Multi-National Companies are never "Patriotic"

Haven't posted in a long time; the world and the Nation seem so tumultuous as to defy any reasonable discussion...on any level or any subject.  But...I finally have come to believe that to do nothing is to approve of what is...even to encourage it.  The other side of the coin is that if you do not have a better idea, then perhaps you should hold your criticism(s) until you do have something better to offer.  Be that as it may, we all might want to at least be aware of and deal with the matter in my heading.

Each of us view the definition and needs of personal security differently, but the one universal seems to be that we value our personal freedoms and do not wish others to impede or subtract from the baseline that we currently possess. Consistency demands that we honor the converse: that we should not expect to invade others' space or interfere with their freedoms.

At some level each of us also value and have an expectation of truthfulness toward and from others, including our institutions (government, schools, Courts, business enterprises.

At the beginning of the last century, our business enterprises operated within national borders;  their identified with the nation in which they operated and supported the general national interests, aligning with the national sense of patriotism.  In the last 70 years that has changed.  And the change poses dangers to the concepts of national identity and national patriotism.

The largest and most powerful business enterprises on the planet operate across national borders, most (if not all) making profits from both sales and manufacturing in disparate countries throughout the planet.  They have no allegiance to any particular country.  Oh, they claim to care; their public statements of their Owners, Officers and in their Press Releases claim allegiance...but to each nation in which the statement is issued.  Clearly this is a propaganda issue, not a truth issue.  Each company is concerned ONLY with profits.  Anything that interferes with profits is their enemy.  That means that ALL ELSE holds no consistent place of value.  Clearly allegiance is toward whatever will positively impact profits...and is fleeting at best.  Once the profit element has been secured, there will be neither allegiance nor memory of any such thing.

Under this set of unassailable facts, shouldn't EVERY nation-state consider that every business enterprise be viewed, regardless of national origin, as a non-citizen?  Shouldn't each enterprise be required to meet criteria and standards in a proven way and not given the presumptive standing of "citizen?"

Enterprises such as Google, Micro-soft, Amazon and Nike (and many more) currently show more concern about the welfare of China than of the United States.  But, you say, those are American companies (with the emphasis on "American").  Not anymore.  Follow the money.  Follow the power.  And any payoffs are a threat regardless of size or scope; there is no such thing as being a "little bit" pregnant.  Does anyone think that the proximity of Google, Amazon and Nike offices with multitudes of employees in the Northwest has nothing to do with main cities in that area harboring felons and illegals contrary to United States law?  Those companies and their employees see themselves as superior to and having no allegiance to the United States of America.  And other countries are having the same experiences.

As of now, each multi-national plays nation-states against each other to obtain financial and regulatory advantages.  That is to be expected.  But none of these countries are consistent in recognizing (and trying to control the effects of) the threat to their borders, to their government, to their citizens' freedom.  Why?

It would be easy...and nice...to state that our governments just aren't as aware of this, or are preoccupied with more important things.  Hogwash!  Does anyone not question how one can run for public office with relatively low personal wealth, hold elected office for decades at a relatively low salary lever, yet retire with millions in assets?  This state of affairs has existed for more than a century, yet the media doesn't care and clearly the governments' Inspector Generals don't care either, even in the face of public inquiries.  Why?

One opinion would be that despite the wording of Oaths of Office, laws, and conscience, the awarding of money and/or power constitute bribes more powerful than the concepts of truth, honor, promises, and/or conscience.

So...the ultimate question is how strongly do citizens feel about allowing their freedoms and security to be eroded, dissipated and perhaps even at some point eliminated.

Logic would suggest that the American citizen (and citizens of all the countries of the world) demand of their governments changes that would first arrest and second deminish the power that multi-national companies now enjoy;  that such business enterprises not be allowed to fly under the radar of public accountability and not the private accountability of being able to "pay off" those who stand in their way.

Government exists because WE delegate to it power and authority.  Perhaps we should consider voiding that delegation and start over?

The "Establishment" Politicians on both sides still don't "get" it!

Perhaps it is because they see any success by President Trump as "Armageddon" to their elite political existence.  I find it hard to imagine that with the myriad professional politicians with elite educational credentials are unable to see the true reason for the election of a businessman with considerable baggage, personally and in business,  to the highest office in the land in preference to a life-long political operative who had so much in common (with, of course, ideological differences) with those on both sides of the aisle.Can they all hold the conviction that Secretary Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate and had at least as much baggage as Mr. Trump?

While it is clear that all professional politicians motives, even as they each deny them, include self-aggrandizement, accumulation of power, money and a sense of an elite status, not one of them seems to have the ability to sense, much less analyze and conclude, that the American voter is fed up with the lying and failure to actually care about the things that the voters who put them in office truly care about.

Some of them seem to think that because they were re-elected even as Mr. Trump won in last November's election they were not seen by the voter the same way that hindsight seemed to indicate those same voters saw Mrs. Clinton.  One wonders if they have any inkling that if in their own races there had been 3 or more choices (including a brash, non-politician) that they might have suffered the same fate as Mrs. Clinton.  Because with very few exceptions, it is clear that such would have been not only possible but likely.

Those of the political establishment have for years...decades, actually...gotten away with making promises that were clearly abandoned as soon as the election results were tabulated.  In some cases it is clear that those promises at the time they were made were clearly lies.

Now that President Trump has held office for almost a year, it has been clear to every citizen capable of voting that every other person elected to the Congress of the United States of America acts to prevent any significant accomplishment by the new President...every one, even those who ran on a Republican ticket.

For eight years, Republicans claimed they had a better way of providing Healthcare in America and were prevented from providing relief for the American people because of the veto threat from a Democrat President...FOR EIGHT WHOLE YEARS!  But once President Trump took office, having promised that when the Republican controlled Congress presented the bill to him, he would sign it...that Republican-controlled Congress failed to pass the promised legislation. That is too egregious to be an oversight, a mistake, or something slipping through the cracks!  They lied.

Meanwhile, the Democrats for the previous eight years had proven over and over again that they also were lying to the American people.  They also were moving further and further to the Left, as they took the side of demonstrators who took to the streets hurting people and destroying property and even attacking, hurting and murdering police.  They claimed such violence was only "sporadic" and that it was all part of "free speech."  Somehow they missed the concept of the guarantee being for the right to avoid prior censorship, but not consequences for what was said.

It is unfathomable that professional politicians do not recognize that the majority of the country see them as the equivalent of an invading, occupying force that holds office through subterfuge and fraud while exercising their power to obliterate individual freedom(s) and control both speech and action.

Clearly, the citizens of this country do see that as the truth, hence the election of President Trump.

Instead of colluding with each other to try to take Mr. Trump down...instead of investigating the election, obstructing real partnership to get reasonable legislation passed...and colluding with a clearly "Leftist" media for the same purpose, they should recognize, admit, and act to prove they are prepared to abandon their lust for money, power, and status by actually listening to and acting on the wishes of their constituents.

If they do not, the next election cycle will see a lot of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle facing challenges from candidates that will make President Trump look like an agreeable teddy bear.  And those candidates will win.

Will Mueller turn out to be our modern day Torquemada?

The voters of the United States of America, under the impression that they had the right, elected Donald Trump to be President of the country.  He did not come from a long line of politicians.  He was not a politician.  He was not active in any political activities, other than as they affected his businesses, until disgust with politics motivated him to run for President, which led to his subsequent election.  Evidently a lot of people agreed with him.

The political establishment was neither amused or content; they were horrified..  For politicians, the "game" of politics takes on the aura of religion; it is a way of life and they believe that being "called" to be a politician establishes a common bond that transcends ideological differences.  They become "family."  So, while they can fight between themselves, when an outsider appears and disagrees with their family "habits" of behavior and activity, they stop fighting and combine to defeat the newcomer.

Ah...but how to accomplish this?

The "people" have spoken.  Clearly a multiple pronged attack is clearly in order.  First, mount a campaign of both falsehoods and half-truths that, if pursued constantly and loudly, will cause a diminution of President Trump's support. Secondly, do all that is possible to prevent any accomplishments reach the eyes and ears of the public, hoping that the public will conclude that no Presidential promises are being kept or being effective.  Third, work across ideological boundaries (but cautiously, so the public does not become aware) to defeat bills that would enable actions desired by President Trump.

However, there is a chance that these efforts will not be enough to defeat President Trump's support or prevent his accomplishing some of his declared goals.  What more can be done?

It is unclear who actually triggered the concept (one suspects that all would take credit if asked "off the record"), but the appointment of a "Special Prosecutor" took place.  Usually, this is in response to evidence that a crime has been committed and the goal is document it and determine the responsible party(ies) to be sent to prison...as in "Watergate."

Curiously, after more than 9 months there is no evidence of a crime.  With the porous nature our nation's capitol, if there were such evidence it is inconceivable that it would not by now have been leaked to press corp proven ravenously anxious to publicize any illegal act by President Trump or his supporters. Yet...we have a Special Prosecutor.  Not only do we have one, but he is one ideologically oriented to the Democrat party which is the lead ideological group seeking President Trump's removal from office.  Certainly a good number of Republican Congressmen and women would cheer the event also...but oh so quietly, while giving lip service to President Trump.

The power granted to a Special Prosecutor is immense.  It is reminiscent of the power granted to the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition in the late 15th century, Tomas de Torquemada.  And there are more similarities:  two prominent leaders, King Ferdinand II of Aragon, and Queen Isabella I of Castile (you may substitute "Sen. Schumer: and "Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi" if you wish) appointed Torquemada to "cleanse" Spain of "non-believers" ( you may substitute "non-politicians" if you wish) in 1483 and he remained in office for the next 15 years.  There is no "expiration date" for the office of Special Prosecutor.

Both the Special Prosecutor and Torquemada enjoyed virtually unlimited power authorized by the government with no over-ruling element (while the Special Prosecutor may in theory have some of his actions subject to challenge, the political price is so enormous that it rarely happens).

The various forms of Inquisition lasted in the Hispanic Americas until 1825, in Portugal until 1820,  and in Spain until 1846.  In Italy, it ceased in 1870.  But the office, renamed twice, remains to this day: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.This particular enumeration of "Special Prosecutor" is the first that was clearly established as a "fishing expedition" and lacks a specific law-breaking event to investigate.  Much as was the Spanish Inquisition, the Special Prosecutor may do and investigate whatever he chooses with little if any legal, political or Sense of Justice; Justice will be what Mr. Mueller declares.

Not sure that any of us should be comfortable with that.

We are a "stricken" country!

I suspect that most of the citizens of Greece and of Rome were surprised when their civilizations collapsed.  After all, just living life and taking care of one's responsibilities to provide for one's family and to attend to each of our obligations takes time and attention.  We all tend...and I thing the citizens of Rome and Greece also..to trust those with governmental power to preserve our safety.

We assume!

Of course we are aware of just how wrong that is...but we do it anyhow.  In part, we do it because those who got our vote promised us that they would look out for us...and, after all, they grew up in our town or county and knew what our attitudes were.  How could we expect that they would ignore us in favor of "strangers?"  Yet...they did.  And do.

Once our politicians leave our (their) town...they don't want to come back.  Even running for re-election is a chore and make them uncomfortable.  Just watch them at local "Town Halls."  Notice how controlled it is!  Notice how it "feels" like "us" versus "him (or her)".  Didn't feel that way the first time he or she ran for office, did it?

They went to Washington and became part of a new community.  The Washington establishment doesn't truly care about your town, your county, or your state.  They no longer are a part of it.  They have become a part of the elite establishment who, as a group, reassure each other that they "know best" and that your interests are just "wrong."

Are any of you who read this post for even one instant think this isn't so?  Are you that naive?  Or that wrapped up in your individual life pressures that you haven't noticed?  You have been...and continue to be...scammed.  Conned.  Lied to.  And...IGNORED.

But...you are too busy to do anything about it, so our country is stricken and on the way to oblivion.

Is Mr. Obama the reincarnation of LBJ?

Few politicians in the history of the world have been as successfully Machiavellian as was Lyndon Baines Johnson.  Most citizens remember him as an accomplished politician that served in the House of Representatives, then in the Senate, and ran successfully as JFK's Vice-President, becoming the Thirty-fifth President of the United States on the occasion of the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963.  The most enduring memory is of his unsuccessful oversight of the Viet Nam "War," and his decision not to run for re-election because of the unpopularity that he suffered as a result.

Some have suggested that Mr. Obama's legacy will suffer a similar fate as a result of his lying about the effect on citizens of the passing of the "Affordable Healthcare Act," the false narratives used to conclude a treaty with Iran on limiting the production of Nuclear arms by Iran, and his readiness to govern through Executive Orders, rather than negotiating with Congress.  Be that as it may...and only history and time will reveal what the public wishes to see as the truth...it is worth some time to compare the manner in which these two politicians operated.

Time has revealed much about Johnson that was generally unknown to a majority of Americans until less than a decade ago.  He was a tyrant to his staff and his wife...and, actually, to anyone who did not have the power to advance his success...behind closed doors.  And in many ways he was a vulgar man by standards (today, perhaps discarded) of the time.  He was a genius in detecting the needs of those in power around him and in playing to those needs; he was seen by all as being on "their" side and who thought like "them" even when each of those people were on opposite sides of the spectrum.  It is easy to come to the conclusion that Johnson actually had no ideological belief...his ideology was his own success and rapid progression to positions of power.

There is a three volume study of LBJ written by Mr. Robert Allan Caro that, for the student of history and politics, is an essential read.

It is questionable that LBJ could have operated in the manner that provided some much personal and professional success today; the ubiquitous nature of phone cameras coupled with the pressure to fill a 24/7/365 news cycle makes creating different personas for different people and groups impossible.

However, to even a casual observer, there seem to be immense similarities between the approach to professional goals displayed by LBJ and by President Obama.

Let us start by eliminating any discussion of where they are different.  Mr. Obama seems to have a firm ideological point of view that is consistent and constant; LBJ did not seem to have any inherent ideology, shifting his public positions as was politically convenient.  LBJ was a master at manipulating his fellow politicians and seemed to enjoy the process if not the necessity; Mr. Obama has shown himself to not play with others well, ignoring Congress as much as possible and depending on Executive Orders and an obsequious Supreme Court to accomplish his goals.

Both had very clear goals.  LBJ wanted to become President of the United States.  Otherwise, his interest was in preserving his own power and reputation as a master of the political craft.  Mr. Obama also wanted to become President, but his over-arching desire was and is to move the governance of the United States of America to the Left of the political spectrum, seeking to adopt and establish a democratic socialist norm in Washington, and providing rigid governmental oversight of what has been a primary dependence on Capitalism as the basis for the United States of America.

Both saw deception as legitimate in accomplishing their aims.  LBJ would encourage his colleagues and others in power to see him as an ally regardless of his true purpose, hiding the truth until the very last moment, or supplying a rationale to opponents that caused them to not realize how they had been manipulated.  His deception was totally successful in that if discovered at all, it was after his goals had been accomplished or after his death.

Mr. Obama's skill was oratorical. When planned carefully and followed meticulously by utilizing the teleprompter, Mr. Obama's use of the English language was matched in the modern era only by President Reagan.  The language was nuanced in a manner that every listener or viewer could interpret the words used to be a reflection of each listeners beliefs and desires, much as was done in personal interactions by LBJ.  The listener was able...actually encouraged...to hear what they wanted to hear.  This was particularly true when Mr. Obama was campaigning...and even after a successful election he continued to campaign, leaving the drudgery of actually administering the government to his trusted assistants.

The spotlight of modern communications prevented Mr. Obama from achieving the level of success LBJ enjoyed in hiding conflicting positions taken with different groups and individuals...but Mr. Obama took what can arguably be called the "Goebbels approach" to that challenge; when lying, do it consistently, never acknowledge it as a lie and imply that those who insist on claiming that a lie was told are doing so because of personal animus or racial animus.  As did LBJ, Mr. Obama was able to keep the media on his side by providing "leaks" and interviews to those media outlets that presented him in the most favorable light.

Both surrounded themselves with people who served them, placing family, country and mores far below their dedication to his success.

Mr. Obama's accomplishments prior to being elected to public office have been sealed.  When they become available, it would not be surprising to see some evidence of an intense study by Mr. Obama of LBJ's life and the means used to gain power.  They both show more than the average level of vanity, temper (and the need to hide that most of the time), high opinion of themselves, looked down on others as "less than" and were ready to sacrifice everything to the accomplishment of their goals.

It is too bad that our public schools have virtually abandoned teaching anything remotely resembling perceptive history or even current events, much less in anything like an objective manner.

We have forgotten...

Those on the Left speak of the Constitution as a "living breathing" document.  Under this definition, they declare that it has not only the right, but in the natural order of things, to evolve to be useful to today's United States of America.

This is utter hogwash.  It is an attempt by those who don't like what the Constitution contains, with special emphasis on its limitations of government authority and huge areas not written of, to try to claim authority for their actions today from the ultimate secular authority...the documents founding this nation's government.

Years ago, I visited our Capitol.  I looked at the original Constitution.  It was paper, ... inert.  It did not have a pulse or a heartbeat.  It decidedly was NOT a "living, breathing" document.  Like a contract written today, it says what it says; the clear meaning of the words are easily discernible simply by reading the document.

What no longer exists today is the public's general knowledge of the Constitution and the attitude of those that created it...an attitude largely ascribed to by the general populace of the time.  For whatever reason, today's educational system doesn't teach American History in anything close to a comprehensive manner; ask a young person or a student about the founding fathers and their points of view regarding government and you get blank stares.  Our educational failings have the potential to destroy the America that the founding fathers attempted to create.

The interpretation of the Constitution is NOT an exercise in creative writing or free association mental gymnastics.  Just as with laws written by Congress, it is a matter of looking at the clear and normal meaning of the written words, and supplementing that with a reading of the contemporaneous writings and utterances of those who created and voted to adopt it.  This approach is absolutely logical and does not require a "rocket scientist."

Those of us who were "educated" before students were given equal rights with educators and parents and allowed to dictate what and how they should be taught know just how much antipathy the founding fathers had for government.  They had suffered from the not-so-tender mercies of the English Government, and realized the danger that granting power to any government posed to individual freedoms.  Jefferson said it best, and is most often referenced, when he said that ultimately all government becomes the enemy of individual freedoms.  So...if they disliked government so much, why did they write the Constitution and create another one for themselves?  Does anyone think that they felt that they could do it better and create a ruling body that would be benign and no threat to the people?

They did not!

There was one over-riding reason for creating a Government of the United States of America: to protect it against another nations attempt to take over and govern the people of the colonies.  In other words...to defend the country's autonomy.

All the rest is an attempt to prevent the Government from encroaching on its citizens.  It took no position about individual action regarding other individuals; the founding fathers were concerned with limiting government action that would effect citizens.  Militias were not the creation of the government; people created their own...and that right, with the effect of making hugely difficult any government desire to control the citizens by disarming them, to possess arms and be able to defend themselves against ANY government, including our own if it became the enemy, is right there in writing.  The right to rise up and overcome any government is made clear in our Declaration of Independence and does not have any exception for our own government; all can develop a threat and require revolt.

Read the comments, letters and other documents left by the Founding Fathers, with particular emphasis on those who signed the Constitution.  Their attitude was never about how to give the national government power or how to make it efficient; while one was needed for defense, in all other things it was perceived as a nascent threat to the freedom that has just been won on the battlefield, and the Founding Fathers fondest hope was that the government would practice the art of benign neglect in all areas of the colonists lives with the singular exception of defense of the nation.

Truly, the fears of the Founding Fathers have come to pass.  But the foolishness of a paper document "living and breathing" is just an exercise in creative writing...with the emphasis on creative!  It was the Founding Fathers who were living and breathing...and they were living and breathing the collective fear of just how dangerous government could become to the citizens over which it might develop power.  Their desire was to limit governmental power of citizens.  Thus, they did what they could to make the government inefficient and put in what they hoped would serve as checks and balances.  Unfortunately, those who gain positions of power adopt and adjust, and also connive, to extend power and avoid answering to the people.

If there is any hope of saving the creation that once was the United States of America, the voting public needs to learn...and in some cases re-learn...the attitudes and intent of the living, breathing Founding Fathers.  Therein is the key to understanding our Constitution.

Is Government becoming our "God" substitute?

Even a cursory scan of History reveals a significant involvement presence of "God" in governing.  And the records show that it wasn't a particularly "hard" sell;  a vast majority of human beings all over the planet have an instinct to look to a "higher power", while any and all of those who wished to govern found it both effective and useful to claim direction from an unassailable higher being that could be challenged at the human level.  Even today, we see religion playing a huge role around the world in establishing a "right to rule."

Countries and Rulers who attempted to eliminate any reliance on authority from a higher power have been seen to have a limited shelf life.  The exist as long as military force supports the head of State, but collapses when that support disappears, usually accompanied by a lot of ill will.

A common view is that this is because of two elements: 1) as mentioned above, it is nice for a ruler to be able to play "good cop" to God as the "bad cop" when ruling...it allows the human to take credit and kudos for the good things, and blame the bad things on an unassailable and unreachable entity with unlimited power and authority; and 2) many people truly believe in an "Almighty God" and do not need significant convincing to accept the concept.

The Founding Fathers clearly saw that any successful governing entity required the granting of authority of a Higher Power, stipulating that the right to govern was given man by God, and was inalienable.  They depended on the concept that by placing governing power in the hands of many, there would be less chance of any one individual claiming, acquiring and exercising his or her personal views by representing them as God's will.  All of those who were influential recognized the challenge.  Some were expecting success...probably the majority.  Others, like Jefferson, thought that the attempt had promise but a limited life span; as he said, "ultimately government becomes the enemy of individual freedom."  And they all recognized that the time could very well come when the government they founded would cease to be responsive to God and the People, thus requiring still another revolution.

When there is a general acceptance that governance is ultimately responsible to "God" there is a tendency to grumble when personal lives don't go very well...but most of the time (with exceptions, like the French Revolution) that is where it stops.  For more to occur, the "stand-ins" for God have to be supremely stupid...and that does occur.   When there is no concept of authority from God, it is much easier for those who object to governmental decisions to brand them as unacceptable and to claim just as much right to rule as does the person in charge.  Thus...governmental chaos can occur, followed by a period of optimism to be followed once again by chaos...and so forth.

America has evolved into a state of confusion in this regard.  We still have "In God we Trust" on our money.  A majority, as slim as it might be today, still sees us as a Judaeo-Christian country that looks to the moral elements of the ten commandments as imperatives.  At the same time, our Supreme Court has seen the Constitution's ban on "establishing" an official religion, a ban designed to allow each person the right to worship God in his or her own way, as a direction to remove God from public places.

Similarly, the public and the courts have eroded the once automatic alignment of law and morals as delineated in the Ten Commandments, making legal all manner of activities that were once seen as unacceptable.  Increased right to litigation has led to a remarkable lowering of standards considered previously as required civil behavior, the elimination of which once would have effectively brought about the shunning of the miscreant by all in a community.  Now they appear to be on the verge of being the majority.  Our leaders seem to delight in talking about God but ignoring God when governing.

Government, and human beings, make poor governors; both best succeed when they see themselves as tools, rather than the ultimate authority.  At the very least, an elected leader needs to always remember that he serves all of the people...NOT as a God or an authority, but as a representative and servant.  Politicians in our Republic have been quick to announce that they are elected because of their judgement and knowledge and ability to deal with many factors; they point to their background and relevant experiences as why they will decide for the people what the best decisions should be.  I find this presumptuous and repugnant; I fail to understand why so many citizens just accept this balderdash as authoritative.

But no longer do our leaders look to the people for guidance as to what the people want.  And they eliminate any concept of praying for guidance from any higher power either.  They have determined to be an authority of and for themselves.  The attempt to create a government for the people, by the people and of the people (with a presumption that all were accountable to "God") has become a government for the government and the office holders, by the government and the office holders, and of the government and its office holders.

It is hard to see how this will ever turn out well for what once was the United States of America.

Social Justice Warfare

This past week I came across the following comment.  The source was declared to be unknown, or I would credit the author.  However, it encapsulates every stray thought I have ever had on the subject...putting them together in a way that seems remarkably powerful.  As I said, I would honor the writer if I knew who he or she was...and if I should ever get that information, I will edit this to provide the proper honor.  I hope you appreciate this as much as I did:

“We are fighting to end hate, to unite as one and love each other. We are fighting to be treated right without discrimination and for everyone to have equal opportunities.”

Nonsense. You have no quantifiable metrics for injustice, so you have no victory conditions (for a very simplified example, when blacks hold X% of all engineering jobs and are only Y% of all prisoners, racism is ended). That would be fine by itself, but you believe in fighting injustice with injustice (gays have historically been denied gay marriage? let’s get random CEOs fired for opinions they held six years ago). You don’t seek converts, you seek to punish and bully – straight white males who disagree with you must be purged and publicly humiliated. Even the jihadists will spare you if you convert; no apology or future correction will satisfy a SJW.

I could forgive that too if you weren’t all hypocrites and liars. Your treatment of women and minority dissenters is appalling; if they don’t want you acting on their behalf, that’s their choice, not “internalized patriarchy” or whatever. You rob them of moral agency. When called out for these behaviors (as you always insist on calling out others), you lie. You strawman your opponents (criticized a woman? misogynist!), you group them with the worst (you’re a gamer? you’re as bad as the anonymous rape threateners!) and when confronted with your own flaws, you restate them less threateningly (motte and bailey argument). You phrase all arguments as Kafka traps (disagreeing with your assertion that we are evil is taken as proof that we’re evil). You publish manipulated and misleading statistics, and then lambast anyone who questions them.

You insist on vigilante justice against random acts of the week for your two-minute hate. Why is it the NFL’s business to punish domestic violence? And, if it is their business, why isn’t Hope Solo receiving the same attention from your side?

Then you claim to be arguing for equality, but you’ve taken the idea of racism (hatred based on skin color is bad) and replaced it with a new concept where only one race can be guilty of racism. You excuse racial prejudice and hatred based on what I’ve already explained are arbitrary, unmeasured states of being. Your solution for the unequal treatment of whites and blacks is to hold whites to a higher standard. Your side lobbied the FBI to redefine rape so more women victims would be counted, but also so that “made to penetrate” does not count, leaving male victims in the cold. Because of male privilege, apparently.

Historically ignorant SJWs think whites hold collective guilt for the awful things our ancestors have done. But they don’t care about the unspeakable atrocities by other races. The only difference between whites and others was that whites had the social and technological prowess to do evil efficiently; Africans, Asians, Indians, and everyone else practiced genocide and slavery, they were just less adept at doing it right. Given the means, they would have done the same. But nope, only whites are guilty; Arab oppression of blacks and Caucasians never happened, not to us, nope.

I’ve been lucky enough to grow up in America, so this shit is new to me. But I’m descended from puritans, and I know my history; I know how they treated dissent. I also know how commies treated dissent; I grew up next door to a grizzled old Russian who barely avoided the gulag by smuggling himself out of the country. I know what you petty tyrants have turned into every time you gained enough power.

Worst of all, you turn the very principles of freedom against us. We tolerate you because we believe in free speech and civil discourse, not bullying and violence. But that means we have to watch you advocate against that very freedom. We don’t believe in ruining a stranger’s professional life over an opinion, but that means that we can’t punish your actions.

We believe that the rightness of our actions should speak for itself. You believe in bullying, even as you claim to love the oppressed.

Funny how the evil and all-powerful patriarchy has seen fit to act according to SJW whims for all of recent memory, punishing those they hate and protecting those they love. Funny how the evil oppressor males have to speak anonymously, while the SJWs fighting the power can use their real names and get mainstream media coverage for fun and profit. How when a million straight white male nerds get bullied, no one cares, but the minute one gay person hangs himself, suddenly bullying matters – and the solution, of course, is more bullying, but by the “right” people.

That’s the arrogant core of it. You do the same evil, in the same pattern, as so many before you, because mob justice, punishing dissent, and repression of others is just fine and dandy so long as the “right” people are doing it to the “wrong” people.

All I ever asked was to be left alone.

                                                                                                      "Anonymous"

Economics is the new "religion"

Beginning in the later part of the Nineteenth Century, and continuing to the present, Progressives (which morphed into liberals, then back again, and include Socialists and Liberal Democrats) have successfully fomented the notion that mankind does not need God, that God is passe.  Their efforts to remove God from public life has been singularly successful, as has their effort to sell the populace on the the idea that Mankind can raise itself up and create it's own Utopia...self-governing it to increasingly improve both Mankind and life on this earth.

There is, however, a small problem.

Whether consciously or sub-consciously, mankind knows that it doesn't have all the answers and needs reassurance that it is doing the "right" thing.  Other humans cannot meet that need...after all, if you don't have the answer there is no reason to believe that any other human being on the planet, no matter how smart and gifted they claim to be, has the requisite authoritarian position.  So...what to do.

Having already denigrated and dismissed religion of any sort, that path is now closed, but...perhaps by another name?

Consider that success for the past Century plus has been defined, not by moral happiness, but by acquisition of money and all that it can buy.  How automatic has it become for us to gage how well we are doing by the level of our bank account, our savings or our investments...breathing a sigh of relief if the balance looks "healthy."  Gone are the days that even if you had little money, you considered yourself successful if you had a house over your head (rented or owned) weren't going hungry, your family was reasonably clothed and MOST IMPORTANTLY, you had a happy family that loved each other.  No mention of money in that sentence, right.  Money was seen as a necessary evil,  not the gauge of happiness.

Then, God out, self-improvement in.  No longer is morality or contentment the signal evidence of a good life...now it is "stuff" and "wealth."  But...there is that aforementioned doubt and desire for affirmation from a higher source.

Enter the development and standing of "Economics."  A "Science", an authoritative statement and means of judging success.  And, of course, a new High Priesthood...Economists.  Not the same as Priests, to be sure, because they were talking about "Science" and using their authority to protect your ability to "succeed."  But their status gave their utterances a higher consideration, a higher authority (like priests, speaking for God?).

Just how, pray tell, is this any different (other than nomenclature)  from religion.  And there are competing Economic theories, just as there are different Churches. Instead of Churches, there are buildings and Colleges dedicated to the study of Economics.  I will admit that, with one exception, there isn't a 100% parallel (but it is very close).  The only completely parallel comparison is with Islam.  Both Economic Theory and Islamic belief call for taking political power so as to create, protect, and defend the coming Utopia for the people of the world...continued rising wealth for all people in the case of economics, and paradise both here and the hereafter for Muslims.

So that will be the future battle for world domination...Islam versus Secular Economic Wealth as a measure of success. One heck of a choice.  I predict a bloody future, whichever wins.

Is today's Turkey tomorrow's America?

George Friedman has been writing a fascinating series of articles recently sharing his view and travels that he entitles, a "Geopolitical Journey."  Each article stands on its own but does cause you to want to read each of the others, as it places the current political climate of a number of of the eastern European and border states in context with each other, the world and, of course, individually.  I highly recommend taking the time to slowly read and assimilate the thoughts in each article...they are fascinating.  And the thoughtfulness put into the presentation by Friedman is to be both appreciated and savored.

Anyway, I digress...to my point...

Friedman's description of the current state of civil, political and religious life in Turkey is enough for a semester course in any University of note.  He cuts through so much pre-existing world views of what and who Turkey really is that you continually find yourself having, as I call them, "Ah-hah!" moments.  Enough light bulbs go off in the course of reading that you almost keep looking up for the camera's with the old-style flash-bulbs.

Turkey today is being challenged by a population that is an Islamic majority, with a government that is hugely populated by secularists that have the support of a strong military that also favors secular rule.  The current political party in power speaks earnestly of the value of and it's interest in preserving a secular government, while acknowledging the Islamic demand for more input in governance.  The Islamic drive for political power is a given in Turkey...the background of the Ottoman Empire is still a genetic part of the population that is in various phases of conflict with a secular government designed by Atatürk following the First World War to pull Turkey into the modern era.  It is this history of secular governing that causes most of us in the West with only cursory knowledge of the country to have until recently seen Turkey as a western Allie on our side against the other-aligned Arab states.

But here is the most interesting element...with a secular Government that excludes any active involvement of religion, Islamic or otherwise, Turkey is now suffering from unease as Muslims are now demanding that accommodation be made for their faith by the government. These are not extremists, these are your regular, normal practicing Muslims that follow the Qur'an and the Prophet's teaching which include striving for political power.

There is unease particularly among young secular Turks, who do not want to be governed by religious tenets with which they do not agree.  And the current government, while elected with Islamic votes, has continually striven to re-assure the population that the government will not become Islamic and that Turkey will always remain a secularist modern society with all the individual freedoms that that promises.

Those in America who refer glowingly toe Islam as "the Religion of Peace," would do themselves a service by reading Mr. Friedman's article on today's Turkey with an eye to recognizing that the tensions in Turkey right now are likely to reappear in America in the future, as the Muslim population grows more and more rapidly and with it the demand for more and more accommodation for Islam in this country.

At some point there must be extensive, quiet discussion among reasonable people recognizing that there is conflict between Islam and secular government.  We in America will have to decide just what we can, should and will do about it.

I woke up in a sweat last night...

not because of a cold, or a malfunction in the heating system.  No, it was what started out as a ghostly appearance of understanding that, as I moved toward consciousness, grew larger and more disturbing with each moment.

As an individual who started life as a Rockefeller Republican and has slid to the right ever since...to the point where John Birchers look liberal and chaos theory makes sense as a political policy guide...what I suddenly was considering seemed like a threat to my very core beliefs.  And I believe, as I describe it to you, it threatens the very core beliefs of those on ALL sides of the Political Spectrum.

First, consider the reason for the Democrats recent loss of a majority in the House of Representatives.  They listened to those in opposition, then trivialized and marginalized those opposing points of view and finally treated them with a mocking, denigrating disdain.  And when they lost the election, claim confusion about why they lost.

They had applied Alinsky's Rules with dedication and precision.  What they did not realize is that if your defined enemy suddenly becomes more numerous than you, you have a problem...a very big problem.

The Republicans, in turn, have done the very same thing.  Granted, they treat those ideas with which they disagree with dismissal, rather than outright action.  They ignore, rather that voicing their disregard, but that is a matter of style, not substance.

Both sides practice this approach.  Many in the world also have done it.  The problem lies in choosing an opposition that ultimately can outnumber you.  When that happens, the best propaganda machine in the world loses to the numbers.

Only once in my lifetime has this approach ever worked.  And it worked because the practitioner realized that  an enemy had to be selected that could NEVER become the majority.  The National Socialists in Germany under Hitler selected the Jews as the enemy.  This ensured that application of the forerunners to Alinsky's Rules could never be trumped by numbers.  And the application had singular success.

This political application was shear genius.  Hitler's, and Germany's, demise was a result of bad war strategy, not political failures.

But my shock upon awakening was not caused by the fact of this application...it was that its continued practice here in America and in the world prevents us from taking care of our public existence properly.  The political spectrum is not really about political ideology as much as it is about acquiring power over others.  Most are subconsciously aware of this, but ignore it because of the very public discussions and arguments about the "ways" of acquiring it, as if the particular political point of view validates seizing the power to tell others what to do.

Disagree?  Consider:  I may have any number of political views which I think would make the country (any country) a better place to live for me, my children and my community...but I don't go out and demand that others live under that particular set of rules.  Who does?  Dictators.  Conquerors. Despots.

Anybody else?  Well, those who secretly would love to be a Dictator but sense the personal danger in acquiring and keeping the position as well as a desire to be seen as a more benevolent but superior person form a group acquire power.  In some cases this is an army.  In many others, it is a political party.  But I cannot see how anyone can argue that at its center is the desire for power over others that starts the trouble.

In the South Pacific Islands they had a practice (I do not know if it continues) of selecting as King that person who least wanted to be King.  And, if he grew to like the position, they would kill him, eat him, and select again.  Not many failed to appreciate that it was NOT good to want to be King.

I like that practice.  It serves to put power over others in perspective and surely helps minimize it.  Wish we could do it here.