Posts Tagged ‘smashing capitalism’

Predicting collapse

Tuesday, November 19th, 2013

I am a prophet of doom.  There tends to be an oversupply of prophets of doom, and the proportion who turn out correct is quite small.

Equally, there are also a large number of prophets of non doom, for example the numerous prophets of complacency during the fall of the Roman Empire in the west, who assume that everything will continue as today, often even when spectacular collapse is under way, they assume that everything has now stabilized, or will very shortly stabilize.

So, I reach for the mantle of an accurate prophet:  Ayn Rand in her science fiction novel Atlas Shrugged accurately predicted the condition of today’s Detroit, though her book was published when Detroit had the highest standard of living in America. (more…)

Hayekian critique of Obamacare

Monday, November 18th, 2013

Hayek correctly predicted that socialism must be despotic, because it cannot operate according to laws, but according to decrees. And so we see the President issued a speech declaring his intent to ignore and unilaterally change some parts of a law, passed by Congress and signed by him, that he was suddenly finding inconvenient and then enforcing obedience on state employees, non federal government employees to obey his words and ignore his laws.

But, Hayek tells us, even this does not work, because the decrees are apt to be mutually incompatible. They cannot all be carried out. And so the Pharaoh winds up commanding bricks to be made without straw. (more…)

Civilization: Hold back the darkness

Sunday, February 3rd, 2013

It is often said, and is true, that progressivism is in revolt against nature, but it is only true because progressivism is in revolt against the past and past knowledge, and a large part of our accumulated wisdom is knowledge of the nature of man, what humans naturally are.  Progressives are not only in revolt against nature, but revolt against civilization. (more…)

Leftwards with John Corzine

Friday, November 30th, 2012

Urban Future tells us:

When the Right attains power, it is by becoming something other than itself, betraying its partisans not only incidentally and peripherally, through timidity or incompetence, but centrally and fundamentally, by practically advancing an agenda that almost perfectly negates its supposed ideological commitments. It builds that which it had promised to destroy, and further enthralls that which it had promised to liberate. Its victories mean ever less, its defeats ever more. To win is at most a lesser evil, whilst to lose opens new, unprecedented horizons of calamity, initiating previously unimagined adventures in horror.

The left theoretically wants equality, but, predictably, its unending victories cause ever more extreme and brutal inequality, as socialism somehow strangely manifests as crony capitalism. Soak the rich – except, of course, for friends of Obama. The ensuing social injustice results in louder cries to soak the rich. (more…)

Stultum facit fortuna

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

Whom fortune wishes to destroy, she first makes mad.

Consensus leads to the madness of crowds, not the wisdom of crowds.  As we move to a government ruled by consensus, and intrusively pervading every aspect of society with its power, madness and evil prevails. (more…)

The cause of the decline

Sunday, October 16th, 2011

Lately there as been a lot of concern about the increasingly visible decline of the west, notably Peter Thiel on “The  End of the Future”: (more…)

Gabrielle Giffords needed killing

Sunday, January 9th, 2011

And so do most of congress, most of the regulators, and most of the businessmen in the revolving door between business and regulation.

All the conservative criticism of her seems to be disappearing off the web, but what the hell, she stank, critics pointed out she stank, so someone killed her.   It might have been a leftist who did not think she was left enough, but chances are, was a conservative. Yes, chances are that unkind remarks by conservatives got her killed.  Pity it was not someone who mattered more.  Her platform was to create lots of high paying jobs in government and quasi governmental activities – in other words, to transfer wealth from productive people who mostly voted against her, to unproductive people who mostly voted for her, thus moving the nation generally leftwards.

As the nation plunges into bankruptcy, as the Cloward–Piven crisis approaches, we might kill enough similar wrongdoers to eventually get out of the crisis.  I don’t really see any other path to resolving the crisis other than watering the tree of liberty in the usual fashion.

The evil empire

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

Wikileaks Cable 10Paris58 reveals the extent of US rule over Europe.  If Europe is further left than the US, broker than the US, and more $@$%# than the US, this primarily that the American ruling elite has a freer hand in ruling Europe than in ruling the US, due to the US constitution, and the American tradition of liberty.

In Cable 10Paris58, the writer announces that France is insufficiently left wing, therefore an American program of intervention in French internal affairs is required to move France further left.

“Gay Pride” is another illustration of the same process.  When the US implemented “Gay Pride” in the US, it implemented “Gay Pride” world wide.  And what is a gay pride parade called in Spanish?  el día del Orgullo Gay

The use of the American neologism “Gay” reveals who is calling the shots, who planned and organized this event.

Let us reflect on Aristide’s rule in Haiti:

The US intervened in Haiti to install Aristide at gunpoint and it also intervened in Haitian society and culture to convince Haitians that this was a good thing, was benevolent and progressive.

The US demanded an election. It then demanded an election rigged in Aristide’s favor. He won, was overthrown. US demanded with threat of violence that he be reinstated. He was reinstated again, overthrown again. US invaded, installed him on the presidential throne with the guns of US marines, and, just to make sure Aristide did not get up to any mischief, surrounded him with an all white praetorian guard.

You will probably read all over the internet and the mainstream media that the numerous occasions in which Aristide was removed from power were evil American plots by evil America to deprive Aristide of his immensely popular and well deserved power.  Each of the supposedly anti American sources saying that stuff is a US state department muppet – someone from the state department has his arm up the speaker’s @$$ and his fingers are moving the speaker’s lips – pretty much in the way the praetorian guard were moving Aristide’s lips.

They are indeed anti American – because the US state department and the US ruling elite is anti American.

Just look at the races of the actors.  The people who installed Aristide were white Americans.  The people who guarded him were white people of undisclosed nationality.   (Not all that undisclosed – when everything fell apart, Aristide’s praetorians were rescued from black Haitians by the US marines)  The people Aristide fled were black Haitians.

It is not the Joos, it is Harvard and the State Department, not a sinister Jooish plot, it is a sinister Harvard plot.  It is a government conspiracy to impose more government on those who can least resist it – the French being less able to resist than Americans, and the Haitians being less able to resist than the French.

The 1994 intervention in Haiti is not in itself all that important, Haiti being just a small pimple, but it is important in what it reveals – like Cable 10Paris58 it reveals the true face of US imperialism.

astroturf “anarchism”

Sunday, January 2nd, 2011

The Belmont club reports on left “anarchism”, taking the movement at face value, as if it was what it appears to be.

the purest and most uncompromising of which are the anarchists.

In fact, left anarchists are astroturf. They are the government threatening those that would restrain its growth.

Repeating my previous post on the Greek riots:

Observe the recent firebombings in the Greek riots, where the “rioters” murdered three people.

Here are a couple of videos of the “rioters” firebombing police.

The “rioters” charge the police, and bang on their shields with light sticks, making no attempt to jab through the gaps at the actual bodies of the cops, nor using sticks heavy enough to even shake the shields.    No axe handles or baseball bats.

Hey guys, if you want to bang on armored cops, I have a sledgehammer that would make a pretty good mace. It goes through concrete mighty fast.

They then fall back, and hurl firebombs – but they do not not hurl firebombs at the police, but at the ground in front of the police.  One cop gets one of his boots splashed with burning petrol.  He rolls around, and a couple of other cops put him out.  In the second video, same scene shot from a different angle, we observe that the cops make not the slightest attempt to arrest the firebombers for attempted murder, and the rest of the mob for assault and as accessories to attempted murder.  It is all theater.  When they see that one of the firebombs has actually hit, the theater pauses.

When right wing militia listens politely to an FBI provocateur provocateur at a meeting proposing that they bomb someone, they all go to jail for plotting crimes.  The “rioters” firebomb a cop, and everyone acts like it is an unfortunate accident – which of course is exactly what it is.

The “rioters” in the Greek riots are government employees put on the streets by government sponsored unions that are themselves as much part of the government as the police were.

The end of the road to serfdom

Sunday, December 26th, 2010

Hayek, in “The Road to Serfdom” predicted the welfare regulatory state must inevitably become the totalitarian terror state.

Observe:  We have arrived. America is now a totalitarian terror state.

In 1992 I visited Cuba.  Thereafter, I argued it was a totalitarian state, because when I asked certain questions some people fled, fearing that merely hearing the question would result in them being punished for the thoughts it might elicit, and others answered furtively.

Yesterday, I asked someone very close to me a question apt to have a politically incorrect answer (I cannot identify him further, for he swore me to secrecy)

He looked around furtively.  We were on top of a hill overlooking the Coral Sea in a semi rural area, the other side of the world from his workplace.  He lowered his voice.  He then proceeded to utter a series of politically correct platitudes, with gestures and grimaces reversing their meaning, his grimaces implying the opposite of the ostensible meaning, the same sort of communication coded against possible eavesdroppers and hidden microphones that I encountered in Cuba, where they would swear loyalty to communism, while making a gesture of their throats being cut.

Like Havel’s green grocer, the truth would destroy his career.

This is the behavior that in 1992 I saw in Cuba and thereafter used as evidence that Cuba was a totalitarian state, a state of omnipresent fear.

So if Cuba was totalitarian in 1992, America is totalitarian in 2010.   We have arrived at the end of Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”.

In America, unlike Soviet Russia, we don’t send dissidents to Alaska, and although lots of American psychiatrists are eager to diagnose political deviation as mental illness and treat it with electroshock and lobotomy as they do in Cuba, government has as yet declined to employ them in this capacity.  But what government does do is ensure that political deviation blights your career.  If a company knowingly employs political deviants, it is apt to be sued by quasi governmental organization for a “hostile work environment”, in which lawsuit, no evidence will be presented of anyone saying unkind things to those for which the work environment was supposedly hostile, but evidence will be presented that employees had subversive thoughts – often evidence that they expressed subversive thoughts far from their workplace, as perhaps on a hill overlooking the Coral sea the other side of the world from his workplace – so the company will be punished, for failure to punish subversive thoughts.

Hayek, in “The Road to Serfdom”, argued that regulatory welfare state must inevitably become totalitarian.  Lo and behold, totalitarianism has arrived.  Most people, everyone with some position in society, everyone with something that could be taken away from them, are very, very frightened.

And what is totalitarianism?  Hayek’s totalitarianism seems to be pretty much Havel’s totalitarianism, and here is Havel on totalitarianism:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!”

Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think I can safely assume that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and the carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be.

If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone.

The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.”

This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan ‘I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth.

The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?”

Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the façade of something high. And that something is ideology.

As Bruce Charlton points out:

If you go into an institutional environment – a government office, a school or college, a hospital or doctor’s surgery, a museum, public transportation – and you observe posters adorning the walls on politically-correct topics such as diversity, fair trade, global warming, approved victim groups, third world aid – remember Havel’s essay, and that the correct translation of such posters is as follows:

“I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient”

Such posters are a coded admission of submission to ideology – except in the rare instance where they advertise genuine corruption by ideology.

The frequency of such posters nowadays, compared with a generation ago, is a quantitative measure of the progress of totalitarian government.