Society Dangling
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑--‑‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑-----------------------
Popular representations of the
biblical
It is hard to believe that people
devote themselves to something evil as such.
Probably those people were
honestly convinced that holding anything sacred was bigotry, that family
hierarchy and ties were antiquated, justice was just a competitive strife
between
professional debaters, reasoning no more than rationalization, religion an
obstructive social ritual, free sex and promiscuity desirable, homosexual
aspirations legally enforceable, patriotism an obsolete
attitude...
Almost the same as we experience
now in the
It is remarkable how unaware the
general population is of what is developing in our society.
The erosion begins in the family
values.
First, we had the subtle
destruction of the father image.
One could say that all was
originated by the profitable need of the media and the popular arts (especially
movies) to criticize whatever dominates the public scene, for controversy
generates interest and high TV‑ratings, which produces profitable advertising.
Everybody was sure that the father
image could not be hurt by anything; therefore it was safe joking about it.
The self‑satisfied male promoted
the "harmless" anti‑man and anti‑father fictions to prove his
sophisticated tolerance.
Then, marketers saw great
financial gains in flattering the female public in primitive ways, at the
expense of the "invulnerable" male, who took it with condescending
amusement.
This insinuated an anti‑male
attitude that found its way in the very feminist movement that males themselves
had made possible.
The equal‑rights movement can not
get rid of it either.
The anti‑male attitude lurks, seen
or not, subconscious or not, in most who promote the feminist or equal‑rights movement.
The consequence is an almost irreversible poisoning of the atmosphere between
male and female.
That poisons marriage and family.
The lurking sex fantasies of many
male legislators found it convenient to promote anything that would make the
neighbor's woman and ass more available to them.
With due
exception, of course, of their own women and asses.
Of course, that boomeranged.
The press and the arts, as above
mentioned, must feed on easy and safe targets, when they have no higher
inspiration, which is most of the times.
Thus, cheap gossip and feeding on
the blood of the society that protects them become the breeding ground of the
press and popular art.
Ridiculing or accusing ‑rather
than supporting‑ the authorities, living institutions, family, sex, vices,
crime... attracts more readers, viewers and money.
And the public's faith in the
demanding traditional principles is slowly eroded.
The government itself contributes
to the disaster through its bureaucracy.
Government agencies don't function
like industry or commerce.
Inefficiency in the private sector
ends up in failure, bankruptcy.
In government, inefficiency is
rewarded with additional funding.
Indeed, whenever a government agency succeeds, it obviates the problem for which it was created, and cuts costs.
As a consequence, the projected budget for the following year is cut. If
success continues, the bureaucrats end up eliminating themselves...
Therefore, it is in the interest of those bureaucrats to increase their own inefficiency ("needs") in order to receive increased financing.
The unions function in a similar
manner.
Initially needed to improve the
workers' welfare, they succeeded so well, that they ended up making themselves
first unnecessary, then burdensome.
Now, they can only function as
parasites:
They create discontent (otherwise
they are not needed), inefficiency, overpay, superfluous and extremely costly
work rules.
They force industry to take a defensive attitude toward incessant
demands by workers who are convinced they are entitled to demand more and more
from employers they are incited to mistrust...
As a result, no employer of
unionized workers would be foolish enough to offer raises, benefits or any
cooperation unless they are angrily demanded by the union.
And such demands must be opposed,
or the union feels accused of doing the employer's bidding.
This "adversary system" makes the union/employer
hostility a sick symbiosis that is as useful to our economy as terminal cancer.
As to the management, its
competence decreases in proportion of the belief that they are constantly the
best in the world.
The more they freeze in that delusion, the less they realize
how incompetent they are becoming.
Therefore “others” learn to
outperform, out-produce and undercut us almost any way
they please.
With the union/management‑prescribed
hostility between workers and employers, and with the management's narcissism,
our society's economic future remains under siege.
From another perspective, our
tendency to over criticize our government and institutions on
the basis of fads has cost us enormously.
One example is evident from my
experience in
I remember, -when I was in Italy- a
reported Mussolini statement that a Martian invasion was more probable than
America's entering the war against Germany and Italy...
Consequently, it was safe to go
ahead in the various aggressive ventures, such as joining Hitler (rather than
becoming his victim) in World War 2.
Well, if Roosevelt, American
Congress and Senate had shown a firm attitude in time, Hitler and Mussolini
would not have dared what they did. It could have averted World War 2.
Historical evidence favors this theory.
We have not learned the lesson
yet. Reagan's policy was aimed at preserving the peace, because the world is
still as it was toward waging war: strength and firmness are more likely to
deter than to provoke. Now, we have politicians with a vociferous anti‑overnment attitude that in other countries and times would
have been branded with "high‑treason".
Another poison is the enforcement
of the racial‑equality principle, which has become rampant, unashamed pro‑black
racism.
It may be a form of justice, but
merely attacking the symptoms has never worked and never will.
History shows it like a law of
nature.
We cannot presume to change
reality just because we don't understand it.
We are mesmerized by artificial
concepts of "equality", "equal rights" just as much as by
"superiority", "dominance", yet, we don't understand them.
Love is good, but we know too well
that it is counter producing to force people into it.
Similarly, integration is good,
but we force people into it, instead of facilitating the premises for it.
Thus, we can only increase
hostility, or create it where it did not exist before.
When I came to
I refused both, because I wanted
to live in an American‑English speaking environment, in order to integrate as
fast as possible.
If they had tried to force my
neighbors and me to integrate, it would never have taken place the proper way.
Resentment on both sides would have tainted it forever.
Equality and integration are
hardly more than fads. Furthermore, "superiority",
"inferiority" are distorting
oversimplifications for differences.
We must operate on the substance
of our thinking, not on the symptoms of our intellectual inadequacies.
Competition itself ‑which we
worship‑ disproves equality, equal rights and integration.
Religion differentiates between meritorial actions, beliefs or virtues.
Schools give grades, promotions,
degrees, certifications and other selective rewards.
To many, it sounds like “elitism”,
which seeks to be a dirty word. So, we have continuous pressures to eliminate
examinations, grades and… what?
Politicians are afraid to take a
position in merit, like the fear of displeasing some vociferous minorities.
Business has hierarchy,
meritocracy, competition, reward, pecking order, dictatorship and other values
that are fought by the very social system that is based on them.
Bureaucracy is the very
contradiction of equality in the name of equality.
Taxation discriminates in inhuman
fashion.
Love, courtship, mating are
selective in opposition to equality.
No two drops or snow‑flakes are
equal.
Primitive "superiority"
and "inferiority" are forced upon us by misinterpretations of
differences and merits.
Opposing those realities because
we cannot fit them in our incompetent views of "reality" is like
activating a time‑bomb.
Today's oversimplified equal‑rights,
unisex, welfare and integration fads are of the brainwashing type, operated by
media, teachers and politicians who are utterly ignorant of the consequences.
Finally, we have the teaching
establishment.
Teachers used to be underestimated
and underpaid. Then came the reaction. It began with
the hippies in the 60's. It was liberal, humanly concerned, noble... But it was
primarily an anti‑ establishment reaction by those who failed to succeed in it.
They fought anything that could be
identified with government, family, authority,
demanding law, education and self‑discipline requirements.
They convinced themselves and were
believed.
They succeeded in a culturally
shallow society.
They became the new
"intelligentsia"...
Now, they are the natural enemies
of the family, of the traditional virtues, of cultural and historical awareness
themselves. Many are the sophisticated primitives who misunderstand the French
"constructionism",
"deconstructionism", "post‑modernism" and other fads dear
to the new tenured leftist academics.
They hide behind an obscure and
exclusive intellectualism. In reality, they are perpetuating a traditional
American anti‑ intellectualism. But with a difference.
The traditional anti‑ intellectualism was an attitude of pioneering doers. They
were suspicious of theories that could interfere with their urge to get things
done.
The crypto‑anti‑intellectualism of
today's tenured academics display a virulent form of the typical defensive and
parasitic posture of today's unions or bureaucrats.
Genuine teachers, true
intellectuals and doers ‑let alone the traditional
family‑ feel ominously menaced by this insidious phenomenon.
With these premises, the solid
fabric of American standards menaces to become a torn
rotted cheesecloth.
Duties, merits, responsibility,
hard work, virtues are being analyzed out of existence by those who are afraid
of the call to meet the requirements.
They feel secure in recognizing
only the validity of their interpretation of reality, not reality itself.
Family is too much trouble, so is
work, responsibility is a source of blame, virtue is unrewarding...
TV's serpent in our Garden of Eden
says to any jerk, bum and weakling: "You deserve the best... ".
The only thing to be expected from
life is lights without shadows, pleasure, relaxation without toil and
suffering...
Love, wine,
music, "highs", "trips" are to be cultivated and enjoyed.
Some who understand have the
function of keeping those pleasures and refinements alive, of refining them for
posterity, for safekeeping in our culture...
Others have the function to
produce the wealth that supports the high‑priests of the pleasure‑temples...
The high‑priests will surely know
how to use the wealth for more refinements, more pleasure to transmit to the
new generations...
Until someone
will come with some ominous trumpets and blow some sense into us.
Probably they will colonize us...
WHERETO,
When I immigrated into
Blond people always prevailed in
virtue, talent, dominance, leadership and other desirable attributes. Non‑Anglosaxon women or men involved with Anglosaxon
Americans were destined to lose in any contest. If any non‑Anglo conquered the
viewers' sympathy on account of heroism, sacrifice, love or other virtues, and
there was conflict of interest with an Anglosaxon
wife, husband or friend, the plot simply caused the non‑Anglo to die or
disappear otherwise, so that no controversy could arise about why the nice
person would not be rewarded in favor of the Anglo.
Evil people were dark or somehow
visibly non‑white‑Anglo.
Evil men were mostly dark‑haired
and mustachioed...
The American soldier was a
simplistic example of impossible combinations of super‑human qualities,
humility, heroism and genius in disguise.
Black people were mostly servants
or ridiculous cowards.
Now, we have the reaction:
A movie or TV producer shows his
sophistication not only by avoiding anything that may describe the white man in
favorable light, but one must endeavor and contrive to show:
‑ Women in leadership positions,
far beyond what happens in the real world.
‑ Stupid military leaders and
cruel American soldiers endanger not only
‑ Greedy entrepreneurs destructively
interested in money.
‑ Evils of world‑wide proportions
caused by American redneck patriotism.
‑ American industry that causes
pollution and poverty, if it is not controlled by hippies and unemployable
people with remarkable low-crotch pants, hairdos or non‑hairdos.
‑ Black scientists, black leaders,
judges, heroes, sophisticated thinkers (whose sophistication never goes beyond
furthering the black racist cause), in such blatant contradiction with reality,
that cynicism and belief in the opposite becomes an automatically‑ induced
reaction.
‑ Black people too obviously
placed in commercials and movies for no other reason than being black, and
everyone is supposed not to notice it. As a consequence, a boycott backlash
creeps into the viewers' attitude.
A remarkable consequence of these
incompetent reactions is that their long‑term main victims are the very women,
blacks and workers they want to protect, especially the women and blacks who
believe in the new fetishes.
Producers and directors are unable
to show blacks as they are: basically like and unlike anyone else.
Interracial marriages for normal
reasons other than “political”, for instance, ought to be an obvious step for
evolutionary integration.
With the present attitude, their
disastrous results are among the loudest "proofs" against
integration, because the participants expect the solution by treating the
symptoms with wishful assumptions, rather than attacking the discordances that
cause segregation.
Workers are kept from realizing
that they are led to understand only their rights, not their duties.
Many have become corrosive enemies
of the very enterprises that created their jobs.
American industry is afflicted by
narcissistic delusions, as well as by labor or management evils.
If we remain convinced that
American technology, skills, science, know how, inventiveness, creativity, work
ethics, dependability and merits are
invariably better than anyone else's, we will never believe that we have
serious reasons for improvement.
That alone may become responsible
for the decay of the American automobile, steel, electric, electronic and
almost all "high‑ tech" industry.
This very attitude can cause both
the American labor and management to deteriorate to a point that any ambitious
country can outperform us so far that we may need 20‑30 years to merely catch
up to their level.
Furthermore, we will never be able
to catch up with them if we don't overcome our arrogant belief that all we have
to do to achieve it is to do what we already can.
It won't be enough: we must
improve ourselves, for our best has to be improved by more learning,
responsibility and self‑ discipline.
In our blindness, we still delude
ourselves that the rest of the world is still waiting outside of the sacred
American temple of knowledge, management, ingenuity, science, technology.
We don't realize that the sacred
American temple is already in danger of becoming the servants' quarters.
Like many stereotyped servants,
all we understand are petty squabbles of pecking order, or legal rules, not the
substance problem only our masters will be able to resolve for us...
The question will soon be: how can
we prevent someone else to become our masters?
By ignoring our pecking‑order
squabbles and concentrating on knowledge, productivity, real integration,
competence, creativity... and let the chips fall where they may in the process.
That is what made
‑ The rejection of a hierarchic
structured society, the corroding of authority and worship of the "rugged
individual" has erupted into a new worship for continuous, never‑ending
fighting without surrender, without agreement of the "wrong" party
with the "right" one.
The right to disagree and to
persist in disagreement, the right to defend and preserve... to the extent
that, in anyone wins, the victory can only be complete with the destruction of
the opponent who lost. The defeated will never accept defeat or subservience.
It becomes a matter of pride and dignity to defend one's own position and conviction
at any cost.
The relentless, unquenchable
strife is the new status quo.
Peace is therefore only then
possible, when the adversary is annihilated, enslaved, killed or deprived of
his freedom of action and expression.
Doesn't that settle into a structured
society of winners and vanquished first, and then a hierarchical one?
Thus: full circle back to the
authoritarian society?
‑ Free societies survive by making
laws to limit freedoms. The process continues until freedom is so limited that
rebellion and revolution ensue to restore freedom and start the freedom‑
shrinking process all over again.
‑ Social justice is not achieved
by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but by raising
the poor to the level of the rich without letting the rich lose anything in the
process. That, however, would neutralize any incentive toward competition and
progress, because one would expect them from the government, rather than bother
with the fatigue of the ascent.
Revolutions have failed because
the rich/poor, oppressor/oppressed disparity was left as before by making the
rich poor, the powerful powerless, handing riches and power to the incompetent,
and so on.
We have seen blacks, women‑libbers,
love cultists becoming anti‑white racists, anti‑male chauvinists, anti‑social
freaks... The cure is then worse than the disease.
‑ We can commit crimes protected
by legal technicalities like privacy, 1st or 5th Amendment, press freedom, right to worship or to bear arms... Police or
anyone have no right to intervene to save a life or secure justice, if the
necessary evidence was not obtained from a court according to known or unknown
rules. So, let the innocent die or the vicious murderer free to commit more
crimes for the sake of legality worship.
We don't know what justice is. So,
we make a game of it, to be played according to carefully thought (but
ultimately incompetent) rules we call laws.
‑ Justice should be made
accessible to those who cannot afford very expensive law suits deliberately
imposed by those who can afford them. The number of such cases is astonishing.
It seems that lawyers do nothing against this disgrace because they profit
greatly from it. Whenever I asked lawyers about it, they answered with
abominably correct technicalities that substantially affirmed that the disgrace
had to persist and people were to be sacrificed to it.
‑ If it is true that we are
reaching the virtual solution to our social problems, that may be the end of
human evolution.
One cardinal characteristic of the
American approach is that our duty is to treat persons as ends in themselves.
In this ambient, and in coherence
with equal rights and supreme individualism, we have no way to induce
parasites, illiterates, criminals, drunkards, and all other kinds of misfits to
fit. They have their sacrosanct rights. We also cannot prevent our decay caused
by the totally unhindered spawning of the unfit progeny.
Evolution used to eliminate the
decay sources in the procreation sequence. The sick, the deformed, the
"repelling" and misfits would lose in the mating competition and
could not transmit to the progeny. They simply disappeared either by
extinction, or absorption, or merging.
The stronger, healthier and
"better" transmitted their genes and traditions to the following
generations. In the long run, mankind evolved.
Christianity and other Western
beliefs have impeded the limitation of misfit multiplication by coming to the degenerating
help of the misfit.
‑ Equating legality with morality
is a trap into which the American and several other societies have fallen.
As usual, legislators have a far
too high opinion of themselves.
‑ There are just a few leaders and
significant people.
The rest of mankind is granted
hardly more than reproductive significance, in spite of the reassuring claims by
public figures.
‑ "The young know less than
we, but they understand more" is a strange statement by those who follow
the fad of praising the youth.
The young have a tendency to
expect and demand the impossible, for their premises are based on wishful thinking
not yet refined by proven wisdom.
If it were not so, we would have
to admit that we understood the answers when we were young. Then, for some
mysterious reason, we lost it all as our experience increased...
No one likes to hear that our
present systems have no solutions for many evils afflicting our society.
Experienced people in the public
eye are afraid of warnings that many idealistic solutions cause far more evils
than the problems themselves.
What do we tell the youth outside
of the old: "Act from knowledge, not merely from feelings.
Learn first..."
We have heard that before, haven't
we?
‑ The American reluctance to issue
a general identity card is a prejudice and an unjustified fear that causes more
troubles than those it tries to prevent.
Whenever a crime is committed, the
absence of an identity card protects the criminal, not the victim.
Finding a lost person would be
enormously facilitated by identity cards that are constantly updated, as in
many free countries.
People who are afraid to be found
are obviously against an identity card.
People who want to be always
reachable would welcome a general identity card.
Also fingerprinting should be a
general practice.
Both identification systems would
save us from untold losses of time and money, crimes, confusion and many
complications.
The hush-hushed enormous
percentage of unresolved crimes and murders is astounding for lack of the
necessary data to find justice, protect the victims and contain crime.
‑ In underdeveloped countries, the
leader always seems to be the bad guy. The nice guy cannot hold things
together. Therefore, those countries fall pray of dictatorship, military juntas
or paternalistic regimes. They seem to be a necessary phase from primitivism to
democracy or some better form.
The populace in underdeveloped
countries is terribly misinformed and often eager to promote trouble, because
they see in it possibilities for the realization of all their naive hopes.
As they lack talent and self‑discipline,
they prefer revolution for the troubles they intend to profit from.
Their revolutions, however, don't
do them any good, for they are a burden to any society or government.
Therefore, their revolutions cause
only victims among the dispossessed.
Those are the ones (often willing
victims)on which socialism thrives.
‑ The ideal society is the one in
which laws are not necessary.
The more laws we have, the more
artificial, unstable and unreliable life becomes.
The legal complexities make the
artificial structure of legislation so complex, that society becomes more
fragile with its intricacies.
The solution would be in
incorporating the useful laws in the subconsciousness
of our society, as it happens with the internalization of the
"parent" educational pattern in the subconsciousness
of the children. But it doesn't seem to be happening outside of the
internalization of prejudices.
‑ When I first arrived in
It sounded too vulgar, almost
insulting.
Only later it dawned on me that
the dollar‑evaluation, as imperfect as it is, ends up being far more impartial
than judgments based on our questionable ideas of justice, merit and reward.
Dollars are the most unbiased
method to indicate who is pleasing one's neighbor the
most.
We may have ‑as it too often
happens‑ exaggerated ideas about the worth of our deeds and products, misled
evaluations based on misconceptions that look like eternal truths. These
misjudgments may be damaging, until we open our eyes too late.
Dollar‑rewards in an open market
are not necessarily an indication of good taste or flawless evaluation, but
they have the advantage of being relatively impartial, not righteous or
sanctimonious. They are not punitive.
They respond to acceptance by those
we are able to please. In fact, they are a direct measure of our ability to
please others, whether with products, services or entertainment.
No culture, no philosophy, no
economic or social system were ever able to devise a less prejudiced system of
rewarding the ability to please others, based on the unqualified satisfaction
of the recipient of the advantage.
‑Progress keeps raising the lowest
socio‑economical levels so far that we end up calling "poverty" and
"starvation" what in the past was considered comfortable.
‑ Growth... grow...
There is a ceiling. And there is a new definition of the loser.
Total prosperity is impossible:
there is always the discarded who loses in the
competition. He is the non‑prosperity. He is at the "poverty" bottom,
even if fed, housed and provided for. The very fact that he has or achieves
less than the others is intolerable. If it were not so, competition, progress
and even maintenance would subside. Life itself would come to a halt.
‑ Statistics: Work‑related stresses.
Facts: stresses caused by one's attitude toward work, not by the work itself.
Statistics: Kidnapped or missing
children. Facts: children living with the "other" parent against
court order.
Statistics: Sex harassment or even
rape. Fact: sex‑teasers in many of the occurrences.
Statistics: popular opinion. Fact:
hapless public opinion created by uncontrolled news media.
-
"Work to live" and
"live to work" are often compared in favor of the former.
But then: live for what? Logical
question, but it remains a question.
‑ Our society grants man the
pursuit of happiness but endeavors to prevent its realization.
‑ We are a nation dedicated to
asserting our rights and to avoiding mention of our duties. This may be
comfortable, but it has created a righteous generation of militant hedonists
demanding their rights to be handed undeserved benefits that they call
"opportunities". Some other societies do the opposite: they are too
busy developing their talents and merits to waste time bickering about their
rights.
Talents and merits are better than
money. Rights are a volatile matter of accepted abstractions, no matter how
important, even if they encompass life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
‑ The more laws we make, the more crimes laws generate.
‑ Society needs both crime and
punishment. If all present crimes were eliminated, we would create new ones
(simple: make new laws) and the corresponding punishments.
‑ Trade, professional and labor
organizations, as well as parties, ethnic, religious and other organized
groups, as well as nations, ultimately result in conspiracies against the rest
of the world.
‑ Pursuit of many of our goals obtains opposite and negative results because of our
ignorance of the nature and meaning of our goals.
Typical examples are welfare,
racial integration, feminism, equality, love, justice, freedom.
We presume to understand freedom
and its use because we know the word "freedom"; our definition of it is similar
to operating brain surgery because we know the word "brain surgery".
It is thus that acting on our
beliefs can produce results opposite to our goals, or at least surprising
consequences: the brain is damaged in brain surgery,
liberty and integration are destroyed or impaired in the
implementation of liberty and integration based on our presumed knowledge of
them.
These blunders, on the other hand,
generate compounded misunderstanding and rejection of ideas that would by
themselves deserve dedicated study.
A typical example of the latter is our crude misunderstanding of free and planned economy. Planned economy is rejected because of its failures. This rejection is justified, but not the conclusion that planned economy is wrong as such. It would be like rejecting the idea of a house or airplane because the ones we built collapsed.
Our very pursuit of free economy
is conducted in a way that plans and measures are continuously sought, tried,
modified, adopted. This is ‑intentionally or not‑ a
gradual implementation of the planned economy we dogmatically condemn.
The very inefficiency of the free
economy is its weakness and strength at the same time. Weakness
because it retards improvements and evolution. Strength
because it retards degeneration caused by incompetence and callousness.
‑ From
"The Japanese... are flops
when it comes to marriage. Otherwise they wouldn't need a... school to learn
how to (be husbands)"..
If the Japanese wrote: "The
Americans are flops when it comes to driving. Otherwise they wouldn't need a
school to learn how to drive", we would consider it a bizarre statements.
The Daily Courier's statement is
no better. First, if we recognize we need driver instructions, and not
instructions to learn how to be husbands or wives, we should stick to
driving, and leave the marriage to somebody else, like the Japanese or the
Martians. Second, the Daily Courier's statement reveals an arrogant obtusity to the fact that
Thus, the most unsuccessful
husbands in the world disdain schools to learn how to be husbands and call the
Japanese husbands flops because they set up marriage schools. Great.
Isn't it enough that they can
outperform us in business, industry, science and education?
‑ Our pundits' condescending admission
that we have courts of law, not of justice, prevents us from focusing on the
very fact that we are trapped in a Constitution and laws often diverging from from right and
wrong, true and false.
Intellectual recognition of this
fact induces us first to surrender to its presumed inevitability, then to
become blind to it. Moreover, it becomes patriotic to believe in the fiction
that our society provides honest vision of the true and the right.
Our Constitution and laws define a
game and its rules, not reality and justice. The most we can say of the
Constitution now is that it was the best one could think of at the time.
It was the best available for some time; but we evolve and progress.
If the premises don't change, the
Constitution will become a crippling distortion, like the science of centuries ago,
if applied today as it was.
Our presumption that democracy is
better than dictatorship is misleading per se, for a good dictator would be far
superior. The only trouble is that we don't find a good dictator. Democracy is
ridiculous, but it can hurt us less because its very inefficiency gives us the
time to see the blunders in time and undertake defensive remedies.
Inability to handle a sailboat
should not give us the notion that swimming goes farther than sailing.
Communism fails because we don't know enough -if anything- about social and economical planning. We are enticed into the delusion that democracies know better about sociology and economy.
If they did,
the would make plans and centralize as much as
possible, for nothing could be more efficient.
We have come to worship a
progressive ideology and made it a religion. We created our gods like other
cultures before us. Like other religions before, ours was an inspiration at the
start, and a straitjacket afterwards.
‑ In our society, justice is a
financial/political matter.
First, we must calculate how many
dollars it costs to suffer injustice and how many to obtain justice. We can
obtain justice only if it is cheaper than suffering injustice.
Second, no attorney is going to
help us ‑and we need one to go to court‑, unless he finds financial gain in
representing us. And he will do not what is best for us, but what produces the
most money for him, as long as the law allows it.
Third, in any court dispute
between a rich and a poor party, the rich can force the choice of the most
expensive course of action, so that the poor cannot afford to fight... Our laws
have no provision to protect anyone against such abuses, except in cases in
which the skillful attorneys of the rich commit blunders they are unlikely to
commit...
Justice for pay is no better than
the abuses of an average totalitarian system.
The observation that poor people
get free legal services is a sham, considering the quality of help they get and
the abject indigence which is allowed such help. After all, rich people don't
squeeze people who own nothing.
The main victim of the rich is the
"middle class", that backbone of
CIVILIZED DECADENCE
Whenever I experienced the
feelings and customs of a culture less developed than another, I noticed that
the higher culture left its guard down on dangers that had been eliminated by
the higher development.
It is unthinkable, in
An Ethiopian or Nigerian finds the
American shops, especially the department stores, incredibly incompetent in
shop‑lifting protection measures.
A stone age man would find the American ‑and
not only the American‑ incomprehensibly helpless against any assault on the
street.
What about the fragile entrance
doors into American houses, as well as windows and other means of entrance? How
could the American be so... incompetent and stupid?
The degree of evolution of a
prosperous and sophisticated society eliminates the temptations to commit some
crimes that are more typical of societies where hunger, poverty, scarcity and
unavailability are a continuous oppression.
Underdeveloped and primitive
societies I have visited abounded with tales about "American
stupidity" or "American immorality".
Some who would preclude marriage to a non‑virgin consider the American woman hardly better than a whore.
At weddings in many Muslim and
other underdeveloped countries, it is alright for participant
pundits to rush into the bedroom where the first newlywed copulation takes
place, wipe the deflowered woman's crotch with a white cloth and display the
blood‑stained cloth to the waiting crowd.
Where deception is an everyday
occurrence, roaring
laughter is caused by tales of how an American has been sold a worthless item
for the price of a treasure.
The present wave of terrorism is
another consequence of the development disparities.
If we were more primitive, we
could kidnap a dozen hostages of the approximate nationality of the terrorists
and kill them for every single American victim. That would speak very clearly
to the terrorists, and would have an immediate effect.
This is a case in which our sophistication has a paralyzing effect against the savages.
When sophistication
works to our detriment, it becomes decadence.
‑ Liberals have a Rousseau streak:
individual man is basically good. Poor people are not poor from competition; it
is injustice which makes them poor. Given a chance, they would work, create, compete.
Let's try to understand: the
competitor wins against the competitor who loses and becomes poor. So, give man
a chance to succeed, and he'll become bad.
Thus: successful man is
"bad".
Success is money and/or power.
Politicians have power. Therefore, they are likely to be or become bad.
So, bad men run good men who
become bad if they succeed.
Both the interpretation and the
remedy are based on premises disproved by disastrous results.
To help the poor and to tax the
rich are glib conclusions from ruinous misunderstandings based on primitive
interpretations of: "good" and "bad", what really helps or not, and whether help as we know it is really useful.
‑ From William J. Bennet, of "The Heritage Foundation:
"In 1940, teachers named the
top problems in the public schools as: talking out of turn, chewing gum, making
noise, and running in halls.
In 1990, teachers named the top
problems as: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, and rape".
‑ Society can be man's counter producing defense against nature.
It looks beneficial, but it is
unnatural, as it can set man against its own nature, but it cannot change
nature; it can sureky damage it.
[5,724]
Please click here to send a comment or suggestion
021217