Are Republicans in Congress and the various state houses and senates going save us from the moves of the current Democrat Congress? I can't say one way or the other, because I was disappointed by the Republicans last time around, but that was then. What about this time? Listening to talk show hosts and reading various articles on the Republican victory this last week, I must still ask the question: What if the Republicans fail?
What if the Republicans repeal only the insurance mandate part of Obamacare? The rest of the bill includes various onerous tax regulations that would serve to create a wider gap between the upper class and the middle and lower class in America. The whole bill is sophomoric, but such sophomoric attitudes has stopped few people from invading Russia, only to be defeating by the Russians. If Republicans edit Obamacare, rather than repeal it, they will be defeated in 2012.
What if the Republicans refuse to put a leash on the Federal Reserve, as a minority of Republicans in Congress are suggesting? If the it is not leashed quickly, then the Fed will continue to manipulate the financial markets, thus damaging the already delicate industrial and commercial centers of America. Can you say, "Welcome to: Post-Industrial America?"
What if Republicans decide that the war is going well and that another surge like Bush's(300,000 troops) and Obama's (300,000 troops) would help American interests in Afghanistan and Iraq? I know of no goal for the Iraq or Afghanistan war as of today, so the Republicans do have an opportunity to at least set a goal for both wars. But the war is not the issue; Republican integrity and intelligence is the issue.
What if Republicans bailout another industry and nationalize that industry, as Obama did with General Motors? The Newspaper industry is due for a bailout, and aren't there enough lobbyists to tempt a Republican here or there to secretly add a few million dollars for the New York Times? Or, a band of Neoconservatives could force through a nationalization of all newspaper companies, placing all of them under the control of the Associated Press. Congress passes laws everyday, so such idiocy is bound to work its way through incrementally.
What if Republicans finally start cracking down on the drug war, the war on poverty(or the poor), and the war on illegal immigration? Even though none of these things are fiscally comparable to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they nonetheless wind up as important issues. I would suggest that Republicans make it easier to work in America, whether that be through easier citizenship applications or through work visas that don't require the person to get permission from their nation of birth. The total scrapping the Federal Tax code, and replacing it with nothing would be a good start. Should illegal immigrants be afforded the freedom to work, then we will not have to worry about any amount of Amnesty of the same; they are here to work for money, not vote for money. Plus, if you want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, you could remove the whole illegality part. But what politician makes his name without first making something illegal, and making a little money off that?
What if the Republicans take on the drug war more so than has been seen since alcohol Prohibition? No-knock warranst are the norm today for police departments, both for weapons and drug confiscations. Should someone tip the cops off that you have drugs or illegal firearms, you could be attacked by the cops, even if all you had was a BB-gun from the 50s, some vitamins, and some Aspirin above your sink. Republicans should move, particularly in the state legislatures, to ban both the issuing and the serving of no-knock warrants, else the drug war will turn into a means of random civilians anonymously putting their personal enemies in the sights ATF agents. Oh wait, that is what already happens. This needs to end, now!
What if the Republicans find some things that Obama did to be acceptable? The numerous monstrous bills that have been passed in the last decade must certainly contain something that a single Republican can convince the rest to leave in effect, right? After all, Republicans are always involved in the numerous committees in Congress, so one of them had to manage to slip in a few hundred thousand dollars for a supportive charity or two; this is the nature of the politician, to pay off those who get you into office; I know of no political party that has none of these politicians, not even the self-proclaimed principled Libertarian party. Those bad eggs in the Republican party are the reason why the moderates go along with the growth of government in America, and they must be exposed as the whining juveniles they are.
How about the Democrats?
What if the Democrats go back to being anti-war, after their short binge of being pro-war with their favorite man in the Oval Orifice. The Democrats could go back to their superficial peace-nick ways, demanding that the Republicans spend less on foreign wars and other such foolery, only to demand that the Republicans instead spend that money on domestic wars (Drugs, poverty, freedom, guns, tax-payers, voting, my future job prospects) or other such foolery.
Basically, the Republicans have an opportunity to recoil government across the board, and I think that is what Americans are expecting, or at least the benefits if such reduction of government. Also, the Democrats will be the thorn in the side of Republicans as they do whatever they are going to do; and I say, let the Democrats hoot and holler about spending, the war, poverty, guns, and a lack of bigger government. In the long run, no Democrat will be satisfied in demanding these things, even if they get them; I wonder if Republicans will be satisfied when 2012 comes around, in whatever they end up doing.
Some of you may have concerns about the lame-duck Democratic Congressional session. I have a quote for you: "If the people fear the government, that is tyranny; if the government fears the people, that is Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Dependence upon Youth in this Information Age
I have watched movies, television shows, and read about how some very successful CEO or businessman came to the realization that his life shouldn't be spent on making money. He learned that his life should be spent with his family or adventuring, in such a way that he is living life to the fullest. Do we as Americans have such a concept of life, that we should seek personal happiness before economic, or even political, success? I think most Americans believe that working extremely hard on their job will eventually result in personal happiness, and they believe so without being shown that hard work necessarily leads to personal happiness for oneself, and also for one's children and grand-children.
As another example, let us look at the college student who has the opportunity to go into graduate studies, possibly to earn a doctorate or Ph.D. in her preferred area of interest. She has no particular motivation to continue her education, because she does not feel that she wants to teach others, as of yet anyways. As she is pondering her future, she looks at alternatives, the most clear is that she simply not continue her education, but she does not see anything there for her; she sees an unknown area of possibility, and it is intimidating if not frightening. Her peers suggest that she could use her bachelor degree to go into work, or she could get into politics, or she could start a business. Since she has never explored work, politics, or business, she thinks that she has no possible life unless she gets a hirer education. This student is in the quagmire of formal education that some many college students seem to land in by pure accident; college students get degrees in something they like, like anthropology or literature, and they think that that degree necessitates that they get a job that requires that degree; these students resort to teaching in primary school students who may follow in their foot-steps.
This example is particularly heinous when we remember that, "a life unexamined is a life not worth living". Students are taught to maintain the status-quo of the society they grow up in, and they are encouraged to work for somebody else for the extent of their life; stagnation, or stasis, and dependency necessarily leads to collapse of any government. Is America headed for collapse because American schools are discouraging the entrepreneurial spirit? That is entirely possible, but that is for us to know when it is happening, should it happen at all. My point in showing the Dilemma of the Student, as well as the Dilemma of the Successful Man, is that American culture is not, if it ever was, based on examining one's own life, with the goal of correcting one's aim for happiness, to the likely exclusion of wealth, fame, and power.
This is not to say that the entrepreneurial spirit is somehow being bred out of American culture, or even that examination of one's life is uncommon. Rather, I am saying that as the entrepreneurial spirit decreases, it will result in fewer and fewer people holding more and more economic sway over the lives of others, particularly in the distribution of necessities, the access to communication, the access to luxuries, the access to jobs, and the access to positions in government. In other words, the fewer entrepreneurs their are, the more monopolistic and more centralized the economy will become, though the proper terminology may be oligopolism (from "oligopoly"). No economy last more than a life time when it is centralized, therefore an oligopolistic economy may last as long as the number of oligololists are controlling the economy. This situation is not good, because it gives rise to a greater and greater gap between those in economic and political power, and those who are working for the powerful and wealthy; this breeds class-hatred, which is easily magnified by a government that would finally centralize the economy, thus pushing the economic and political gap to the point of disaster. Again, this is no prediction of what may occur in America, because I am describing what effectively happened in Germany, Italy, and Russia during World War 2.
America, as well as most countries, has an extremely fast means of communication, such that men and women with the entrepreneurial spirit can make an enjoyable living from the comforts of a small town in the middle of nowhere; the Internet is the single greatest means of communication ever devised by Man, and it is utilized for commercial transactions at an incredibly fast rate, such that businesses could not make a profit without the speed of e-mails and massive databases. With the internet, young America entrepreneurs are able to live off of blogs, weekly Youtube video posting, and even selling camping gear through an online website. (Tangentially, the video game industry in conjunction with the internet have resulted in sub-cultural memes of the likes unimaginable before 2000.) The future of a stable American economy must involve some mixture of independent, small-business production and internet-based services, both for local maintenance of production(more exportation, less importation) and the ability to quickly find customers from around the world.
The capacity for the internet to provide information is so great that Mankind may be at or approaching a tipping point in the Information Age; the Information age may transition as fast as it began, only to explode into the cosmos at a greater rate of acceleration. The sky was the limit, now the government is the limit, but soon the speed of light may be the limit; I am not convinced that even light is a very difficult barrier to cross.
The future of Mankind, or at least America, is dependent upon young entrepreneurs who have a conscious grasp of the world, both as it is and how they want to change it. One must be a part of any future change for Mankind, and must actively support the youth in entrepreneurialism, or else countries like America will fall into the same quagmire as Rome: centralism and stasis. Romans in the Empire, after all, saw anything "new" as bad, preferring to remain conservative of traditional ways of doing things, seeking virtue for its own sake.
As another example, let us look at the college student who has the opportunity to go into graduate studies, possibly to earn a doctorate or Ph.D. in her preferred area of interest. She has no particular motivation to continue her education, because she does not feel that she wants to teach others, as of yet anyways. As she is pondering her future, she looks at alternatives, the most clear is that she simply not continue her education, but she does not see anything there for her; she sees an unknown area of possibility, and it is intimidating if not frightening. Her peers suggest that she could use her bachelor degree to go into work, or she could get into politics, or she could start a business. Since she has never explored work, politics, or business, she thinks that she has no possible life unless she gets a hirer education. This student is in the quagmire of formal education that some many college students seem to land in by pure accident; college students get degrees in something they like, like anthropology or literature, and they think that that degree necessitates that they get a job that requires that degree; these students resort to teaching in primary school students who may follow in their foot-steps.
This example is particularly heinous when we remember that, "a life unexamined is a life not worth living". Students are taught to maintain the status-quo of the society they grow up in, and they are encouraged to work for somebody else for the extent of their life; stagnation, or stasis, and dependency necessarily leads to collapse of any government. Is America headed for collapse because American schools are discouraging the entrepreneurial spirit? That is entirely possible, but that is for us to know when it is happening, should it happen at all. My point in showing the Dilemma of the Student, as well as the Dilemma of the Successful Man, is that American culture is not, if it ever was, based on examining one's own life, with the goal of correcting one's aim for happiness, to the likely exclusion of wealth, fame, and power.
This is not to say that the entrepreneurial spirit is somehow being bred out of American culture, or even that examination of one's life is uncommon. Rather, I am saying that as the entrepreneurial spirit decreases, it will result in fewer and fewer people holding more and more economic sway over the lives of others, particularly in the distribution of necessities, the access to communication, the access to luxuries, the access to jobs, and the access to positions in government. In other words, the fewer entrepreneurs their are, the more monopolistic and more centralized the economy will become, though the proper terminology may be oligopolism (from "oligopoly"). No economy last more than a life time when it is centralized, therefore an oligopolistic economy may last as long as the number of oligololists are controlling the economy. This situation is not good, because it gives rise to a greater and greater gap between those in economic and political power, and those who are working for the powerful and wealthy; this breeds class-hatred, which is easily magnified by a government that would finally centralize the economy, thus pushing the economic and political gap to the point of disaster. Again, this is no prediction of what may occur in America, because I am describing what effectively happened in Germany, Italy, and Russia during World War 2.
America, as well as most countries, has an extremely fast means of communication, such that men and women with the entrepreneurial spirit can make an enjoyable living from the comforts of a small town in the middle of nowhere; the Internet is the single greatest means of communication ever devised by Man, and it is utilized for commercial transactions at an incredibly fast rate, such that businesses could not make a profit without the speed of e-mails and massive databases. With the internet, young America entrepreneurs are able to live off of blogs, weekly Youtube video posting, and even selling camping gear through an online website. (Tangentially, the video game industry in conjunction with the internet have resulted in sub-cultural memes of the likes unimaginable before 2000.) The future of a stable American economy must involve some mixture of independent, small-business production and internet-based services, both for local maintenance of production(more exportation, less importation) and the ability to quickly find customers from around the world.
The capacity for the internet to provide information is so great that Mankind may be at or approaching a tipping point in the Information Age; the Information age may transition as fast as it began, only to explode into the cosmos at a greater rate of acceleration. The sky was the limit, now the government is the limit, but soon the speed of light may be the limit; I am not convinced that even light is a very difficult barrier to cross.
The future of Mankind, or at least America, is dependent upon young entrepreneurs who have a conscious grasp of the world, both as it is and how they want to change it. One must be a part of any future change for Mankind, and must actively support the youth in entrepreneurialism, or else countries like America will fall into the same quagmire as Rome: centralism and stasis. Romans in the Empire, after all, saw anything "new" as bad, preferring to remain conservative of traditional ways of doing things, seeking virtue for its own sake.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Unions and the Great Transition
I have not talked about Unions or what I believe to be occurring right now, the Great Transition. I do realize that most generations think that they are unique, which is true, but I find that the current economic and political events are part of a Great Transition. The transition to what is going to be either a significantly renewed sense of Liberty around the world, or at the very least in the West, or a significantly renewed form of tyranny throughout at least the West, though more likely throughout the world. My reasons for positing such are based on the Greek situation, the European situation, the American situation, and then the economic instability in general around the world.
In Athens Greece, Greeks are rioting over either the fact that the Greek parliament is giving up their sovereignty to the IMF, or the fact that the pensions of the government labor Unions are going to be nullified. In both cases, the Greeks are justified in being at least irritated, though the latter case would only cause the Greek union workers to look for work rather than live off of the government in Athens. In the former case, the Greek people will soon be in greater tyranny than socialism. I must point out that some have called the rioters anarchists, which doesn't seem as probably in my opinion considering the fact that union pensions are about to be nullified. Therefore, it would make more sense for these rioters to be from labor unions, and I would not be surprised if the union managers instigated these riots. Regardless of who or why these murderers are rioting, they will soon case martial law to be called for on the part of either the IMF, if it gets control, or the parliamentarians in Athens.
Already the effects of the crisis in Athens is affecting the US stock market, and we are likely to feel it until autumn. To look at the US as being somehow immune to the effects would be naive if not borderline suicidal. For the US is easily in the same boat as Greece, though we have not defaulted yet because the US dollar is the international currency. If the IMF downgrades US debt to AA rating from AAA rating, then the US economy will go through the same scenario that Greece is going through, because the IMF would have essentially called the US dollar not stable enough to qualify as the best of all currencies, like the Euro or Yen. I must posit that we are very likely to go through what Greece is going through except we will see union workers rioting in California and other heavily unionized states. That rioting, if in more than a few states, will cause the US president to declare martial law in those areas. If the rioting enters the US capital, then Obama will surely declare martial law over the whole of the US.
I realize that the whole declaration of martial law is a tired prediction from when Bush was president, but I never saw Bush as having any reason to declare martial law. Obama on the other hand said on public TV that he wanted to fundamentally transform the United States. "Ooh, conspiracy theory," I can hear people saying, but I don't find it a conspiracy when I look at the men and women that Obama has on his staff, the so-called Czars. These czars are all of the intelligentsia, having never worked in the free market, who one the whole find that such rulers as the Castro family and Mao Zedong as though they were the greatest men of all time, saving the people from the people, so to speak. If avowed Communists and Maoists are advising Obama what to do, I highly doubt that he would not listen to them. When you look at the fact that the prominent czars happen to be associated directly to ACORN, AFLCIO, and SEIU, you have to wonder if these men and women are in any way influential in those organizations functions outside of day-to-day functions. What I mean, is that if labor union leadership is given clout in the White House, I think that the President is then in bed with the labor unions.
Such a copulatory situation should cause grave concern, because of what all of the czars and what Obama have said. For instance, the Rom Emanuel line that, "You should not let a good crisis go to waste." Well, if the Labor unions in America strike, you will have a crisis. Rom goes on to say, "And what I mean by that is that a crisis gives you an opportunity to do what you thought you could not have done before [sic]." If the Unions strike, America will certainly see a fundamental transformation in America, but it will be a top-down transformation. Such transformations are called usurpations, which is the onslaught of tyranny.
Next, the fact that the IMF can buy the sovereignty of the Greek state says that a bank can buy control of a nation. Such a horrifying possibility was on the scale of New World Order, Illuminati conspiracy theory, because such conspiracies generally involved the central banks of all of the nations somehow having control of the politicians. I know, I know, Alex Jones has held crazy opinions, but I must admit that what he has been claiming is looking like he may get it. He has been saying that the banks control all governments to a large degree by affecting policy etc., but that is looking like that may actualize in the next couple of years if nation after nation signs away their sovereignty to the IMF. That has to be crazy talk, but the Greek parliament is doing it right now!
As for the world economic situation, I see Greece being repeating in the majority of European nations, especially Spain, Germany, and Britain. There will be rioting throughout Europe if the IMF is given sovereignty over the various European nations, because that would mean that the UN controls those nations. If the UN controls any nation through the IMF, then I believe any nation that shows up and gets a resolution passed means that those nations can control the bought nation, like Greece.
I say good-bye forever Greece, hello riots across Europe, hello tyranny in Europe, hello riots in California, and good-bye the chance of true Liberty in Europe.
On Second thought, I think that this centralization is going to be the key to undoing the globalization occurring under the auspices of saving the Greek economy from the brink of collapse. I will be the first to welcome such globalization, because then to defeat tyranny, all anyone would have to do is kick at the one leg and it falls over. I think Chuck Norris should do the kicking, what with his amazing strength and all. (Someone should film as he does it, too)
It is either Liberty or Death, and European politicians are embracing tyranny when I would rather take Death.
Long Live Liberty, and Long Live the Republic of America.
FYI, if the Net-Neutrality thing goes through in the FCC, then I may stop blogging for a while, and I might move these posts elsewhere.
In Athens Greece, Greeks are rioting over either the fact that the Greek parliament is giving up their sovereignty to the IMF, or the fact that the pensions of the government labor Unions are going to be nullified. In both cases, the Greeks are justified in being at least irritated, though the latter case would only cause the Greek union workers to look for work rather than live off of the government in Athens. In the former case, the Greek people will soon be in greater tyranny than socialism. I must point out that some have called the rioters anarchists, which doesn't seem as probably in my opinion considering the fact that union pensions are about to be nullified. Therefore, it would make more sense for these rioters to be from labor unions, and I would not be surprised if the union managers instigated these riots. Regardless of who or why these murderers are rioting, they will soon case martial law to be called for on the part of either the IMF, if it gets control, or the parliamentarians in Athens.
Already the effects of the crisis in Athens is affecting the US stock market, and we are likely to feel it until autumn. To look at the US as being somehow immune to the effects would be naive if not borderline suicidal. For the US is easily in the same boat as Greece, though we have not defaulted yet because the US dollar is the international currency. If the IMF downgrades US debt to AA rating from AAA rating, then the US economy will go through the same scenario that Greece is going through, because the IMF would have essentially called the US dollar not stable enough to qualify as the best of all currencies, like the Euro or Yen. I must posit that we are very likely to go through what Greece is going through except we will see union workers rioting in California and other heavily unionized states. That rioting, if in more than a few states, will cause the US president to declare martial law in those areas. If the rioting enters the US capital, then Obama will surely declare martial law over the whole of the US.
I realize that the whole declaration of martial law is a tired prediction from when Bush was president, but I never saw Bush as having any reason to declare martial law. Obama on the other hand said on public TV that he wanted to fundamentally transform the United States. "Ooh, conspiracy theory," I can hear people saying, but I don't find it a conspiracy when I look at the men and women that Obama has on his staff, the so-called Czars. These czars are all of the intelligentsia, having never worked in the free market, who one the whole find that such rulers as the Castro family and Mao Zedong as though they were the greatest men of all time, saving the people from the people, so to speak. If avowed Communists and Maoists are advising Obama what to do, I highly doubt that he would not listen to them. When you look at the fact that the prominent czars happen to be associated directly to ACORN, AFLCIO, and SEIU, you have to wonder if these men and women are in any way influential in those organizations functions outside of day-to-day functions. What I mean, is that if labor union leadership is given clout in the White House, I think that the President is then in bed with the labor unions.
Such a copulatory situation should cause grave concern, because of what all of the czars and what Obama have said. For instance, the Rom Emanuel line that, "You should not let a good crisis go to waste." Well, if the Labor unions in America strike, you will have a crisis. Rom goes on to say, "And what I mean by that is that a crisis gives you an opportunity to do what you thought you could not have done before [sic]." If the Unions strike, America will certainly see a fundamental transformation in America, but it will be a top-down transformation. Such transformations are called usurpations, which is the onslaught of tyranny.
Next, the fact that the IMF can buy the sovereignty of the Greek state says that a bank can buy control of a nation. Such a horrifying possibility was on the scale of New World Order, Illuminati conspiracy theory, because such conspiracies generally involved the central banks of all of the nations somehow having control of the politicians. I know, I know, Alex Jones has held crazy opinions, but I must admit that what he has been claiming is looking like he may get it. He has been saying that the banks control all governments to a large degree by affecting policy etc., but that is looking like that may actualize in the next couple of years if nation after nation signs away their sovereignty to the IMF. That has to be crazy talk, but the Greek parliament is doing it right now!
As for the world economic situation, I see Greece being repeating in the majority of European nations, especially Spain, Germany, and Britain. There will be rioting throughout Europe if the IMF is given sovereignty over the various European nations, because that would mean that the UN controls those nations. If the UN controls any nation through the IMF, then I believe any nation that shows up and gets a resolution passed means that those nations can control the bought nation, like Greece.
I say good-bye forever Greece, hello riots across Europe, hello tyranny in Europe, hello riots in California, and good-bye the chance of true Liberty in Europe.
On Second thought, I think that this centralization is going to be the key to undoing the globalization occurring under the auspices of saving the Greek economy from the brink of collapse. I will be the first to welcome such globalization, because then to defeat tyranny, all anyone would have to do is kick at the one leg and it falls over. I think Chuck Norris should do the kicking, what with his amazing strength and all. (Someone should film as he does it, too)
It is either Liberty or Death, and European politicians are embracing tyranny when I would rather take Death.
Long Live Liberty, and Long Live the Republic of America.
FYI, if the Net-Neutrality thing goes through in the FCC, then I may stop blogging for a while, and I might move these posts elsewhere.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Refuting Keynes with Hyperbole, and the Economy
This is my first double post, so I hope I make it worth your while.
For those that have read either Keynes or Bastiat, you ought to have heard ot the Broken Window Fallacy, either through its actual use or refutation. I would like to take that fallacy to an extreme, that the Keynesian theory of economics would say that crime, just like war, supports the economy.
The fallacy of the Broken Window involves the idea that a boy breaking a window results in a window maker making money, therefore the economy is stimulated by a petty crime. Keynes actually admits that war stimulates economy, because government spending stimulates the economy through its spending. If war stimulates the economy, and petty crimes stimulates the economy, then surely murder, theft, robbery, arson, and assault stimulate the economy in the eyes of Keynes.
For all violent crime, the private prisons would get paid more for those who are imprisoned there, thus allowing the prisons to buy more food and other supplies and equipment. For theft and robbery, the victim would have to pay more money to replace that which was stolen, which means that more of that particular good is bought than would otherwise occur. For arson, the property owner would have to pay for another building and all of the property inside, thus causing more money to also be borrowed from the financial system, thus increasing velocity of the monetary policy of the current administration. For assault, the hospital would get more money for treating the injured victim of assault or even battery. All of these crimes boost agregate demand.
This vision of crime is clearly perverse, because it would mean that criminals in general are justified in their crimes, if the goal government at that time is to stimulate the economy. Anyone who find that Keynesianism is correct, they ought to look at more than just the mathematical nature of Keynes's general theory, because the economy is not lead by machines. I will admit that Keynesianism does not treat humans as machines; Keynesiansim treats humans like herbivores of the field and of the forest: the Bear and the Bull.
There ought be no reason to justify war, digging ditches, public works, and breaking windows just to stimulate the economy. While no politician would run on advocating crime and war to stimulate the economy, it is nonetheless necessary to look to the extremities, as it is the extremities of every entity where you see the absurdity or profundity of the particular theory or entity.
Often, when I argue with my older brother, he gets mad at me for using extreme examples in an attempt to refute his points. I will admit that hyperbole is sometimes wasteful, but it is dangerous to posit infrequently what the extremes of a particular viewpoint. For instance, socialism ambiguously offers equality for all, but it fails to mention that when taken to its extremes, socialism results in moral stupidity, as is seen in Europe, the Middle East, and Russia. The reason for this is that if no one has a reason to compete, then the reason to excel in anything whatsoever is pointless. However, if religion is allowed, then Salvation is a possible motivation for moral intelligence, but the majority will avoid such out of a desire for equality or instant gratification as Socialism prefers for the people.
Hyperbole is a mental exercise that helps one to look at the principles of a particualr idea with remarkable clarity, and sometimes disgust. Further, if we did not use byperbole in combat, that is, if we did not look at extremities during combat, then we would fail to notice that very existence of our enemy's hands and therefore his armaments. We would see the enemiy's armor, his facial expression, and his stance, but our puritanical deisre to not watch his extremities would result in us never see the rusty machete slash our shoulder.
Keynes is merely a good example of a popularly held view of economics, which seems to be have a sociopathic view of government, war, and crime. I realize that to tear down one economic theory, you must have something better to replace it with. So far, I can only point out that everything that Keynes suggests to do when a bust occurs is in fact mal-investment, which lead to the bust through a binge in the first place. Why is the economy so bad toady? It is due to the mal-investment of mortgagors, home buyers, speculators (a.k.a. full-time investors), and government spending in general. To solve such a situation, interest rates must become fixed for a decade at least, government spending must be limited to military spending, public salaries, and other miscellaneous obligations, like welfare checks. The reason it is acceptable to maintain the current obligation-spending, is due to the fact that when the economy rebounds due to a fixed interest rate from the Fed and static taxation levels. Yes, if Congress spends no more than they had promised to up until today, then the increase in tax revenue could eventually pay back the total Federal debt. More government spending is mal-investment and is therefore depressionary.
I cannot see government spending decreasing anytime within the next two decades, so I see America experiencing another Great Depression. There need not be WW3, though that is still in the cards with Iran, North Korea, China, India, and Russia all very ablt to wage war at a moments notice if America or Israel invade Iran. Any nation, that is watching America as she has been invading various nations around the world, must be wondering who is the next nation to be liberated from its tyrannical government. Mexico, Cuba, China, Russia, Britain, France, Libya, Spain, Canada, Iran, North Korea, Italy, Germany, Saudi Arabia, most nations in South America and Africa; all of these nations and more are either already qualified or are becoming qualified to be liberated from each their government. I am not suggesting that America will invade any of these nations, but nations must be wonder who is next if they think that America is somehow an empire.
I would love to see a movement in poitics that makes the Democrats impossible to elect outside of the largest and oldest of cities. If Republicans get it into their heads that Democrat light makes them lose their seats in Congress, then maybe, just maybe, our nation can avoid catastrophe. I realize that the word catastrophe has been used frequently in response to the situation of the American economy, but realize that the US $ is looking like a ticking pipe-bomb to foreign investors and that commodities are doing very well compared to most stocks aside from the big technology giants, like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe.
If I am wrong, then you only lost a couple of minutes to read my thoughts on the economy. If I am right, and you do nothing to prepare, then you might just find yourself at best in line for a soup kitchen, and at worst fighting local gangs, Federal troops, UN troops, or even your neighbors, for everything you hold dear, and maybe your Liberty too.
I must emphasize that if you are not willing to proclaim, "give me Liberty or give me Death", to all of your friends and family, then you are not yet prepared to survive anything that might come your way, whether that be unemployment, violent gangs, or some Federal agent looking to take anything you can use to fight them with.
Give me Liberty or Give me Death!
Joe, a Texan
For those that have read either Keynes or Bastiat, you ought to have heard ot the Broken Window Fallacy, either through its actual use or refutation. I would like to take that fallacy to an extreme, that the Keynesian theory of economics would say that crime, just like war, supports the economy.
The fallacy of the Broken Window involves the idea that a boy breaking a window results in a window maker making money, therefore the economy is stimulated by a petty crime. Keynes actually admits that war stimulates economy, because government spending stimulates the economy through its spending. If war stimulates the economy, and petty crimes stimulates the economy, then surely murder, theft, robbery, arson, and assault stimulate the economy in the eyes of Keynes.
For all violent crime, the private prisons would get paid more for those who are imprisoned there, thus allowing the prisons to buy more food and other supplies and equipment. For theft and robbery, the victim would have to pay more money to replace that which was stolen, which means that more of that particular good is bought than would otherwise occur. For arson, the property owner would have to pay for another building and all of the property inside, thus causing more money to also be borrowed from the financial system, thus increasing velocity of the monetary policy of the current administration. For assault, the hospital would get more money for treating the injured victim of assault or even battery. All of these crimes boost agregate demand.
This vision of crime is clearly perverse, because it would mean that criminals in general are justified in their crimes, if the goal government at that time is to stimulate the economy. Anyone who find that Keynesianism is correct, they ought to look at more than just the mathematical nature of Keynes's general theory, because the economy is not lead by machines. I will admit that Keynesianism does not treat humans as machines; Keynesiansim treats humans like herbivores of the field and of the forest: the Bear and the Bull.
There ought be no reason to justify war, digging ditches, public works, and breaking windows just to stimulate the economy. While no politician would run on advocating crime and war to stimulate the economy, it is nonetheless necessary to look to the extremities, as it is the extremities of every entity where you see the absurdity or profundity of the particular theory or entity.
Often, when I argue with my older brother, he gets mad at me for using extreme examples in an attempt to refute his points. I will admit that hyperbole is sometimes wasteful, but it is dangerous to posit infrequently what the extremes of a particular viewpoint. For instance, socialism ambiguously offers equality for all, but it fails to mention that when taken to its extremes, socialism results in moral stupidity, as is seen in Europe, the Middle East, and Russia. The reason for this is that if no one has a reason to compete, then the reason to excel in anything whatsoever is pointless. However, if religion is allowed, then Salvation is a possible motivation for moral intelligence, but the majority will avoid such out of a desire for equality or instant gratification as Socialism prefers for the people.
Hyperbole is a mental exercise that helps one to look at the principles of a particualr idea with remarkable clarity, and sometimes disgust. Further, if we did not use byperbole in combat, that is, if we did not look at extremities during combat, then we would fail to notice that very existence of our enemy's hands and therefore his armaments. We would see the enemiy's armor, his facial expression, and his stance, but our puritanical deisre to not watch his extremities would result in us never see the rusty machete slash our shoulder.
Keynes is merely a good example of a popularly held view of economics, which seems to be have a sociopathic view of government, war, and crime. I realize that to tear down one economic theory, you must have something better to replace it with. So far, I can only point out that everything that Keynes suggests to do when a bust occurs is in fact mal-investment, which lead to the bust through a binge in the first place. Why is the economy so bad toady? It is due to the mal-investment of mortgagors, home buyers, speculators (a.k.a. full-time investors), and government spending in general. To solve such a situation, interest rates must become fixed for a decade at least, government spending must be limited to military spending, public salaries, and other miscellaneous obligations, like welfare checks. The reason it is acceptable to maintain the current obligation-spending, is due to the fact that when the economy rebounds due to a fixed interest rate from the Fed and static taxation levels. Yes, if Congress spends no more than they had promised to up until today, then the increase in tax revenue could eventually pay back the total Federal debt. More government spending is mal-investment and is therefore depressionary.
I cannot see government spending decreasing anytime within the next two decades, so I see America experiencing another Great Depression. There need not be WW3, though that is still in the cards with Iran, North Korea, China, India, and Russia all very ablt to wage war at a moments notice if America or Israel invade Iran. Any nation, that is watching America as she has been invading various nations around the world, must be wondering who is the next nation to be liberated from its tyrannical government. Mexico, Cuba, China, Russia, Britain, France, Libya, Spain, Canada, Iran, North Korea, Italy, Germany, Saudi Arabia, most nations in South America and Africa; all of these nations and more are either already qualified or are becoming qualified to be liberated from each their government. I am not suggesting that America will invade any of these nations, but nations must be wonder who is next if they think that America is somehow an empire.
I would love to see a movement in poitics that makes the Democrats impossible to elect outside of the largest and oldest of cities. If Republicans get it into their heads that Democrat light makes them lose their seats in Congress, then maybe, just maybe, our nation can avoid catastrophe. I realize that the word catastrophe has been used frequently in response to the situation of the American economy, but realize that the US $ is looking like a ticking pipe-bomb to foreign investors and that commodities are doing very well compared to most stocks aside from the big technology giants, like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe.
If I am wrong, then you only lost a couple of minutes to read my thoughts on the economy. If I am right, and you do nothing to prepare, then you might just find yourself at best in line for a soup kitchen, and at worst fighting local gangs, Federal troops, UN troops, or even your neighbors, for everything you hold dear, and maybe your Liberty too.
I must emphasize that if you are not willing to proclaim, "give me Liberty or give me Death", to all of your friends and family, then you are not yet prepared to survive anything that might come your way, whether that be unemployment, violent gangs, or some Federal agent looking to take anything you can use to fight them with.
Give me Liberty or Give me Death!
Joe, a Texan
My official thoughts on Conservatism in action
I had mentioned this to someone once, but I did not seem to have it laid out well enough for that individual to understand my idea properly. I think I may have found some evidence, or at least a supporting opinion. My idea is that conservatives in the Republican party prefer to drive a stake into the political ground, and pull as hard as possible. Meanwhile, the Democrats and RINOs cast a grapel onto the tree of statism, far to the left of the political spectrum. Since all of these individuals are in Congress, they all pull from the same location; this results in conservatives having to try to remain upright while the statists pull them over. It turns out that conservatives and die-hard Republicans take offense to this idea, or at least the individual to whom I posited this idea.
I did come upon this idea indipendently about a half-moth ago. Strangely enough, F.A. Hayek wrote a book which dedicates some number of pages to my very idea, which I guess is not my own idea after all. Here is a short book review of F.A. Hayek's book, The Constitution of Liberty: "Hayek defends classical liberalism, which he distinguishes from European-style “conservatism.” Europe’s political rivalry was between Socialistic centralizers and “conservatives” who resist change, but are gradually pulled in the Socialistic direction. Europe’s classical liberals, by contrast, sought change in the direction of liberty. “There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States,” wrote Hayek, “because what in Europe was called ‘liberalism’ was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built, thus the defender of American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.” Critics might argue that in recent years the Republican Party has become “conservative” in the Hayekian sense, being incrementally dragged toward socialism by U.S.-style “liberals.”"
That review came from here:. There are quite a few books that did not make it on the list, but those that did are deservedly present.
Getting back to Hayek's and my idea, I would also like to point out that my analogy is about the only thing unique to my idea, as far as I know.
I do find it interesting how offensive conservatives find an accusations, or at least those on radio. I don't know why, but when a liberal or a libertarian calls a main-stream conservative talk-show, they host uses, for about half-a paragraph, soft ad hominem attacks based on the assumption that the caller is a left-winger of the sort that adore Nancy "Schmancy" Pelosi. After that short tyrade, the host will then go on to explain the conservative message, as it is called, and then the caller might hang up or continue to talk until a commercial break. I do not mean to disparage such talk-show hosts in general, rather I wish to point out the use of fallacy in argument against anyone showing partial deviation from conservatism. That in no way means that the talk-show hosts would foment violence, that is the sole tactic of big-government advocates.
It is because of the desire to retain the border-line status-quo of legislation that makes me not want to accept the title of conservative. I would gladly accept any one of the titles of Libertarian, Republican, republican, Tea-Partier, tax-protester, Catholic, or even survivalist. I would gladly choose between the Libertarian or Republican party, advocate republican government, participate in a tea-party rally, and protest increasing taxes. I am a a cradle-Catholic, so I already have that. However, the survivalist title would brand me as a Glenn Beck supporter, becuase, for some reason, all Republicans who advocate for having a month worth of extra food means that I listen to Glenn Beck via his Insider whatchamacallit. I do occasionally listen to this radio show through my car radio, but mostly because he and his comrades with mics are hilarious. Glenn Beck is much easier to on the ears than Hannity or Levin, but that is only because Beck relies very much so on humor.
I have nothing against conservatives, as they are the only leading political coalition that actually oppose Democrats. I am not, however, very thrilled with the Republican party, because it fails regularly to follows their principles as laid out on their website. That being said, state Republicans tend to do a much better job than their national counter-parts.
To connect my idea with national politics lately, lets look at just this last decade. First, the Republicans rightful allowed the Clinton ban on semi-automatic firearms to sunset. Second, the Republicans lead the charge against that pervert Iraqi tyrant, So damn Insane. Third, the Republicans decreased taxes significantly at a national level. Fourth, Bush kicked some serious arse in Iraq and Afghanistan, replacing their governments with legitimate government, similar in structure to American government. These are the good things that the Repbulicans did.
The Republicans, however, di not do so well in other areas, as is evidenced by the fact that a swath of Republicans were replaced by Democrats midway through Bush's last term as President. The Republicans actually legalized warrant-less wiretapping for the FBI and CIA, a heinous offense against the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. The Republicans started our current string of bail outs by passing the TARP bill, which is being spent on new pork-barreling, and which allowed a section of our economy to not have to act responsibly until Obama entered office. The Republicans did nothing to actually scale back the size of government, particularly by eliminating the IRS, DoE, and the EPA. Those three agencies ought to have been eliminated from existence as soon as the majority switched in favor of conservatives. Lastly, the Republicans expanded the welfare state, by expanding Medicare, to I believe it is called Medicare part D.
Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have Republicans in the majority, because when Democrats get in office Ruby Ridge and Waco incident happen. Further, I would have no sympathy for Democrats that lose their job as Congressman, come these next few elections.
I must stress that is was not necessarily the fault of Republicans in Congress that Obam was elected. Rather, it was the fault of Republicans at the national level choosing McCain over Thompson and Huckabee. Palin was a good move, but a better move would have been to switch them making Palin President and McCain Vice-president, thoguh that might not have worked at any rate due to Liberal TV news.
I hope I offended someone with the above, because, otherwise, I would just be preaching to the quire.
I hope you burned some plastic or otherwise polluted the environment for Earth Day, because we ahve to make up for Dallas ISD using hybrid buses instead of natural gas buses.
Have a good weekend and don't do bet on anything predicted, you might win,
Joe from Texas
I did come upon this idea indipendently about a half-moth ago. Strangely enough, F.A. Hayek wrote a book which dedicates some number of pages to my very idea, which I guess is not my own idea after all. Here is a short book review of F.A. Hayek's book, The Constitution of Liberty: "Hayek defends classical liberalism, which he distinguishes from European-style “conservatism.” Europe’s political rivalry was between Socialistic centralizers and “conservatives” who resist change, but are gradually pulled in the Socialistic direction. Europe’s classical liberals, by contrast, sought change in the direction of liberty. “There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States,” wrote Hayek, “because what in Europe was called ‘liberalism’ was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built, thus the defender of American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.” Critics might argue that in recent years the Republican Party has become “conservative” in the Hayekian sense, being incrementally dragged toward socialism by U.S.-style “liberals.”"
That review came from here:
Getting back to Hayek's and my idea, I would also like to point out that my analogy is about the only thing unique to my idea, as far as I know.
I do find it interesting how offensive conservatives find an accusations, or at least those on radio. I don't know why, but when a liberal or a libertarian calls a main-stream conservative talk-show, they host uses, for about half-a paragraph, soft ad hominem attacks based on the assumption that the caller is a left-winger of the sort that adore Nancy "Schmancy" Pelosi. After that short tyrade, the host will then go on to explain the conservative message, as it is called, and then the caller might hang up or continue to talk until a commercial break. I do not mean to disparage such talk-show hosts in general, rather I wish to point out the use of fallacy in argument against anyone showing partial deviation from conservatism. That in no way means that the talk-show hosts would foment violence, that is the sole tactic of big-government advocates.
It is because of the desire to retain the border-line status-quo of legislation that makes me not want to accept the title of conservative. I would gladly accept any one of the titles of Libertarian, Republican, republican, Tea-Partier, tax-protester, Catholic, or even survivalist. I would gladly choose between the Libertarian or Republican party, advocate republican government, participate in a tea-party rally, and protest increasing taxes. I am a a cradle-Catholic, so I already have that. However, the survivalist title would brand me as a Glenn Beck supporter, becuase, for some reason, all Republicans who advocate for having a month worth of extra food means that I listen to Glenn Beck via his Insider whatchamacallit. I do occasionally listen to this radio show through my car radio, but mostly because he and his comrades with mics are hilarious. Glenn Beck is much easier to on the ears than Hannity or Levin, but that is only because Beck relies very much so on humor.
I have nothing against conservatives, as they are the only leading political coalition that actually oppose Democrats. I am not, however, very thrilled with the Republican party, because it fails regularly to follows their principles as laid out on their website. That being said, state Republicans tend to do a much better job than their national counter-parts.
To connect my idea with national politics lately, lets look at just this last decade. First, the Republicans rightful allowed the Clinton ban on semi-automatic firearms to sunset. Second, the Republicans lead the charge against that pervert Iraqi tyrant, So damn Insane. Third, the Republicans decreased taxes significantly at a national level. Fourth, Bush kicked some serious arse in Iraq and Afghanistan, replacing their governments with legitimate government, similar in structure to American government. These are the good things that the Repbulicans did.
The Republicans, however, di not do so well in other areas, as is evidenced by the fact that a swath of Republicans were replaced by Democrats midway through Bush's last term as President. The Republicans actually legalized warrant-less wiretapping for the FBI and CIA, a heinous offense against the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. The Republicans started our current string of bail outs by passing the TARP bill, which is being spent on new pork-barreling, and which allowed a section of our economy to not have to act responsibly until Obama entered office. The Republicans did nothing to actually scale back the size of government, particularly by eliminating the IRS, DoE, and the EPA. Those three agencies ought to have been eliminated from existence as soon as the majority switched in favor of conservatives. Lastly, the Republicans expanded the welfare state, by expanding Medicare, to I believe it is called Medicare part D.
Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have Republicans in the majority, because when Democrats get in office Ruby Ridge and Waco incident happen. Further, I would have no sympathy for Democrats that lose their job as Congressman, come these next few elections.
I must stress that is was not necessarily the fault of Republicans in Congress that Obam was elected. Rather, it was the fault of Republicans at the national level choosing McCain over Thompson and Huckabee. Palin was a good move, but a better move would have been to switch them making Palin President and McCain Vice-president, thoguh that might not have worked at any rate due to Liberal TV news.
I hope I offended someone with the above, because, otherwise, I would just be preaching to the quire.
I hope you burned some plastic or otherwise polluted the environment for Earth Day, because we ahve to make up for Dallas ISD using hybrid buses instead of natural gas buses.
Have a good weekend and don't do bet on anything predicted, you might win,
Joe from Texas
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Bullroaring for Communication and Dundee knife
First, I will talk about Bullroaring and my path to it. Second, I will talk about my interest in knives, particularly in bowie knives, like the kind that Dundee presents when he say, "Now that's a knife."
1:
Lately, I have been looking into how I might communicate with someone beyond speaking distance without using electronic devices, or at least without using a device that requires the same device on the other end to receive and interpret the communicated information.
Before that I had looked into small Ham radios through which you would use Morse code only to send information, but the radio, license, and antenna were complicated, difficult, and bulky. Don't get me wrong, I think Ham radio is a good hobby to get into, but I am not the kind of person to get into it, unless someone were to give me a radio and antenna for free.
Next I looked into using LEDs to encode information, but taht did not pique my interest seriously enough for whatever reason. The only thing that had piqued my interest at that point was a means of encoding based on trinary with a fourth value for confusion. I would have the operator always switch between four styles of encoding, all based on trinary with a fourth digit for confusion of the enemy.
Next I looked at simply using the sun to reflect light directly at the target audience, but the amount of equipment to make such a dedicated means of communication that I dropped it altogether, only leaving me to carry a small mirror in my bag for those SOS signals to aircraft and boats.
Now that I had avoided both electronic and visual means of communication, I turned to auditory communication. This means would make auditory possible at greater distances than my voice is capable of. I would use what is commonly called a bullroarer. For those archaeology buffs, might recall the bullroarers were at the very least used for ceremony, having much bizarre usage in mystery cults, as well as tribal initiation for youths to become men. Bullroarers were seen as magical, and some researchers believe that that may be due to the very low frequency produced by the usage of a bullroarer.
Disregarding superstitious and cultural use of bullroarers, I reall watching Crododile Dundee using a bullroarer to "make a telephone call," to "get some help," from any nearby Aborigines. Such communication would only be practical in a society that has no common source of electricity, which is why bullroarers are no longer used for communication. That makes bullroarers even better for me, since I could teach all of my friends how to interpret particular patterns for bullroaring, as I now call it, and they could know what is being communicated.
Anyways, the three simplest codons, or letters, that you can make with a bullroarer are lasting, loud, and violent. Lasting is the lowest tone and slowest speed that is audible, Loud is the nest fastest and the middle tone, and violent is anything above and louder than loud. Violent is the easiest to distinguish from the rest, and it is also the most tiring.
You would be surprised how many days my right arm was soar after just thirty minutes of randomly bullroaring. I have been playing around with my bullroarer for the last week or so, and so far the easiest place to practice is on the roof of my house, specifically where the roof meets at about a 60 degree angle.
Bullroarers are easy to make, though the best ones are those that are made like primitive peoples made: oval-shaped or eye-shaped flat pieces of wood. Then you tie a string to one end, give the plank a spin, and spin the wood around in a circle, like a bucket on the end of string. The spinning of the wood is what causes the low pitched sound, and the faster you twirl the contraption, the higher the tone you get.
I have come up with a simple means of writing the three codons I mentioned above: - lasting, | loud, + violent. That is simple trinary, so if you only use three codons per message, then you can make a total of 27 messages, or even the entire English alphabet. Four codons triples that, so I might stick with three for now.
So far I have:
Calling the wind: | - + (the source of the three codons, which is obviously a spell of some sort, which you repeat many times)
Help: + - + (like SOS = shortest longest shortest)
I, me: | - +
Need: - | +
Have: + | -
Come: - | |
Leave: + - -
To communicate, "Come to me, I need help", you would sound out, - | |__| - +__- | +__+ - +. That literally translates to "Come [to] me, [I] need help". Repeating "I" would be pointless, and the __ means a gap to separate each word.
Because of the nature of Google, I am not going to put more than this here, though if you want it, I would gladly print off what I do develop when I am done. One more thing, to make sure that no one heard a whirling of a bullroarer mid message, I wait at least 15 seconds between each set of three codons.
2:
Along with the Dundee interest, I have found that the way Mick carries his knife to be quite convenient. Since I live in Texas, I can legally carry a fixed blade knife in public as long as the blade is less than 5.5" long. I have a Ka-Bar short version, which has a 5.25" blade, and so I get my with that, for now. If I lived IN Alaska or Montana, I would carry something like Dundee carries.
Anyways, I like the blade that Dundee has, for several reason. First, the blade is shiny, making presentation to muggers very obvious. Second, the blade is about 11" long, making its presence most intimidating, plus I could say that it is a real knife. Third, the blade is an excellent weapon; the knife is a bowie knife, the carrying of which is illegal in most states in America, which sadly shows the long-lasting scars of the Civil War.
If I had a ranch, then I would spend a wad of cash on a fancy diagonal, tip up, bottom of the back, sheath and a bowie knife similar in size and features to Dundee's knife. That would be an excellent Christmas or birthday present, by the way. I will keep an eye ought for such a knife next time I go to a gun and knife show.
That is all for now, I hope you enjoy what I have said, and I hope you enjoy life at least a little bit more,
Joe
1:
Lately, I have been looking into how I might communicate with someone beyond speaking distance without using electronic devices, or at least without using a device that requires the same device on the other end to receive and interpret the communicated information.
Before that I had looked into small Ham radios through which you would use Morse code only to send information, but the radio, license, and antenna were complicated, difficult, and bulky. Don't get me wrong, I think Ham radio is a good hobby to get into, but I am not the kind of person to get into it, unless someone were to give me a radio and antenna for free.
Next I looked into using LEDs to encode information, but taht did not pique my interest seriously enough for whatever reason. The only thing that had piqued my interest at that point was a means of encoding based on trinary with a fourth value for confusion. I would have the operator always switch between four styles of encoding, all based on trinary with a fourth digit for confusion of the enemy.
Next I looked at simply using the sun to reflect light directly at the target audience, but the amount of equipment to make such a dedicated means of communication that I dropped it altogether, only leaving me to carry a small mirror in my bag for those SOS signals to aircraft and boats.
Now that I had avoided both electronic and visual means of communication, I turned to auditory communication. This means would make auditory possible at greater distances than my voice is capable of. I would use what is commonly called a bullroarer. For those archaeology buffs, might recall the bullroarers were at the very least used for ceremony, having much bizarre usage in mystery cults, as well as tribal initiation for youths to become men. Bullroarers were seen as magical, and some researchers believe that that may be due to the very low frequency produced by the usage of a bullroarer.
Disregarding superstitious and cultural use of bullroarers, I reall watching Crododile Dundee using a bullroarer to "make a telephone call," to "get some help," from any nearby Aborigines. Such communication would only be practical in a society that has no common source of electricity, which is why bullroarers are no longer used for communication. That makes bullroarers even better for me, since I could teach all of my friends how to interpret particular patterns for bullroaring, as I now call it, and they could know what is being communicated.
Anyways, the three simplest codons, or letters, that you can make with a bullroarer are lasting, loud, and violent. Lasting is the lowest tone and slowest speed that is audible, Loud is the nest fastest and the middle tone, and violent is anything above and louder than loud. Violent is the easiest to distinguish from the rest, and it is also the most tiring.
You would be surprised how many days my right arm was soar after just thirty minutes of randomly bullroaring. I have been playing around with my bullroarer for the last week or so, and so far the easiest place to practice is on the roof of my house, specifically where the roof meets at about a 60 degree angle.
Bullroarers are easy to make, though the best ones are those that are made like primitive peoples made: oval-shaped or eye-shaped flat pieces of wood. Then you tie a string to one end, give the plank a spin, and spin the wood around in a circle, like a bucket on the end of string. The spinning of the wood is what causes the low pitched sound, and the faster you twirl the contraption, the higher the tone you get.
I have come up with a simple means of writing the three codons I mentioned above: - lasting, | loud, + violent. That is simple trinary, so if you only use three codons per message, then you can make a total of 27 messages, or even the entire English alphabet. Four codons triples that, so I might stick with three for now.
So far I have:
Calling the wind: | - + (the source of the three codons, which is obviously a spell of some sort, which you repeat many times)
Help: + - + (like SOS = shortest longest shortest)
I, me: | - +
Need: - | +
Have: + | -
Come: - | |
Leave: + - -
To communicate, "Come to me, I need help", you would sound out, - | |__| - +__- | +__+ - +. That literally translates to "Come [to] me, [I] need help". Repeating "I" would be pointless, and the __ means a gap to separate each word.
Because of the nature of Google, I am not going to put more than this here, though if you want it, I would gladly print off what I do develop when I am done. One more thing, to make sure that no one heard a whirling of a bullroarer mid message, I wait at least 15 seconds between each set of three codons.
2:
Along with the Dundee interest, I have found that the way Mick carries his knife to be quite convenient. Since I live in Texas, I can legally carry a fixed blade knife in public as long as the blade is less than 5.5" long. I have a Ka-Bar short version, which has a 5.25" blade, and so I get my with that, for now. If I lived IN Alaska or Montana, I would carry something like Dundee carries.
Anyways, I like the blade that Dundee has, for several reason. First, the blade is shiny, making presentation to muggers very obvious. Second, the blade is about 11" long, making its presence most intimidating, plus I could say that it is a real knife. Third, the blade is an excellent weapon; the knife is a bowie knife, the carrying of which is illegal in most states in America, which sadly shows the long-lasting scars of the Civil War.
If I had a ranch, then I would spend a wad of cash on a fancy diagonal, tip up, bottom of the back, sheath and a bowie knife similar in size and features to Dundee's knife. That would be an excellent Christmas or birthday present, by the way. I will keep an eye ought for such a knife next time I go to a gun and knife show.
That is all for now, I hope you enjoy what I have said, and I hope you enjoy life at least a little bit more,
Joe
Friday, March 19, 2010
Legislative Tyranny: Commentary on a John Locke quotation
So, my mom sent me a link to a Free Republic post, which quotes several sections of John Locke's Two Treatises on Government: sections 221-225. The Free Republic post is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2474248/posts
Section 221:
The "contrary to their trust" clause is very important, but the next line quoted is the real meat, because Locke is suddenly so much more specific there. Basically, if a legislature or the executive makes itself, the community (whatever that is), or some other person the invader of property and the disposer of life, liberty, or fortune of the People, then the legislative or executive is ripe to be dissolved. (I wonder if Locke considers ignoring such a branch of government to be dissolution?)
I bet if you mention that to anyone in the Federal government, you might get your name put on a list, just in case the Federal government actually becomes tyrannical, so that SWAT teams can scoop you up for your treachery.
Since Socialized Medicine means that the State has a vested interest in how you and I live, the State would then come to your house and demand that you take any test or any medicine or any treatment, regardless of your being a free human being or how safe the intake actually is. Since every Fiat Government in human history likes using the threat of force to get what it wants, you can be rest assured that Socialized Medicine will lead to the Federal government to start threatening people if they don't pay. Oh wait, the IRS already does that. Fiat Government always justifies its actions by the outcomes it wants, regardless of actual outcome. I expect that the most prominent outcome the Federal government will seek is to make everyone in America healthy, but to lower costs first. Money is too important, you know, for the Feds to worry about your genuine safety as a child of God. Then again, the Feds probably should be worrying about foreign threats rather than whether or not I took my medication this morning.
Section 222:
Locke, having a deep interest in property as the most important liberty, focuses on the value of property when a man enters into society.
Locke is right that men look to legislative bodies to protect their property, and that makes sense only as long as that man trusts the legislative. However, history shows that legislatures are the worst entities to go to seeking protection, because they are slow and constantly passing new laws to replace the old laws. I would rather pay a thief to protect my property, because I could at least hold him accountable if he steals something, whereas the legislature could ban something I own and the police, and maybe the National Guard too, would come and take that property of mine and I would then have to fight dozens of jerks rather than one jerk. (However, Governments only lose by suicide, though I will get into that in a later post.)
The first emboldened part of the quote is obviously the most important, and probably because the guy put it in bold when Locke did not (Sarcasm, how original, eh?):
"whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, [the legislators] put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge [defensive force?], which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence."
I don't know any better quote that should be plastered all over the walls of Congress, because the Legislature needs to read it before voting on any bill. Not even the Ten Commandments are this important when considering whether a bill ought to be passed, because the irreligious only listen to the threat of force, just like a typical Statist.
Ought we then to show up at Congress with our rifles and shoot the lot for their crimes? My answer is no. The American People ought to ignore the legislative fiat, because such does not apply to us who can consent only to so much. If they come for our children, offer hot lead. If they come for our guns, offer them all of the hot lead they want. If they come for our lives, get your neighbors to offer them hot lead as you call your relatives for more hot lead.
If the Legislature in DC wants war, they can have it from after they start demanding what they ought not have. We Americans are a people of prudence, killing only in defense of good people . . . and twice for the French. If you have not gone against the Ten Commandments, then how can the Legislators punish you? The Ten commandments are the justification for government, and the limit on government. Every other document is merely redundant for the sake of those who have darkened intellects due to Original and Actual sin, me included.
The next emboldened lines of the quotation speak of the contractual breach that the Legislature commits when it does as Locke describes beforehand. Locke is just being redundant, but only to make sure that the reader understands the implications of oppressive government. I won't go into any more of Locke, because I see this as Locke's most important point. I just wish that he could have not written so much just to get to it. If you haven't read it yet, read it all; it is good moral support in the face of tyranny.
Now, to apply the quotation to America, you would first have to figure out how you could dissolve all of the legislatures of the states and of the Federal government, because, by Locke's standard, each is in violation of their contract and deserving of dissolution. I do realize that some states are better than others, mostly just Texas, but John Locke is defining the principle of government, and that we ought to adhere to that principle. Locke probably did not expect what we have now to come about, but, in his defense, statism requires our kind of technology to procreate (or is that defecate?) at a noticeable speed. I advocate that the legislatures purge the statutes they created and only meet once a year or less.
I will just cut to the chase. Who do you trust more, the government or the People? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution say the People. Therefore, I answer: the People. Fie upon they that threaten my for not giving up what is God-given rightfully mine to keep. I'll keep what God gave to me, thank you very much.
In the Future, I will have to describe how I imagine a government by the consent of the governed would deal with crime, while needing no legislature to define crimes. I will name that Means later in its own post.
In the Future, I will answer the first question in parentheses that I ask regarding whether ignoring part of government equals, to any degree, dissolving that part of government.
Thanks and enjoy what you have because you only have today,
Joe
Section 221:
The "contrary to their trust" clause is very important, but the next line quoted is the real meat, because Locke is suddenly so much more specific there. Basically, if a legislature or the executive makes itself, the community (whatever that is), or some other person the invader of property and the disposer of life, liberty, or fortune of the People, then the legislative or executive is ripe to be dissolved. (I wonder if Locke considers ignoring such a branch of government to be dissolution?)
I bet if you mention that to anyone in the Federal government, you might get your name put on a list, just in case the Federal government actually becomes tyrannical, so that SWAT teams can scoop you up for your treachery.
Since Socialized Medicine means that the State has a vested interest in how you and I live, the State would then come to your house and demand that you take any test or any medicine or any treatment, regardless of your being a free human being or how safe the intake actually is. Since every Fiat Government in human history likes using the threat of force to get what it wants, you can be rest assured that Socialized Medicine will lead to the Federal government to start threatening people if they don't pay. Oh wait, the IRS already does that. Fiat Government always justifies its actions by the outcomes it wants, regardless of actual outcome. I expect that the most prominent outcome the Federal government will seek is to make everyone in America healthy, but to lower costs first. Money is too important, you know, for the Feds to worry about your genuine safety as a child of God. Then again, the Feds probably should be worrying about foreign threats rather than whether or not I took my medication this morning.
Section 222:
Locke, having a deep interest in property as the most important liberty, focuses on the value of property when a man enters into society.
Locke is right that men look to legislative bodies to protect their property, and that makes sense only as long as that man trusts the legislative. However, history shows that legislatures are the worst entities to go to seeking protection, because they are slow and constantly passing new laws to replace the old laws. I would rather pay a thief to protect my property, because I could at least hold him accountable if he steals something, whereas the legislature could ban something I own and the police, and maybe the National Guard too, would come and take that property of mine and I would then have to fight dozens of jerks rather than one jerk. (However, Governments only lose by suicide, though I will get into that in a later post.)
The first emboldened part of the quote is obviously the most important, and probably because the guy put it in bold when Locke did not (Sarcasm, how original, eh?):
"whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, [the legislators] put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge [defensive force?], which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence."
I don't know any better quote that should be plastered all over the walls of Congress, because the Legislature needs to read it before voting on any bill. Not even the Ten Commandments are this important when considering whether a bill ought to be passed, because the irreligious only listen to the threat of force, just like a typical Statist.
Ought we then to show up at Congress with our rifles and shoot the lot for their crimes? My answer is no. The American People ought to ignore the legislative fiat, because such does not apply to us who can consent only to so much. If they come for our children, offer hot lead. If they come for our guns, offer them all of the hot lead they want. If they come for our lives, get your neighbors to offer them hot lead as you call your relatives for more hot lead.
If the Legislature in DC wants war, they can have it from after they start demanding what they ought not have. We Americans are a people of prudence, killing only in defense of good people . . . and twice for the French. If you have not gone against the Ten Commandments, then how can the Legislators punish you? The Ten commandments are the justification for government, and the limit on government. Every other document is merely redundant for the sake of those who have darkened intellects due to Original and Actual sin, me included.
The next emboldened lines of the quotation speak of the contractual breach that the Legislature commits when it does as Locke describes beforehand. Locke is just being redundant, but only to make sure that the reader understands the implications of oppressive government. I won't go into any more of Locke, because I see this as Locke's most important point. I just wish that he could have not written so much just to get to it. If you haven't read it yet, read it all; it is good moral support in the face of tyranny.
Now, to apply the quotation to America, you would first have to figure out how you could dissolve all of the legislatures of the states and of the Federal government, because, by Locke's standard, each is in violation of their contract and deserving of dissolution. I do realize that some states are better than others, mostly just Texas, but John Locke is defining the principle of government, and that we ought to adhere to that principle. Locke probably did not expect what we have now to come about, but, in his defense, statism requires our kind of technology to procreate (or is that defecate?) at a noticeable speed. I advocate that the legislatures purge the statutes they created and only meet once a year or less.
I will just cut to the chase. Who do you trust more, the government or the People? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution say the People. Therefore, I answer: the People. Fie upon they that threaten my for not giving up what is God-given rightfully mine to keep. I'll keep what God gave to me, thank you very much.
In the Future, I will have to describe how I imagine a government by the consent of the governed would deal with crime, while needing no legislature to define crimes. I will name that Means later in its own post.
In the Future, I will answer the first question in parentheses that I ask regarding whether ignoring part of government equals, to any degree, dissolving that part of government.
Thanks and enjoy what you have because you only have today,
Joe
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
How to Slow the Inevitable Approach of Tyranny
I have sometimes wondered how we could have come so far here in America and yet tyranny is approaching the proverbial Front Door of America. Tyranny is not quite knocking, but he (Satan) is certainly getting pretty close.
America is not necessarily on the brink of tyranny, and that ought to be debated, but she is nonetheless embracing quite a few principles of, for instance, the Ten Planks of Communism, as presented by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. You can look them up on Wikipedia or Google (a.k.a. The Oracle) if you are curious.
Look at American political history. First, the Founding Fathers, in my opinion, sought to preserve the principles of the Declaration of Independence as long as possible in America. Therefore, they wrote and successfully had ratified the Constitution. The Constitution cannot prohibit tyranny in the long term, because the People can always be fooled inch by inch into accepting such tyranny as Social Security and the Draft. Propaganda is most certainly present today in American government schools (a.k.a. "public schools"), which the Constitution cannot prohibit on its own. God, working through good people, is the real source of our continued freedom.
Second, during Roosevelt''s Devus-Caesar-like reign of three terms as President, the Republicans were establishing beaucracies to slow him down. If an agency is ordered to do something by the President, the agents will first have to fill out all of this crap-to-prove-lawfulness, known as forms. I cannot at this time give you a detailed account, though I am sure that Wikipedia or some real researcher will be able to give the details. Again, The Oracle is your bestest of friends on the Interweb.
Now that we effectively have two governments, the Constitutionally set-up government and the Agentive/Beareaucratic/Departmental government, each has to agree before anything can get done. I will hereafter call the Constitutionally set-up government as the US government and the other as the Federal government. Think of it this way, the Feds can shoot everything that moves, whereas your US representatives can subsidize everything that moves. In either case, they both can kill things, but the second is the less violent and can actually claim Constitutionality as to its existence.
If I sounds a bit pessimistic, consider this. The Founding Fathers created the US government with interdependency-type restraints based on the principles of republicanism. The Republicans of Caesar's, I mean, Roosevelt's reign created the Federal government with independent restraints based on Collectivism, or better known as Slow Tyranny. Statism is Fast Tyranny.
While that accusation against Republicans may seem offensive to Republicans, it ought not be so. Republicans of Roosevelt's time did what they thought was appropriate, with the same concerns as the Mug Wumps (Republicans) of post-Civil War America had as the South was militarily occupied by the Union Army. Republicans have historically been a lot better than Democrats since Lincoln (a Republican) was in office. I hope that is sufficient to nullify any notions that I might somehow hate the Republican Party.
In the future, I will have to eventually define, in toto, the principles of republicanism as I see them. And no, I am not referring to the principles of the Republican party, because that would be irritatingly redundant for me; you can look those up via the GOP's website.
In the future, I will also have to write something on the division of the American government, regardless of how non-CC it may be.
In the future, I need to discuss the phrase, "consent of the governed", as used in the Declaration of Independence.
In Texas, the land of the free and home of the brave,
Joe
America is not necessarily on the brink of tyranny, and that ought to be debated, but she is nonetheless embracing quite a few principles of, for instance, the Ten Planks of Communism, as presented by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. You can look them up on Wikipedia or Google (a.k.a. The Oracle) if you are curious.
Look at American political history. First, the Founding Fathers, in my opinion, sought to preserve the principles of the Declaration of Independence as long as possible in America. Therefore, they wrote and successfully had ratified the Constitution. The Constitution cannot prohibit tyranny in the long term, because the People can always be fooled inch by inch into accepting such tyranny as Social Security and the Draft. Propaganda is most certainly present today in American government schools (a.k.a. "public schools"), which the Constitution cannot prohibit on its own. God, working through good people, is the real source of our continued freedom.
Second, during Roosevelt''s Devus-Caesar-like reign of three terms as President, the Republicans were establishing beaucracies to slow him down. If an agency is ordered to do something by the President, the agents will first have to fill out all of this crap-to-prove-lawfulness, known as forms. I cannot at this time give you a detailed account, though I am sure that Wikipedia or some real researcher will be able to give the details. Again, The Oracle is your bestest of friends on the Interweb.
Now that we effectively have two governments, the Constitutionally set-up government and the Agentive/Beareaucratic/Departmental government, each has to agree before anything can get done. I will hereafter call the Constitutionally set-up government as the US government and the other as the Federal government. Think of it this way, the Feds can shoot everything that moves, whereas your US representatives can subsidize everything that moves. In either case, they both can kill things, but the second is the less violent and can actually claim Constitutionality as to its existence.
If I sounds a bit pessimistic, consider this. The Founding Fathers created the US government with interdependency-type restraints based on the principles of republicanism. The Republicans of Caesar's, I mean, Roosevelt's reign created the Federal government with independent restraints based on Collectivism, or better known as Slow Tyranny. Statism is Fast Tyranny.
While that accusation against Republicans may seem offensive to Republicans, it ought not be so. Republicans of Roosevelt's time did what they thought was appropriate, with the same concerns as the Mug Wumps (Republicans) of post-Civil War America had as the South was militarily occupied by the Union Army. Republicans have historically been a lot better than Democrats since Lincoln (a Republican) was in office. I hope that is sufficient to nullify any notions that I might somehow hate the Republican Party.
In the future, I will have to eventually define, in toto, the principles of republicanism as I see them. And no, I am not referring to the principles of the Republican party, because that would be irritatingly redundant for me; you can look those up via the GOP's website.
In the future, I will also have to write something on the division of the American government, regardless of how non-CC it may be.
In the future, I need to discuss the phrase, "consent of the governed", as used in the Declaration of Independence.
In Texas, the land of the free and home of the brave,
Joe
Monday, March 8, 2010
Thinking about writing about Republicanism
I have been thinking about what topic I would most enjoy researching and then writing on such in a book. I have been fascinated by how governments function for some time. Lately, I have been finding that such particulars of how a government runs is less important than the principles of why the government functions the way it does.
Always wanting to be somewhat different and yet relevant, I believe that I ought to look into the idea of republicanism. By republicanism, I mean the principles that define the perfect form of republican government; that which makes the ideal republic. I would have to pose the principles of the republic against some current and dominant form of government that if most clearly in opposition to republicanism. As a spoiler, I would like to compare republicanism to statism. The differences may seem obvious, but when you get Communist China and Muslim Iran calling themselves republics, we certainly need to differentiate between false republics and true republics.
Eventually, I will type up a list of what I see as the principles upon which the ideal republic would stand, in contrast to the principles of statism. I guess my argument will revolve around the idea that statism is built on sand and republicanism is build on granite.
Thanks and enjoy life while its easy,
Joe
Always wanting to be somewhat different and yet relevant, I believe that I ought to look into the idea of republicanism. By republicanism, I mean the principles that define the perfect form of republican government; that which makes the ideal republic. I would have to pose the principles of the republic against some current and dominant form of government that if most clearly in opposition to republicanism. As a spoiler, I would like to compare republicanism to statism. The differences may seem obvious, but when you get Communist China and Muslim Iran calling themselves republics, we certainly need to differentiate between false republics and true republics.
Eventually, I will type up a list of what I see as the principles upon which the ideal republic would stand, in contrast to the principles of statism. I guess my argument will revolve around the idea that statism is built on sand and republicanism is build on granite.
Thanks and enjoy life while its easy,
Joe
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Populism in Muse's, "Uprising"
For my first post, I will discuss Muse's famous song, Uprising:
Muse's song, Uprising, is a song in support of some sort of rising up and taking of the Power back. The lyrics suggest that "they" are opposed to our own welfare, politically and spiritually. However, one must not mistake the idea behind this song with republican revolution, as seen only in the American Revolution. Populism is the aim of Uprising.
Populism is generally a branch of Marxism, in that it holds that the middle-class, or the bourgeoisie, is responsible for the ills of society. The lyrics "green belt" are likely a reference to the practice of city-planners to place dedicated areas for flora, to create a feeling of living in a semi-rural city. Tim Harford argues that this sort of city-planning is an effort by the middle class to maintain the bourgeoisie status quo. This idea of the status quo holds that the bourgeoisie is trying to maintain scarcity of housing by reserving the land for leisure spots rather than shelter. While I do agree with the idea that such land is better suited for more utilitarian purposes, I cannot find it worthwhile to carte blanc blame the middle class for the ill-use of the land. Rather, I must stress the idea that the only individuals who actually lobby in city politics tends to be the more wealthy of individuals, who are among the upper class(if their is even classes).
While one can call Muse's call to uprising by Europeans a good thing, one must remember that at the heart of populism is Marxism, with the understanding that the People does not include the middle class. Muse appears to want to knock the middle class down a few pegs and have the People ascend. Muse forgets to mention that Marx, Lenin, and Mao, who were mass-murderers and advocates for total government, each advocated for the lower class to throw off the middle class and take the power back. What the Russians and Chinese got from that is total government, with genocide and the shift of power from the People to a total government.
Muse's song must not be taken as being in line with the kind of revolution that America waged in 1776. Rather, Muse's song must be taken as the likely shift of European politics from desiring democracy, to taking on the yoke of total government. Don't get me wrong, I am not under the impression that Europe is somehow free, as America is free. Europe is currently under fiat government, and the only thing between ability for total government and execution of total government is a crisis.
Europe is not in anyway prepared for virtuous liberty. She has long forgotten what it is like to be free and healthy in herself and in her People. Europe is ripe for either German-style total government or Islamic-style total government via Shariah law.
I only ask, "When will Europe wholeheartedly embrace the shift from fiat government to total government?" I pray that my friends in Europe will be able to alter their present circumstances, before they lose their continent to Islam.
In the future, I will discuss how education in Europe may affect the above.
Wittiness of the Day: "The Revolutions of the Old World and of Asia are started by the upper class stirring the lower class toward killing the middle class. The Upper class then takes over, and the lower class wind up with in a worse situation, probably suffering what the middle got."
Thank you and have a wonderful life,
Joe
Muse's song, Uprising, is a song in support of some sort of rising up and taking of the Power back. The lyrics suggest that "they" are opposed to our own welfare, politically and spiritually. However, one must not mistake the idea behind this song with republican revolution, as seen only in the American Revolution. Populism is the aim of Uprising.
Populism is generally a branch of Marxism, in that it holds that the middle-class, or the bourgeoisie, is responsible for the ills of society. The lyrics "green belt" are likely a reference to the practice of city-planners to place dedicated areas for flora, to create a feeling of living in a semi-rural city. Tim Harford argues that this sort of city-planning is an effort by the middle class to maintain the bourgeoisie status quo. This idea of the status quo holds that the bourgeoisie is trying to maintain scarcity of housing by reserving the land for leisure spots rather than shelter. While I do agree with the idea that such land is better suited for more utilitarian purposes, I cannot find it worthwhile to carte blanc blame the middle class for the ill-use of the land. Rather, I must stress the idea that the only individuals who actually lobby in city politics tends to be the more wealthy of individuals, who are among the upper class(if their is even classes).
While one can call Muse's call to uprising by Europeans a good thing, one must remember that at the heart of populism is Marxism, with the understanding that the People does not include the middle class. Muse appears to want to knock the middle class down a few pegs and have the People ascend. Muse forgets to mention that Marx, Lenin, and Mao, who were mass-murderers and advocates for total government, each advocated for the lower class to throw off the middle class and take the power back. What the Russians and Chinese got from that is total government, with genocide and the shift of power from the People to a total government.
Muse's song must not be taken as being in line with the kind of revolution that America waged in 1776. Rather, Muse's song must be taken as the likely shift of European politics from desiring democracy, to taking on the yoke of total government. Don't get me wrong, I am not under the impression that Europe is somehow free, as America is free. Europe is currently under fiat government, and the only thing between ability for total government and execution of total government is a crisis.
Europe is not in anyway prepared for virtuous liberty. She has long forgotten what it is like to be free and healthy in herself and in her People. Europe is ripe for either German-style total government or Islamic-style total government via Shariah law.
I only ask, "When will Europe wholeheartedly embrace the shift from fiat government to total government?" I pray that my friends in Europe will be able to alter their present circumstances, before they lose their continent to Islam.
In the future, I will discuss how education in Europe may affect the above.
Wittiness of the Day: "The Revolutions of the Old World and of Asia are started by the upper class stirring the lower class toward killing the middle class. The Upper class then takes over, and the lower class wind up with in a worse situation, probably suffering what the middle got."
Thank you and have a wonderful life,
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)