Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘War Stories’ Category

I am going to make just one point in this particular post because it is so major, I want you to just ponder on its implications.

Poverty is not an inalienable, unescapable, incurable condition of life on this planet. It is an entirely artificially created condition, created by a very few select men and women who find themselves in a position to do so.  People are poor because these very few, who are making multiple millions and even billions of dollars of personal profit from various necessary businesses do not pay their employees a generous wage out of these obscene profits. They could well afford to do so.

That’s all.

Read Full Post »

This is going to be one of the most complicated posts I have tried so far and I am beginning it in fear and trepidation. The war against the rich is quite simple and very easy to track. The war against the poor is much more subtle and complex, and I wanted this blog to be easy to read and understand for beginners in the field of political analysis. So please bear with me here. I will be connecting the dots. It is unlikely that I will be able to present my basic thoughts on this subject in just one post. It may even take two or three. Jesus Christ is quoted as saying— “the poor we have always with us.” I don’t think this is necessarily a given in our society so you see I am going to disagree with Jesus. Setting out my reasons will take some space.

How shall we define “poor?”  Rich and poor are such relative terms, dependent upon many differing factors such as cultural expectations(this is a big one), cultural standards, (these vary from place to place), exposure to comparison groups, public focus on select issues, etc.. Perhaps best stated by a quote of some antiquity which is… “I thought I was poor because I had no shoes until I met a man who had no feet.”

Here in America lately, we have had much public wailing about “The Poor” in capital letters, without any sort of definition as to what exactly defines “poor” to these people. The same goes for legislative rhetoric about “The Rich.” I will condense the howlings of the past fifty years or so into a workable definition for the purposes of this blog. We will start at the top, most public layer and work our way down. I will be giving some tried and true methods of self-defense also because people who get to feeling poor can use some encouragement.  I don’t mean to just yak about this war, I mean to offer some weapons that can be used against the aggressors.

We may take the idea of poverty as those people who feel themselves divorced from or shut out of, direct legislative authority. We may also take the idea of “rich” to encompass those the public feels are in control of this process. Most people feel disempowered and helpless to make the  changes necessary to regain some control over their finances and their lives, ergo, they feel poor. Voters all over this country fall under this heading regardless of their income.

Congress is running wild, ignoring the wishes of the electorate and following an agenda not approved by the people for the benefit of a select group which Congress is pleased to call “the poor” but which most Americans know really means “the rich” per the definitions I just gave. Right now, when  these few instigators on Capitol Hill say “poor” what they really mean is “those without health insurance.” Your first weapon will be to publicly refute this special interest definition.

A select few in Washington D. C., led by Obama, a group of women, and a few token males are attempting to ram socialized medicine down the throats of Americans using “The Poor” as an emotional catch-all phrase. They do not address any basic issues such as asking hard questions as to why health care became so overpriced in the first place. We hear nothing about the huge overpricing practises of the big drug companies. We hear nothing about the overpricing of medical equipment. We hear nothing about lowering the cost of health care itself by addressing the enormous price affixed to malpractice insurance that no doctor will practise without today or the judicial rulings and settlements that drove it up to begin with. These are the underlying issues involved but this Obama fronted women’s group has been very careful to direct public focus away from and not towards them. Americans know this but most have lost sight of the underpinning behind this insurance scam now before us in the name of healthcare, and this creates the feeling of disfranchisement that we all are reacting to.

This feeling of malaise has been created very deliberately, a fact which almost all Americans know at some level.  This is what drives most of our resentment against “the rich.” Our first line of defense in the War Against the Poor, and it will be very effective if implemented, is to refocus our attention on the items I have italicized above and to refuse to allow the professional politicians to sidetrack us with the emotionally based redirection tactics at which they all excel. Those of you who are not doing so now, need to turn a deaf ear to the specious, alligator tears tactics of these few women and their token males when they start in about ”  X—-   NUMBERS OF AMERICANS HAVE NO HEALTH INSURANCE!”  Sob, Sob, Sob. These bleeding hearts do not care about “the poor” and do not seek to benefit them.  The only people they seek to benefit from health insurance are the big insurance companies. Here in New England we have our own definition of SOB’s. Think of this when these sob sisters turn on the public tears.

Sick people need medicine and/or medical attention, not insurance. Healthy people don’t even need that. In this particular campaign in the War Against the Poor, the big insurance companies and their lobbyists/politicians have brought out their very biggest guns–lack of hindsight/foresight by the average voter, public misdirection of needed focus areas, fear, and financial insecurity. And they have done all this, not to improve our health, but to guarantee an investable capital base for their own profit. These tactics are very cheap but very, very effective in manipulating the public. What we need to do is insist that legislatures focus on the causes of inflated medical related pricing in every related healthcare field, and not quibble about more insurance that will only continue to inflate this wholly unnecessary gravy train.

A certain group of power investors artificially drove up the price of our healthcare to begin with, also deliberately, and they did that about 20 to 25 years ago. Remember, you are dealing with international corporations and they think twenty to fifty years ahead in their major game plans. Average people don’t generally do so and that leaves them at a huge disadvantage, which the big multinationals take full advantage of. Here is another self-defense weapon for the poor–when a given issue appears in the public arena, there is always an historical, political, legislative or financial background to it, going back several years. Look for the history if you want to fight effectively. The information you need will be available in the public records if you bother to hunt for it, and you will begin to feel much more empowered and much less like David against Goliath.

I have given here just a few examples of the weapons used by certain groups and individuals against the people in the war against the poor along with some very effective counter measures. In my next post, I will try to enlarge on some of the topics presented.

Next post—-The War Against The Poor…continued.

Read Full Post »

In my last post I gave a little background on the principles on which this great country of ours was founded. It was not founded on political rhetoric, religious rhetoric, or even financial rhetoric. It was founded on sound, for-profit business principles and was originally colonized by people who understood these principles. This is how the colonies became strong enough to throw off the rule of Great Britain and is the only reason the revolutionary war was fought. Our war for independence was not fought for ideological reasons of any kind. It was fought over money and taxation. The colonists wanted the taxation practises of the mother country to be fair, and moderate enough to allow all the people being taxed to sustain a prosperous lifestyle. We now have a movement in conservative politics called the Tea Party, after the original patriot version of the same name. It is fighting for the same causes that our founding fathers did–money and taxation.

We have raised up in this country a generation who have what I have heard called “the entitlement spending” mentality. An increasing number of voters who believe it is the state or federal governments job to see to it they are doctored, fed, clothed, housed, and provided with an ample supply of spending money.  The roots of this generation go back to the time of the Civil War. Before this era, Americans fully expected to earn their own living whereby they provided for their families and other dependents. Generally, “other dependents” in the north meant servants/employees, in the south, slaves.

This “entitlement” generation has sprung from the least educated and therefore the lowest income bracket of the preceding five generations. The domestic servants, farm laborers(not owners), shop and business clerks, street sweepers, chimney sweepers, and the newly freed slave populations in the south. The wage earners as opposed to the wage generators. The people who depended on but did not have to actually run a business for their livelihood. The people who generally had their necessities met without the worry or headaches involved in the hands-on management of the for-profit business that generated the revenue for them. In a word, the servant/slave mentality, acquired through many generations of ordinary people who were accustomed to having the “master” provide all the items still expected by their entitlement mentality descendants. This is the mind-set that grew up in the farm kitchens, domestic servants halls, slave quarters and carriage houses of the Civil War era and has now embedded itself in our public forums like so much bindweed in a border. The legislative mentality that is in a fair way to choking the life out of our entire economy. The “entitlement spending mentality.”

The descendants of this group are the people who passed the social security measure during the Great Depression, and the revised-to-target-the-individual income tax amendment before that, sometime around WWI. You see I am tracing the timeline backward to the source of our current fiscal difficulties which are found in a certain segment of our people and not in our legislative process.

These entitlement spending supporters base their legislative goals on spite. Their spending criteria are motivated by a let’s screw the “rich” people, they deserve it, mindset. Why? They perceive “rich” people as being “the enemy” for some reason. Again, why? If an individual cannot be allowed to prosper in peace in this country, if parents are to be penalized for leaving their children well provided for, the country itself will certainly not prosper. It is not prospering now, is it? My thoughts on this are not new by any means. There was a cagey old Greek by the name of Aesop who wrote a fable about this subject awhile back. It was about a dog and his bone. Look it up sometime. It sets forth in very simple style why our nation is not prospering under the sway of this entitlement mentality.

It is now time to call a halt to the hostilities in the class war that have been moving our legislation for the last fifty years.  The “poor” against the “rich.” Those of you who have been so anxious to prevent “rich” people as though they were some kind of social disease have shot yourselves in the foot. You’re scared about your old age pensions now and basically, you deserve this.  You passed all the legislation you could think of to deprive “rich” people of theirs.

Me? I’m a conscientious objector in this war. It is against my American principles of justice and fair play to grudge people their wealth. Even if their parents left it to them, it is still not mine or really any of my business. We are not going to win the war on poverty by shooting rich people and I won’t support the notion that we should quietly strangle them with legislation either. This has been tried and the result is that now “poor” people have found their own heads in the noose instead. Sorry folks. This is no more than justice.

My next post will be–The War Against The Poor.

 

Donate by credit card
Donate with PayPal

Read Full Post »

In my continuing series of war stories, I will now touch upon a subject that will dismay and repel a great many people, especially those in the democratic party of these United States. The war against the rich. Bear with me while I give some necessary historical background.

After the new world was discovered there followed by natural cause and effect, a period of colonization by the major players in European politics at that time. Companies were founded by men who had the capital to invest. For those of my readers who don’t know what “capital” is, think of it as money acquired by an individual that is over and above what is needed for immediate living expenses. What we all think of as “wealth.” These companies were granted charters by the various crowned heads in Europe giving specified land territories in exchange for financial considerations related to trade and import/export income possibilities.

In order to sustain their companies standing in the eyes of “the crown,” these men had to recruit colonists. Men who combined within themselves the skills, personal initiative, and just plain physical courage needed to move into an unknown and untamed wilderness and build businesses that would turn a profit. In only one case I have been able to discover did these investors come themselves to face the dangers and uncertainties of the new world. They recruited men able to work without supervision, that is, men who could conceive and execute a financial plan all on their own, do the initial physical labor involved, and hire other men who would be able to add their own skills to the enterprise. And of course, these men would bring their wives and children with them, man not being a solitary animal by either choice or instinct. And the women married to such men had also to be self motivated, possessed of many skills and physical courage or they would not have survived in the new wilderness. No women, no children, no men, no colony, no profit. Thus were the majority of the colonies of the new world founded. There was at least one founded as a criminal justice colony but that is for another war story.

Dear Readers, prepare yourselves now for an unimaginable horror. Most of you have taken up the history of these United States after the Declaration of Independence of 1776. “All men were created equal” and that sort of thing and you believe that these are the principles on which  America was founded. This is not so. America was founded, colonized, and survived, on the principles of good sound business practise.

The revolutionary war came of Great Britain’s refusal to adhere to them after establishing a for-profit colony built by free men. “No taxation without representation”, was the rallying cry of the original “Tea Party” patriots.  America grew into a nation to be reckoned with by the everyday, personal efforts of those men and women who, as individuals, understood and of their own initiative, used good, sound business practises for their own profit, the profit of their employees(they were paid you know), and the profit of the original investors. America is now almost on the rocks of financial insolvency(witness the current debate on the “debt ceiling”) because the majority of voters have lost sight of this very major fact of our beginnings.

Somewhere between the eras of the Civil and the Second World Wars, Americans came to view their government as a source of unearned income for the masses. The focus became public “welfare” benefits and not free, individual, profit bearing initiatives. Somewhere in here there arose a notion that “rich” people were responsible for providing for “the masses” out of their own pockets because that was “fair,” without any thought as to where those “rich” people actually got their money. Somewhere within this time period it became a crime against all americans to be “rich.”

I have entitled this post—-the war against the rich. It ties in to the earlier American Dream posts in this blog because what is the American Dream if it is not that a person from the lower-income brackets can, by his/her own initiative, become “rich?” I have laid out the basic shift in our original expectation of legitimate individual profit to government-funded, unearned income. My next post will be a more in-depth examination as to just why and how this shift occurred and just how it is now a crime to be “rich” in America.

My next post will be—-The War Against The Rich–continued

Read Full Post »

One of the reasons I tend to go on so about modern women’s issues is that I believe we are missing a very crucial point. And this goes back to the very beginning of the “Emancipation” movement of the 1800’s. Women were not allowed to do so many things back in the day. Voting was the very least of them although that made the most noise.
My view about women’s issues is this—
Of course we have brains as good as any mans. We can and did replace them in every hands on job the World War II effort needed while the men were away fighting to prevent Hitler taking over the world. They did what they had to and we did the same.
The real point to my mind is—- men cannot replace us. Certainly in motherhood. But look at our lives today and envision the life your young daughters are going to have. Graceless, restless, full of the cheapest public sexuality that demeans both men and women. Here is a news flash ladies, decent men don’t love the notion of being treated like a mindless stud animal any more than women want to be treated like breeding stock. Yes, there are decent men around. Look for the guy with his mouth shut.
This is the year 2011. I think we’ve made our point girls. Yes, we are fully capable of being scientists and doctors. Men however, are still not capable of being mothers and our homes are now a travesty. We are missing the stability, grace, and nurturing environment in our homes and therefore our communities that only full-time wives and mothers can provide. Men cannot replace us in this field. I think a woman should be able to pursue a career if she so chooses and I think we have pretty much got that issue licked now. But look at our country. Men are still working and being fathers and providers. That has not changed. We have so much trouble and unrest, especially among our children because we are all missing the efforts or our full-time moms. To her husband, children, and community, the full-time mother is irreplaceable.
I hope that women growing up today will now find the self-respect they felt cheated of in past generations. I hope that those girls who choose to be a wife and mother will commit themselves full-time to the job with a true understanding of just how irreplaceable they really are. Maybe then we can start to rebuild our homes, communities, and country.

Read Full Post »

In the interests of my quid pro quo policy, I will now share a few thoughts about the war against women. Here are a few preliminaries—

Everyone will know by now that this war has been spear-headed by the Judeo-Christian tradition for the last two thousand years. This tradition comes to us out of the east with its mystery religions.  And now that the JCT is flagging in the west we have the rise of the Muslim faith which is also an eastern mystery religion repressive to women. The war  has been very much an East versus West scenario with western Europe being the main theater of operations.  The majority of African tribes and the largest of the oriental (China)had no need for such a campaign as their cultural practises were misogynist anyway. Here are a few exceptions of interest—–

The Ashanti people of north Africa, the Burmese, Japanese, and Korean people. For all these I have seen references to female friendly cultural practises in my general reading. This may also be true of the sons of Hind in the earliest cultures of India but my reading over the years has not led me into any general instances I can allude to here.

Many of the native North American tribes regarded their women as partners and assistants in the business of life and their advice was sought in the management of the tribe in many issues. Notably, the Cherokee people, originally living in the southeastern part of the United States, had a matriarchal society, with well established trade routes and diplomatic relations with surrounding peoples.

The cultures of the Germanic peoples of western Europe were not essentially misogynist in theory and practise. Women were not made to hide– neither their forms and faces in public, or within the houses of their fathers or husbands.

It has been of major interest to me to note these correspondences among early cultural groups:

1.) all of the best warrior tribes, the people who were fighters by instinct and training and were the most feared by their neighbors, had no great fear of their women either.

2.) none of these people were monotheistic, they allowed the legitimacy of more than one “god/goddess.”

3.) all of these tribal groups valued the individual and expected both male and female to develop a strong sense of physical courage in order to protect the tribe and aid in its prosperity.

4.) for the past two thousand years, the above groups have been the primary targets of the christian church.

Here is the most interesting note of all in the war against women—-

The christian church has always been viewed as a female entity.

To the catholics it is Holy Mother Church. To the protestants it is the Bride of Christ. In both cases the persona is female. This is something for women’s libbers to take a look at. One of the reasons I have never had any sympathy for the modern women’s “movement.”  None of them seem to have even a grammar school education or they would have picked up on this and made more of it in their speeches. Of course, that would have taken a lot of unnecessary heat off of the “evil” men, probably why women’s liberation sort of overlooked this salient theological point. I call this a Freudian Slip.

Men and women do not naturally hate each other and are not natural enemies. Also, social studies have shown that women naturally tend to connect and coöperate with each other and that they tend to foster these two practises in their social environment. Lesbianism, which is not natural, views other women as competitors for social and sexual dominance in their “group” and wherever you find them in a public work force, there you will also find dissension and a poor working environment.  Look at our political and corporate climate these days.

So if there is a public pogrom against females in any given population group, look for another female to be causing it. At best, a very select few females. They will hide behind the “evil man” image until they feel safe.  Only then will they emerge into the political limelight and attempt to rule openly, standing up, instead of on their backs from behind the evil men they have done their personal best to corrupt. Now is this or is this not what we are seeing today in the political scene?

Your average young woman does not immediately think of one of her best friends as being the enemy just as the american public does not think of females as being sexual predators. In the war against women, both individual and public will have to revise some basic notions.

My final word on the war against women is this—– cherchez la femme, girls and boys. That’s french for  “look for the woman.” The females who shriek the loudest about men and their insensitive sexual attitudes are the ones most willing to use sex as a weapon and then blame the evil man. You all know some decent, average women. Do you ever hear them do a lot of man-bashing? This gives all women a bad name and I don’t deserve a bad name. I like and respect men, generally. And generally, I get the same from them. Duh.

I have by no means exhausted this subject so look for future refinements in coming segments in the War Stories category.

Read Full Post »

This post will be about something that has been sticking in my craw for a long time —— the war against men. Maybe I should amend that to the war against white men. For the last thirty years or so there has been a lot of public comment on racial and gender prejudice against women, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, all directed at the ruling class which in the western world has been composed of caucasian males. The dissidents have had a valid argument in some cases, at least on the surface of things, so I am going to play devil’s advocate as it were and show some support for the other side.

An awareness has been raised on some valid issues and I respect that. On the other hand, some crucial facts about the basis of the “white mans’ burden” mentality have been overlooked in the immediacy of hurt feelings. If you are going to discuss this issue with me you will have had to do at least some superficial reading on western history. If you got through high school you should be all set, none of this stuff is going to be PhD. level.

Two points are particularly salient (that is, they stick out) when studying the last two thousand years of history. I will explain.

First point. The verbal grandstanding about democracy, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States has been ubiquitous(everywhere) in the media, in our jurisprudence, and our legislative bodies. They are traced back to Magna Charta in merry old England. ‘They are the basis for all our freedoms’   is what we were taught in school and what they are still teaching. This is not true. These three world shaking documents are pieces of paper. (or more probably, pieces of parchment, which was more widely used at least in the time of the Magna Charta) Pieces of paper I say, nothing more. We do not owe our modern liberties to pieces of paper. We owe them to the men of both the “ruling” and the yeoman class that went into the field of battle and put their lives on the line in defense or what they thought was right. It is a matter of public record that these men were all of  the caucasian race.

Second point. If you study the history of Africa and the Orient during this same time slot you will not find any such collective efforts in the name of freedom for the average joe, male or female. I have found no such notions as justice for the common people in my general reading of the histories involved. The internecine conflicts of both these areas are about one king/chieftain/warlord trying to oust the other. With very few exceptions, both Oriental and African histories show a universal contempt for their women. Because they were not as physically strong as men they were regarded as cattle and field hands and used to provide their master with a useful slave population.  In China especially, women were regarded as slaves, even the well-born. Both geographical areas also evinced a casual acceptance of the institution of slavery.

The slave trade from Africa so deplored by the American civil war activists was generated and sustained by individual ruling black men in Africa. The Arabs were famous slave hunters during this time. During the time of the civil war between the states there were a few black men(whose names escape me at the moment–do your own research here)  the white activists towed around to their meetings to speak on the subject of slavery and it’s evils. I have not been able to discover that any of these black males covered the historical precedent for slavery established by their own past treatment of their women and prisoners of war in their public addresses. As their black male descendents in the hood say today —– what goes around, comes around.  Any one with more precise information, feel free to comment here.

The break up of the African slave trade was not accomplished by the black men in Africa uniting in a common cause of freedom as was the case with the caucasian Magna Charta effort. White men in the western world(women were not allowed the vote at this time) passed legislation that smothered the blacks foreign market. Again, anyone with information that refutes this please leave a  comment. Also, I note here that although women in the western societies could not vote, they were instrumental in bringing anti-slavery legislation to the public awareness. Kudos to them all.

All this stuff is a matter of public record which I have not found reason to disbelieve. Always remembering that the winner writes the histories, it is still reasonable of belief. All this modern-day howling by the so-called “minorities” was enabled by the sole efforts of the white men they cavil about so much in their speeches. This is not just. And if you desire justice and equity to be given you, you must first practise some of it.

As regards women’s liberation, there were plenty of women in England during the time of the Magna Charta. There is no record of them congregating in an armed militia to aid their men in the field of battle. They could have. Don’t whine at me that the times did not allow women to do such things, the times did not allow the average yeoman any rights either. The men got sick of it and went anyway. I am not going to tolerate any crap about women in combat today either.  They are not as individuals, physically strong enough to defend our country en mass. And our men are tender-hearted where we are concerned. In a combat situation, they will not be able to focus on the enemy for worrying about the girl next to them. This is race memory with white men and it cannot, and should not be changed. I digress a little here but I can’t help it. Combat is hard enough for our soldiers without adding this.

In conclusion, I am proud of my white men. In spite of some behaviors, they are the group that has spear-headed the move for the recognition of the worth of the individual. For this I support them and I respect them. No, they do not have a flawless track record this is true, but I will back it against the record of any other male racial group. Do I despise blacks, Hispanics, and Asians? Don’t be a fool. If someone is worthless it is a private choice not a genetic defect. The question of collective genetic choices must be left for a different blog.

The word of the devil’s advocate —– let’s give the devil his due, in this case.  I am just recommending a little quid pro quo.

.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts

%d bloggers like this: