose of pleasing everybody, it is phony.

- Considering the premises of each posture, liberalism attracts the losers and conservatism the winners.

- The liberals demand the distribution of wealth and talent that only the conservatives can produce.

- What is sacrificed in a democracy is wisdom, for the opinion of the ignorant weighs the same as that of the knowledgeable. In that, wisdom and education have no electoral meaning.

- Unions and politicians put forward their demands, not their duties. Duties have been reduced to the status of encumbrances we accept only if thrown at us by opponents' demands.

Builders, hunters, miners, travelers, all accept to go the necessary path toward their goal. This path is often 95% of the effort.

Today's spoiled brats want the house without building it, the prey without hunting, the gold without mining.

The one who can produce what they demand is made responsible and guilty for their needs. He has only duties toward them, who only have rights. He is punished if he does not contribute enough.

- 1989. How can we sanction South Africa and not Nicaragua, Cuba, USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, Burundi, Angola, Ethiopia, Libya, Iran? Cowardice toward whom?

- The liberal intellectual has become the narcissistic dinosaur of present intellectualism.

Today's real intellectualism is so different from the past that it doesn't define itself intellectual any more, because of the academia decay. It is based on the available technical competence rather than on the past dogmatic opinions that kept breaking each-other like clay vases.

- We condemn parents who solve the education of their children by throwing money at them, but we condone politicians and teachers who solve the public education problems by throwing money at them.

The main problem is that teachers have unions, not the parents or the students.

- A radical is such before success. He becomes a conservative after he succeeds, unless he succeeded in leftist politics.

- Someone said that many of our politicians pursue the unworkable at the sacrifice of the possible.

- "Entitlements", "You deserve..." (without earning it) are distortions of reality and prostitution of values. They are an insulting injustice against all who work for everything they get.

Being entitled to something is now the same as demanding it without earning it.
Then, who is left to produce it if we are entitled to it before we produce it? Therefore, entitlement to something often means means exploiting it to death.

When one gets a job and asks: "What are my benefits in this job?", he forgets that the job itself is a benefit coming from productivity, and other benefits must be produced before they can be obtained.

- Cost of living: the prices of the expensive versions of any item are mentioned as basic costs poor people must deal with. Such estimates are inflated by the welfare exploiters, whose earnings increase as the welfare demands increase.

- Unions have the monopolistic peculiarity of raising the labor prices to the point that they suffocate the economy. The crypto-socialist National Education Association, for instance, is actively suffocating our educational system, the most vital of any nation's sectors.

- Why do so many think that military expenses, and not welfare, are a loss?
Military expenses cause production of goods, work, employment, new technology, sophisticated research that is then used in general industry, and output of products other than weapons.
Many wars have resulted in less debilitation than that caused by welfare.

The poverty and balkanizing hostility created by the present welfare has generated more victims than the Korean and or Viet Nam war.

- With our Congress and Senate watching every secret operation, and openly discussing them, soon we (and the enemy we are at war with) should be able to watch covert CIA operations live on TV...

- Many political programs (like a 5-year plan) are complete failures after they succeed, not because they are wrong, but because people expect much more.
Therefore, successful plans are abandoned, and failing plans persist on the agenda.

- Hobbes said that if 2+2=4 were stated in politics, the opposite party would deny it.

- Blaming despots and evil leaders is often absurd without blaming their supporters too. On the other hand, no matter how evil their deeds, they are often both victims of their beliefs.

- Our political system is like a ritual dance: one party criticizes and opposes the other in virtually everything, lest the public might vote the other way.

The lining up of postures and opinions along party lines is too compact to be honest. If it is not dishonest, it is either stupid, psychotic, or some other oddity waiting for a new disparaging definition (or euphemism).

The bizarre regularity of the occurrence is self-evident: every 4 years, the opposition party declares that the party in power has failed and will continue to fail.
If it is true, the American country is the only one in history which never had a government that did not fail...

- Popularity-dependent people tend to promise what the mediocre majority expects. This raises unrealistic expectations and the consequent unhappiness. Thus begins the chain reaction downward.

- Democracy can be like the open knowledge from Eve's apple: knowledge of right and wrong means no longer obeying the law but arguing it.

It menaces the arrest of evolution. To argue that democracy promotes evolutionary competition presumes a true competition, not the ultimate triumph of the ever growing crowds of the voting losers.

So, our democracy begins as the needed liberation from oppression, but then it becomes evolution downward, or decay.

A "sophisticated" idea of the mediocre majority is their way to protect "minorities".

This scatterbrained protection emasculates the weak and increases their dependence until they sink the rest of us. The continuous medications of democracy by legislation may correct it in the same phony way as the faith healers try to correct phony Christianity's nihilism.

As a result, both democracy and Christianity nurture the self-destruction seed in their practice.

- Many schools, offices, politicians, bureaucracies have mismanaged and overspent the amounts of money they need, but they contrive new excuses to get more money.
They do worse: they use their very failures as proofs that they need more money rather than as a proof that they don't know how to use it and how to solve their problems.

The liberals are fuming with horror at the republican proposal to privatize or transfer to local governments the federal funded lunches in public schools, as one of the possible means to reduce our national deficit.

They accuse the republicans of wanting to deprive innocent children of their vital nutrition.

First of all, feeding children is the function of their parents, not of a government.

A government that feeds the children substitutes a basic parental function with government control. Which is worse than malnutrition.

Providing free school meals, like aid to fatherless families with dependent children, contributes to the Marxist insinuation that the the foundation of society is the government, not the family.

Like any form of welfare, giving food and financial help gives the government the power to bestow or deny help to those who are addicted to it, according to their compliance with government orders.

The same despotism over the productive citizens, when they fail to pay taxes, can be used against the welfare addicted poor who try to recover their individual and family integrity.