Class Warfare Blog

November 20, 2017

New Resource for Social Justice Found

It has been recently noted that most Americans do not own a gun, nor is there a gun in their household, rather there are many guns in the hands of a few. Apparently “… America’s gun super-owners, have amassed huge collections. Just 3% of American adults own a collective 133,000,000 firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each.

Really I think we need to start considering these people a national resource. Since they reject the idea that the Second Amendment to the Constitution refers only to militias, maybe each of these super gun owners could be tab as a militia of one, to help defend the country, you know, when the liberals attack.

Maybe we could have these militias patrol the streets of our most dangerous cities, where all of them mynoritees is.

Maybe we could have them fight ISIS. I would be willing to buy a one-way ticket for one of these guys, but we would have to get some sort of dispensation to allow them to take their own crate of guns and ammo with them.

Apparently the Second Amendment is not about allowing individual citizens to own a gun, but about a very small minority to own their own armories.

I wonder what happens to the NRA when these gun nuts run out of room to store their hoards and stop buying guns. Are they going to sponsor the building of secure, high tech, gun range and armory combinations on the lot next to their houses? Gotta find a way to keep those “collectors” buying.

Advertisements

November 12, 2017

To Kneel or Not to Kneel During the Anthem? WTF?

In an article entitled “Star-Spangled Banner: how the anthem became central to the story of American sports” a number of very interesting points were made by the author Bryan Armen Graham.

Here are just a few:

“Professional sports needed to define themselves as patriotic in order to be seen as part of the war (WW1) on the home front and center for morale rather than as an expendable entertainment which is how they were initially,’ says Mark Clague, an associate professor of musicology at the University of Michigan who is one of the nation’s foremost experts on The Star-Spangled Banner, lest we believe anything but the owners’ self-interest made the anthem into the ubiquitous tradition we know today.

“Clague says the development and proliferation of stadium technology enabling the playing of pre-recorded music combined with a groundswell of patriotism during and after the second world war has given the anthem an almost continuous place in baseball in the years since. Football was similarly keen to wrap itself in the flag with NFL commissioner Elmer Layden in 1945 calling for a league-wide adoption of the anthem, saying: ‘The national anthem should be as much a part of every game as the kick-off. We must not drop it simply because the war is over. We should never forget what it stands for.’

“Oh, it was all about money! I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!”

“Says Clague: ‘When world war two happened, professional sports had really figured out that patriotism was good for their business and it protected them against this question of being defined as a non-essential occupation.’”

and

“The bombastic pre-game spectacles of patriotism that had become commonplace at NFL games began to make sense in 2015, after a report by Republican senators John McCain and Jeff Flake revealed the Department of Defense had spread $6.8m of taxpayer money among more than 50 professional teams across the NFL, NBA, MLB, MLS and NASCAR. In return, the teams promised organized displays of national pride including the honoring of members of the armed forces, surprise military homecomings and on-field color guard and reenlistment ceremonies. The co-opting of America’s most popular institutions as recruiting tools went by an easy-to-remember name: paid patriotism.”

Oh, it was all about money! I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

And as usual, the gullible rubes are brainwashed into enforcing the will of the elites, to make them even more money.

Oh, who created this article?  It was created for The Guardian, in the U.K., of course. Nothing like this would be produced by a U.S. news organ … that would be telling, now wouldn’t it.

November 10, 2017

Boy, I Love Ian Welsh

But unlike most of the rest of the world, China is actually trying to tackle problems, to think decades ahead, to plan and to do big important things. Some of what China considers important, like its expansion of a truly oppressive surveillance citizen which will include a public score for every citizen, I don’t like, but China does big things, good, bad or flawed, while we watch approaching catastrophes and gently hum to ourselves, then check our phones.

Follow the brilliant mind of Ian Welsh at his blog.

November 9, 2017

Step by Step, Inch by Inch, We Get Closer to Seeing What is True

I read the following quote in one of my favorite blogs, Religion Dispatches, today:

“Friedrich Nietzsche argued (I think it was in Ecco Homo, but don’t count on it as my Nietzsche readings were fifty years ago. Steve) that theological claims are actually expressions of ressentiment—envious hatred toward those we believe have oppressed us. He thought people created ultimate value systems, involving good and evil and heaven and hell, in order to put their enemies in their place. It’s a form of “imaginary revenge,” a self-consolation in the face of inevitable human limitations like powerlessness and death.”

Ah, just one step short. People may have invented the idea of settling scores in the afterlife, but the elites are the one’s that not only allowed it to be spread, but encouraged it (if they didn’t come up with the idea themselves and planted it in the first place). They saw that if people really believed that “their oppressors” would truly be punished in this fictitious afterlife, that it would inhibit the oppressed from trying to rush it along and do something while they were alive. So, it doesn’t matter why it was created in the first place, but why it survived.

I guarantee you, if the elites didn’t think it was useful, it would not still be part of “scripture.”

We Are Waking …

Check this out “Why have we built a paradise for offshore billionaires?” by Thomas Frank of The Guardian. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Mr. Frank says, for example, “In reality, though, it was never about us and our economy at all. Today it is obvious that all of this had only one rationale: to raise up a class of supermen above us. It had nothing to do with jobs or growth. Or freedom either. The only person’s freedom to be enhanced by these tax havens was the billionaire’s freedom. It was all to make his life even better, not ours.

He is not quite there, though, as you can see from this “I don’t want to go too far here. I know that what the billionaires and the celebrities have done is perfectly legal. They merely took advantage of the system. It’s the system itself, and the way it was deliberately constructed to achieve these awful ends, that should be the target of our fury.

Mr. Frank, with all respect, it is not some disembodied “system” we need to contend with. You must realize that the elites created the system. We do not need to take the system down. we need to take the elites down.

At least the mainstream media are starting to see reality.

November 7, 2017

Common Actions Required from the Faithful and Abject Subjects

Since the secular and religious elites have been in cahoots for so very long, they have borrowed the trappings of each other’s rules for use in their own. This happened in spades in the later fourth and fifth centuries in the Christian church. The Bishops started acting as if they were little emperors, for example. Consider the Pope as another (wears a crown, sits on a throne, dresses sumptuously and lives in gold-plated rooms, etc.).

Here are a number of shared actions imposed upon the non-elites by religious and secular elites.

Bowed Heads/Upper Bodies
When you take your eyes off of someone, you are sending quite a large number of signals. One is that you are not a threat to the person you are bowing to. Two, you are submitting to the power of the other. By taking your eyes off of the other, you cannot defend yourself from an attack by the other. This is common behavior amongst dogs, for example.
Quite a number of these signals are received by our own bodies. A bowed head is a submissive posture that tells our body we are submitting. This puts the “fight or flight” response on hold, lowers your physical strength (true!), reduces your ability to see clearly (and not because of the limit to your viewing), and quite a few other things.

So, the elites, both secular and religious, expect lesser beings to bow their heads, a lot. This reinforces their greater status and control over you. And you think you are being honored by being allowed into the august presence of someone who requires a bow!

Kowtowing
I am sure you have seen pictures of Muslims at prayer. The posture is one in which the person praying is kneeling and then moves their head down to the floor. Not even Jackie Chan could launch an attack from this position. Basically, by adopting this position, you are admitting that whoever put you in this position has power over you. (Islam means submit, remember.) Submitting to a god in this posture reinforces the power that god has over you.

This same posture is the equivalent of the kowtow (kou tau or koutou). The kowtow has been spun as a sign of reverence and respect but it originated as a forced posture of submission. In some cases, supplicants to elite powers are expected to “walk” in on their knees, otherwise known as crawling, like a child who cannot yet walk does.

Speaking from “Raised Daises”
In early churches and meeting halls everyone spoke (everyone who was allowed to speak, that is) from the same level. But as time moved on, those in the more exalted positions started speaking from raised platforms, often from very large chairs (called thrones, even St. Peter had one … right). The elites occupying the higher platforms are emphasizing the higher status they have in society and lower status the supplicants down on the floor have. They really do look down upon us. (Think about what they phrase means and how it is used.)

These raised platforms are often spun as existing so the people in the back can see better. But in sports stadia to make sure the people in the back can see better, they raise the seats of those spectators. The farther back you go, the higher you are elevated. This apparently didn’t occur to the elites.

In throne rooms with various steps leading up to the throne, rules are in place as to who may stand on which step, again reinforcing their status as to who are “above” them and who are “beneath” them. (Consider the phrase “doing such a thing is beneath me” if you care to see how woven into our culture this is.)

Referring to elites by titles
The first kings weren’t called “kings,” other words were used. There are a bewildering number of different titles that have been created: duke, count, earl, viscount, mandrake, prince, emperor, etc. In the religious world, this practice was copied: Bishop, deacon, Holy Father, Pope, Cardinal, Reverend, etc. All of these terms were created by the elites for the elites. The words the elites used for us were unworthy scum, commoner, worm, serf, slave, the “flock,” etc. None of these titles existed before a certain point, they had to be created … and guess who created them?

Insisting upon the use of a title reinforces their standing as being above yours. As more non-elites grew prosperous, they started insisting on titles of their own, master, sir, madam, which were words used otherwise but turned into titles. (And tug your forelock when you address me, scum!)

In religious elites, this is no different. Is there any other reason for you to address a priest as “father” and he to address you as “my son” other than to put him into a parental position of authority over a child (you)? Let’s see, Your Eminence, Hochheit, Highness, Your Grace, Your Majesty, even Mr. President (so humble compared to “Your Majesty”), ah … there are so many titles to establish they are someone special and you are not.

Tithing and Taxing
The secular elites invented taxation as a way to support “civilization.” They impounded food and clothing and labor to meet their needs, not the needs of the people. This was done first by religious threat or promise and later by religious threat or promise and physical force. In the Bible, have you ever wondered why “tax collectors” were so despised? This is because these people were representatives of tax farmers. There was no temple bureaucracy that actually went to people’s homes and collected taxes. The right to collect taxes in various precincts was auctioned to the highest bidder, who had to be rich, of course, to be able to afford this. Then the winner of the auction sent thugs out to get his money back, plus a healthy profit. Taxes were collected over a threat of violence and no proof was given of taxes collected, nor was there a schedule or date in which the tax man/goon was to come by. Often they came into your home and took whatever they thought had any value. IRS agents are pikers, very polite pikers, compared to these “tax farmers.”

The religious elites used the same procedures but found ways to encourage “donations” with less force. They tied “tithes” to religious holidays as well as traditional gifts being tied also. The religious calendar in the Middle Ages had more “holy days” than non-holy days, such was their greed.

If you spend even just a little effort, you will find many more commonalities between and among the controlling practices of the religious and secular elites.

 

 

 

 

The Real Cornerstones of Christianity

I have been claiming that religion exists only as a mechanism to control the great masses of people so they continue to serve the interests of the elites (both religious and secular). In this post I take a look at the concepts of Christianity (mostly, as being the religion I know the most about) that further this end and no other. (For Christians who feel they are being picked on, ask yourselves if you want other religions being taught to the same degree as is Christianity or do you want to be the dominant religion here? If you say dominant, then, well, you have to expect to be the only religion people know well enough to be able to critique.)

Your rewards come in the afterlife.
You will be rewarded and the people who did you wrong will be punished after you all are dead. So, whatever you do, don’t act up while you are alive. Stay passive. (Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord!)

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the Earth.
Of course, your inheritance will be worth almost nothing by the time the elites are done with it. But, if you stop being meek, you will get written out of God’s will. So, cultivate meekness, no?

You must believe in Jesus to be saved.
This mobilizes the “flock” to spread “the word,” creating a self-propagating propaganda campaign. This aspect mobilizes basically good people to deliver a crooked message.

The rich have no chance of getting into heaven.
Right. Since the rich have heaven on Earth and there is no heaven or afterlife, this is a sop to the poor bastards toiling away to make the rich richer. If being rich paves your path to Hell, why are the rich not giving their wealth to the churches? They seem only to give enough to polish their reputations, but not enough to cramp their lifestyles.

God is outside of time and space.
So, don’t go looking for Him, other than in your own imagination, because he is nowhere to be found. This is why the atheists can’t find God, the fools!

God works in mysterious ways.
If there is something you do not understand it is because you are a dumb fuck. Allow your betters to act on your behalf. They are smart and know better. And if they are dumb fucks, too, and do not know, this lets them off of the hook.

“God, in His own words, is a murderous sociopath
whose primary message is:
Worship Me, Properly, or Else
(Commandments 1 and 2 of the infamous ten).”

The Bible is the word of god.
If you read the Bible you will find this god, in His own words, to be a murderous sociopath whose primary message is: worship me, properly, or else (Commandments 1 and 2 of the infamous ten). This, coupled with keeping the Bible in a language none of the Christians could read for centuries (and killing people who translated) facilitated the elites being able to tell us what the Bible said, whether it said that or not. (Many people believe things like “God helps those who help themselves” are in the Bible when they are not. Since they know they haven’t read the thing, I wonder where they got that idea?) Oh, and they are still doing this. In other words, the elites are the word of god.

Belief is more important than knowledge.
And they will tell us what to believe and even what to know.

Those who cannot see what clearly is not there are fools!
This turns a delusion inside out. One is not foolish because one has been deluded, the others are fools for not being deluded. The helps build distrust in what can observed oneself and bolsters what they tell us to imagine. (The emperor’s new clothes are real, trust me, I know the tailor.)

There are no contradictions in the Bible.
There are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible but they don’t want you to go looking for them, just take this “fact” on faith … and don’t listen to anyone who points these things out as they are the tools of the Satan.

God listens to you and answers your prayers (sometimes, kinda, sorta).
Again, no action is required except inaudibly petitioning their god to do something you could do something about yourself. People so want to believe this is true they make up instances in which their prayers were “answered” and share them with their friends. Again, this is part of the self-propagating propaganda campaign. There has never been any evidence that prayers work (amputees getting new limbs, starving children becoming well-fed overnight, etc.).

You need to give liberally to your church.
After all they are doing “God’s work.” Yeah, like an all-powerful god who created an entire universe with hundreds of billions of stars and planets in just a couple of days, needs church officials to do what He cannot. Yahweh: all-powerful, all-knowing, and always in need of money. If being rich paves your path to Hell, why are the rich not giving their wealth to the churches? They seem only to give enough to polish their reputations, but not enough to cramp their lifestyles.

On the Sabbath, neither you, nor your kin, nor your slaves shall work.
If you aren’t supposed to do any work (some observant Jews think that turning on a TV is work), what are you supposed to do? Use the day to work your own little garden so as to be able to feed your family better? No, that’s work. Create a new business as the Republicans are always saying we need to do? No, that would be work. You are supposed to spend the day praying and studying scripture, in other words, reinforcing your own programming.

You may not be aware of this, but every time your computer reads something off of a hard drive it rewrites the files being read, thus reinforcing what is a very weak magnetic signal. The Sabbath is a day of reinforcing your religious programming (aka propaganda) so it doesn’t weaken under the strain of a seven-day work week. You can even go to temple or church to get reinforcement. You can’t work, but you can donate food and money to the church on this day … of course. This is pitched as a “day of rest” and made to sound like a vacation, but the faithful do not treat it as such.

By controlling what you do one day out of every seven, the control is reinforced strongly. Ever time you are controlled, it becomes more commonplace, more ordinary.

A woman shall cleave to her husband (etc, etc.).
There are so many diminishments of women in the Christian religion I had to narrow the list it to just this one example; there are many. many more. Basically the Bible offloads the responsibility to oppress women onto men. This lightens the load of the elites while giving a false impression to men that they are in control of their lives.

Controlling the reproduction of the species is a primary goal of the elites. There need to be enough workers, but not too many mouths to be fed. (Desperate poor people often try to rob the rich.) And sex has power over men’s minds which could equal the power of religion or the state, so men need to be warned off and taught that consorting with women is evil. Our current Vice-president will not go out for a drink with a woman not his wife. Now, that is control. Many Muslims wallpaper their women in cloth so they can walk on the streets, lest men be tempted by the evil wiles. And on, and on, and on, there is much more to this topic alone.

Conclusion
My hope is that if you see things as they really are, rather than as they are claimed to be, you will be able to see all of these controls in operation. You, then, can decide whether you want to go along.

Me, I like being asked. I tend to respond to reasonable requests very positively. If you try to (or actually do) manipulate me into doing something, I am done with you. You are out of my life. (If you don’t believe me, ask my dearly departed second wife. She isn’t dead, just dearly departed.)

November 6, 2017

More NRA Bullshit

The latest mass shooting (in a Texas church), we are told by an NRA representative, is not about “the guns” but about mental health.

Certainly, imagine how much more destruction he could have spread had he been armed with a rolling pin, or even a steak knife. We should bless our lucky stars he only had guns.

Oh, the NRA spokesman? That would be Donald J. Trump, sitting POTUS. Just how many strikes do you get before you are out in this game?

November 5, 2017

None So Blind As He Who Will Not See

Note This is a very long post, you may need to read it in stages. Sorry. Steve

At this point in my life, I am an old man. For over 60 years I have been studying history, mostly on my own. I remember reading H.G. Wells A Short History of the World when in high school, for fun. (I was what was then called “a reader” but an otherwise ordinary boy.) In college I read Will and Ariel Durant’s The Story of Civilization, for fun (and The Story of Philosophy and The Lessons of History). I read books about Egyptian History, the history of science, World War 2, the Russian Revolution, and on and on. I have been reading lately about the history of the Christian church (a real hair raiser if there was one).

And in all of those histories my eyes ran over the words but they didn’t quite come together. All of those Russian peasants, the serfs of Europe, the subjects of Egyptian and Persian god-kings, the Christian mobs running competitors out of town, all of those slaves and I never put together the fact that the vast majority of all human beings have been slaves since the advent of civilization.

I have written before about how I thought small groups of human beings ended up with shamans, shamans being members of the tribe who weren’t particularly skilled at hunting or any other valuable skill, yet who craved status and hence claimed to be able to negotiate with all of the gods that abounded in the minds of people. Since we knew no better, we assumed that everything had a voice in it like we had in our heads, so there was a god of the brook, of a tree, of a mountain, of the animals they hunted. All of our gods started with the animistic gods of primitive humans as precursors. This is where the idea of a god came from. But those gods were right there to observe in the form of the tree, or the spring, or the antelope. They weren’t far away gods and they certainly weren’t all-powerful.

When people started to gather in larger groups (larger than a small family), that is up to 100-125 in a troop (about the maximum size before splitting into smaller groups apparently), there was likely more than one shaman and they either had to compete or cooperate and since they were cunning they realized that they would be better off together than in competition. In order to cooperate, they had to get their stories together, so they were making the same claims and exhibiting the same “powers.” This is how a covey of shamans started religions. As the size of groups expanded, more cooperation between and among shamans was necessitated.

I have come to the conclusion that “organized” religion is simply a people control mechanism that was enabled by civilization. To live in cities, a great deal of labor needed to be coerced (because no one wanted to work that hard) and religion proved to be the tool to do just that. (“Kings” didn’t show up until about 1500 years after the first cities, which were always run by religious elites.) For the religious, the city was a gravy train. Other people toiled to provide them food and clothing and luxuries and all they had to do was perform some rituals from time to time and, of course, claim to have some power over those damned gods who would kick our asses at the drop of a hat. This was the creation of first wealth and the first full-time leisure.

I assume there were some true believers but they were always co-opted by the power mongers who took their imaginative creations and used them to make people obey.

The people closest to the class of elites wanted in on the scam (no different today) and didn’t want to be coerced into doing the work to support all of the freeloaders, so since the idea of capturing people from other tribes already existed, the idea of acquiring manpower from elsewhere came readily to mind. Men and women to work, women of child-bearing age to have more babies, even children were valuable. So, the elites, in essence, invented large scale slave raids, which were the nascent versions of what would end up as wars.

This is also why religions make no sense at all because we are looking at them in the wrong way. Religions are uneasy partners with political/military leaders to supply psychological and, if needed, physical force to keep people in line. In rare cases religion gets co-opted to support the general populace, but eventually they fall back in line as partners to maintain the status quo for the elites. The religions then, of course, use those instances as indicators of their true natures, like in the U.S. where religious leaders became anti-slavery, when there is no scripture whatsoever that supported their position.

Just like the shamans who saw they were better off as allies than competitors in the tribes, the religious elites saw the martial elites as natural allies. This took a little while to work out. The first “kings” were battle leaders under the control of the religious elites, but soon the warriors saw that they could whip the assess of those girly-men priests and didn’t think they should be taking orders from them anymore. You need to look no farther than The Epic of Gilgamesh for an example of such a conflict.

This alliance of elites has always had it ups and downs. The political elites eliminated the priest’s influence in the Russian Revolution, for example. (You will notice the priests are back, somewhat cowed, but religion is too good of a tool of oppression to waste. Ask Mr. Putin.) Henry the VIII of England created his own church when the one he had wouldn’t do his bidding. The Church of Rome threw much of the young male nobility of Europe into the meat grinder of the crusades to capture and control Jerusalem (a hardly useful task, but just making them do it reinforced their power over the nobles). There are many examples, but almost always the two religious and secular powers end up hand in hand.

Just ask yourself, which of the two American political parties is most covetous of political power? You will also notice that they are also the most overtly religious, even trying to change the law that prevents clergy from haranguing their congregations on politics. Which party are the religious supporting the most? (Surprise!) There are many more examples that can be made.

The bottom line is that religion was invented to control your behavior for the benefit of an elite few. Civilization was a tipping point in scale. And because of this there has been untold misery inflicted on other humans who were enslaved or coerced into work they didn’t want.

We know civilization was a tipping point because there was so much resistance to it. The first cities rose and died very quickly. There were structural problems, problems of getting resources delivered to the elites (water transport was good, land transport was awful), there were problems coercing “the flock.” The were problems in the high concentrations of food created and stored and shipped drew vermin like magnets, and as the populations increased, the numbers of people and animals were high enough to support disease epidemics.

All of the “civilizations” were initially surrounded by “barbarians.” These were actually the free people … well free, unless they were captured and enslaved by the “civilized” people. The barbarians were hunter-gatherers, or pastoralists, or semi-sedentary groups of people who lived the old way, the easy way, the healthy way.

Because the “barbarians” had very varied diets, they were quite disease resistant. The grew taller, stronger, and had less gum and other diseases. (We know this; this is not just a guess.) The “civilized” people were the exact opposite, but also got a narrow diet (consider the Chinese diet of rice for breakfast, rice for lunch, and rice for dinner … if they were lucky) and got to work longer hours at work not of their choosing. Yes, I know hunter-gatherers had to gather and hunt to eat, but they didn’t have someone telling them to do just one thing all of a day. They didn’t have anyone telling them what to do at all. They would go looking for things good to eat and what they did depended on what was available, and there was widespread availability of many different foodstuffs which was shared fairly egalitarianly … until the civilized people confiscated the land by force and used it for the elite’s purposes.

The barbarians opposed the civilized people because the civilized people opposed them. And sometimes the barbarians won. But in the end, the free people succumbed to the diseases and predation of the “civilized” people. (Consider the fate of the millions of people living in what was to become the United States, when the Europeans showed up with their “white, god-given privilege.)

But, you say, that was a long, long time ago and now the benefits of civilization are shared by one and all. (This claim is followed by a long list of the benefits of civilization, most of which are valid but many are quite dubious. Protection from communicable diseases with vaccines that people never got before being herded into large groups has to be considered a push. Being able to fly thousands of miles overnight is of debatable value. But that is not my main point. My point is “at what cost?” Civilization is still a pattern in which the elites coerce labor from the vast majority for their benefit alone. To make this obvious, here are a few things to consider:

  • Do you pay a tithe or give to a church? Do you know what your money goes for?
  • After the 2008 financial collapse that caused a worldwide economic recession, which people were made whole first?
  • Would you vote for an atheist were they better qualified in all other ways than their opponents in an election?

These are just a few questions to stimulate your thinking. Most people have no idea where the funds their churches collect go, for example. Even if their church publishes a financial statement, few read it. Most of the funds go to what is called “overhead” in business (salaries, utilities, maintenance of buildings, etc.) almost none goes to charity. This is basically a business which has overhead but no product other than what it’s customers imagine.

We all are aware that banks and stockholders got bailed out after the 2008 debacle, that none of the miscreants went to jail. That ordinary folks whose home mortgages were rigged so they appeared to be affordable, got very little, most nothing. The elites were taken care of first, as they always are.

And polls show that the vast majority of Americans wouldn’t vote for an avowed atheist under any circumstances. (Donald Trump lied about his religiosity, which should surprise no one.) Now that is control! If you want public office, believe what we tell you or at least pretend to.

While the mechanisms of coercion are now much more subtle (they are in essence, baked into the system—capitalism is one of them), ordinary people work very, very hard, and the surpluses they create go to the wealthy, powerful elite, and not themselves or their families. You have seen this graph before, no?

Many people have expressed surprise that evangelical Christians supported the candidacy of Donald Trump. If one takes a step back and looks at what is going on without the rose-colored glasses we are told we must wear (by the propaganda of the elites) the evangelicals voted for Mr. Trump in spite of his personal failings and attitudes and lack of belief but because of his willingness to pursue their political agenda. All of the dogma, scripture, etc. of the various churches is just window dressing, window dressing to be ignored when it gets in the way of the real agenda, which is maintaining and expanding the power of the religious and wealthy secular elites.

If you do not believe this, consider the following Christian scriptures:
Matthew 6:19-20 (“Do not store up treasures for yourself on the earth”)
Luke 6:24-25 (“But alas for you who are rich, for you have your comfort”)
James 5:1-6 (“Come now, you who are rich, weep, howling out at the miseries that are coming for you”).
As one writer put it “While there are always clergy members and theologians swift to assure us that the New Testament condemns not wealth but its abuse, not a single verse (unless subjected to absurdly forced readings) confirms the claim.”

So much for the prosperity gospel and the churches support for the wealthy. Never will scripture get in the way of their pact with the secular elites, who use money more than strong arms now to coerce the behavior they desire.

Just as there is no support for an anti-slavery position in the Christian churches, American religious elites point to the actions of churches to get slavery disallowed in this country. If one steps back and looks at that in an unfiltered way, it was just another coalition formed to create a political end and it had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with taking care of the elites. The elites expanded slavery to vast numbers to support civilization and is more than willing to abandon the practice, if it is to their benefit. (You will note that even though “freed” the situation of most Black Americans changed very little.

What has hit me and hit me hard is that civilization has been a source of coercion and misery quite likely for a majority of human beings since its inception. We even talk about how the workers who built the pyramids weren’t slaves, they were volunteers. Right, our god-king “asked” us to do this task, this dangerous, absurd task that creates no food, no wealth, and is back breaking labor and we volunteered enthusiastically. If someone walked up to you on the street and offered you this “job” for no pay (other than room and board), would you take it … or would you need to be forced to take it?

If you look at every “socialist” country in existence today (outside of the democratic socialist countries but possibly even including them), can you really say that the “means of production” are owned by “the people”? Do you think that the recent Chinese Communist Party meeting was comprised of representatives of “the people” or possibly even made up of ordinary Chinese citizens, aka “the people”? In every case I have looked at, the socialism is window dressing for rule by a powerful elite. The “rulers” are always wealthy, able to take care of their families with positions in the elite structure, and represent themselves rather than the needs of the people. The people are directed in such a way as to create wealth and power for the elites. Period.

The United States is supposed to be a grand experiment in “self-rule.” The founders were elitists and were dismayed when people of the “middling sort” (tradesmen and craftsmen, oh my) got involved in politics. They thought government would be in better hands if those hands had the leisure time to devote to contemplation. Right.

Is there any support for the idea that the U.S. is not being controlled by the wealthy (Wall Street, the Koch brothers, etc.) for the benefit of the elites at this point? What did it take? A couple of hundred years to find out that our version of civilization is just like everyone else’s?

And what has me hammered flat at this point in my life is the sheer amount of pain and misery that has been authorized under the guise of civilization. One of the best estimates I have seen of the number of humans (Homo sapiens) indicates that about 107 billion of us have been born. Of that number maybe 100 billion have been around at the same time as “civilization” (civilization allowing for a vast expansion of the population … of slaves). The estimate that in the year 1800, 75% of all people were in some form of slavery, indicates the vast amount of coercion and oppression that has been created and is still being created under the mantle of civilization, mostly for the benefit of wealthy elites.

It is staggeringly heartbreaking to consider the families broken by slavery, the backs broken by “voluntary slavery” moving rocks the size of Volkswagens to make a pretty pile, the whippings, the diseases, the starvation, the sexual and physical rape, the forced breeding of humans like cattle … it is a well of sadness we should be drowning in. But if we were to succumb to this feeling, the propaganda machine of the elites would kick in to perk us up, I am sure. Sad workers aren’t as productive as happy ones.

Have you seen the “tax reform” plan of the Trump administration? Do you still doubt my analysis?

November 3, 2017

Conservative A-hole Tanks Own Company Because Union

According to the California Today column in today’s NY Times:

“… popular news sites went dark on Thursday after its parent company DNAinfo shut down the entire Gothamist network of city-centric websites.
“The move came a week after reporters and editors at the New York newsrooms of Gothamist and DNAinfo voted to join a union.
“On Thursday, visitors to the websites were greeted by a post from Joe Ricketts, the company’s billionaire owner and founder of TD Ameritrade. He praised journalists who ‘reported tens of thousands of stories that have informed, impacted, and inspired millions of people.’
“But he added, ‘DNAinfo is, at the end of the day, a business, and businesses need to be economically successful if they are to endure.’“Mr. Ricketts, who started DNAinfo in 2009 and bought Gothamist last spring, had been outspoken in his dislike of unions.“As the company’s New York employees moved to unionize last spring, management warned that DNAinfo had been losing money for years. Mr. Ricketts later wrote, ‘I believe unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.’”

Conservatives have poisoned their own minds about unions so much that this, er, gentlemen, couldn’t see a major opportunity right in front of himself.

If it were true that the company had been losing money for years (one has to ask why one expands a company by buying another one when one is losing money, but we understand one has to spend money to make money), but I digress, if the company has been losing money for years, open the books to your new union and ask them to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Closing the company is still an option, in fact it is a big hammer to use if conventional negotiations were to occur. (I’d rather avoid conventional negotiations and instead prefer interest-based negotiations, but one doesn’t always control how things will go.)

Possibly, if the company were losing money, the union could be a source of ideas as to how to reverse that trend. Certainly it would damper a unions lust after better wages and working conditions for its members.

Companies of European origin who set up shop in the U.S. actively encourage the formation of unions as being effective partners in the running of a profitable company. European countries include union officers on their boards of governors, often by law as well as custom. Of course, in the U.S. they run into conservative state and federal government representatives who put the kibosh on such efforts when they occur. We can’t have examples of working, cooperative unions to be able to point to now, can we?

We would like to know whether Mr. Ricketts has ever been a member of a union, or worked in a union environment, or managed a union-based company. I suspect not. I assume he got his information from other rich assholes like himself, who have no idea what they are talking about and would rather put out their eyes than see what is right in front of them.

In this case the creator of the “corrosive us-against-them dynamic” is certainly not the newly created labor union, it never had a chance to act one way or the other. Gosh, I wonder then, what the source of that “corrosive dynamic” was? Hmm.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.