04 December 2014


Thomas Hobbes's theory of fear, boiled down, is that the power of a government is not only a source of fear, but it's tool. But what if fear is lost? What becomes of the government then? Revolution?

Here in the US there are nightly protests in over 170 cities because several grand juries have failed to indict police officers when there was certainly enough evidence. In the US system, an indictment simply means there may be attributable guilt. Putting aside the Ferguson fiasco, in NYC the coroner labeled the death of Eric Garner a homicide. And still the grand jury did not indict.

Black persons are 21x more likely to be shot than whites. This is not a coincidence. Minorities in the US have never enjoyed the freedoms of white persons. By not indicting police officers, the government increases the fear, hence the control. It makes people more distrustful of the justice system. Makes white persons dependent on the divide. Fear.

Except that fear is crumbling. These protests are not violent, but could turn that way very quickly. If it does what then?

Curiously the President, and even Congress, have been mostly mute. Its as though they realize that their hold on the reigns of fear are now tenuous. The protests grow. The government is taking the wait and see stance, because it is a proven tactic. Ignore the problem long enough and the media will too. That is the fear they use now to maintain control.

20 November 2014

On the dangerous trail to dystopia

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
Adam Smith
 Just tonight, the major television networks refused, refused, to interrupt their broadcast for fifteen minutes so that the President could give a speech about illegal immigrants. They did not refuse for moral reasons but financial ones as November is a ratings sweep. Nielsen points would not be traded so that the President could explain that his next actions were to keep families together while Congress continues it's self-imposed gridlock. Neither side of Congress wants to deal with this issue, because if illegal immigrants are granted a path to citizenship, then the businesses that own the politicians would be forced to pay not only a living wage to these humans, but taxes as well.

And the headlines coming out of Ferguson, MO are being ignored. Worse, when they are not there is bitter division. When did peaceful protest become such a horrible thing? Yes, there has been violence, but the majority of it has come from those meant to protect. Humans have become expendable.

I find it interesting the people have read the Hunger Games and seen the movies, yet are clearly unable to see that that dystopian horror is not a dream, yet a reality that the United States is slipping into. The division between rich and poor grows at an alarming rate, yet few are bothered by it. Worse many view the ones most affected by the divide with increasing disdain, just as they view the protesters in Ferguson.

The cyclical nature of history has taught us nothing. This is the Roman Empire again. This is Nazi Germany again. This is the Soviet Union again. Google wants to build it's own cities. And still the people do not rise up against it. They are still "sheeple". They do not realize that these businesses are fearful of them finding a voice. One book had the power to make McDonald's start to faulter. Imagine what a hundred million voices could accomplish? But will it happen?

There must come a point where even the most fastidious of sheeple realizes that the politician one votes for really does not give a damn about them. That to affect political change one must have an affect on the profits of the corporations that control the politicians. That is the only way change can happen. Only way.

Sometimes a long pause is necessary

It's been a few years now since I've updated here. Sometimes life gets in the way. Got married, moved, changed jobs. But I am back and the philosophy will flow again. How often? I am shooting for weekly. We shall see.

31 January 2013

Communism (Marxism) is not Socialism

Now that the political bloodbath is over in the US, I feel it is time to set the record straight, so to speak, as to what socialism is versus what communism is. The reason for this is because my "conservative" friends use the terms interchangeably.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, have vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of the co-operative wealth flow more abundantly - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe upon its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
(K. Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme)

Marx believed that capitalism creates the proletariat class, who have nothing to sell but their labor. For a socialist state to happen, the proletariat must take power violently from those in command of the capitalist state. This is not a peaceful revolution. New classes win power through violent revolution. There is not a peaceful change in ideology. Most recent example would be the fall of the Soviet Union.

Those to claim that the democrats in office are now building a socialist state are wholeheartedly wrong. What they are witnessing is simple democracy and the whim of the people. It is the nature of democracy and a capitalistic society.

Communism evolves from socialism, according to Marx. Communist society is a classless society. Marx: Communism, which evolves peacefully from socialism, is a classless society under which the state will wither away. Socialist society is a classed society, albeit one without bourgeoisie society.

08 January 2013

Genocide can be a good thing

There are new problems in society, such as reactive attachment disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder, that all stem from abusive childhoods and such childhoods are producing adults who perpetuate the damage that was applied to them. The thesis here is what do we do with said individuals after we have identified them? Do we allow them to breed? To continue to exist?

In theory we are all born as blank slates and our mores and actions are learned from our caregivers. This is not to deny inherited traits whatsoever. Part of who we are is genetic. Much of who we become though is learned. And in the latter is where the issues arise. To borrow from Draper, what we become is directly related to the humans we deal with, not non-human entities. There is no interference from some "Creator" being.

A child born of parents who have one or both as alcoholics will most likely become one themself. That is the simple genetics of the situation. Only a genetic miscue would prevent it. The point of this is that there are matters where pure genetics influence the outcome. And this will dissuade an argument for a "Creator" being.

Back to my thesis, children are not born evil. That is a moral imposition. A parent, or both, then directly influence the progression their child has along the moral "norm" scale. While many try to ingrain positive moral basis in their child, a rare few do not, and in fact do the opposite.

A person that abuses a child, either physically or mentally, destroys the delicate threshold one has over learning what is right and wrong, well before one must make those decisions. That person did learn from another to be the way they are. That is the nurture argument in a bullet-proof shell. But at the same time they also know that they were created to be the way they are. And then they choose to create others as such.

What I propose is the removal of such individuals from society. Yes, a form of genocide if one will. Because these individuals actively perpetuate cruel acts and train others to do the same, they are not worthy of remaining in society (insert Rorty argument here). A society without those that have learned to abuse should be free of it. And one can only imagine what such a society was able to accomplish, now free of the threat of physical/emotional pain...