Beyond the Cusp

May 21, 2018

Sometimes Things Just Make Your Head Hurt

Filed under: Israel — qwertster @ 1:02 AM
Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Are people really going to bring back idolizing mass murdering leaders like Joseph Stalin, more affectionately called “Uncle Joe” back in 1940s America? Apparently, they are if we are to believe the story from a Socialists, May Day, International Workers’ Day rally in Trafalgar Square in London. From amongst the parade’s extravaganza of signs, flares and flags, that is the impression we draw and what else could one believe (see images below). There really is not any different conclusion one could reach when viewing the scenes from Trafalgar Square in London. Labour Party supporters left little doubt as to their new heroes, and the direction they hope to take Britain. The May Day, International Workers’ Day rally appeared to be something straight from the Moscow original May Day rallies where people were volunteered to attend and look happy about the state of things. One might say they felt a tinge of nostalgia if it were not for the sickening knot they felt in their gut. Seeing banners of Stalin, huge banners of Stalin on display in London are not a celebration but a foreboding, a warning to all Britain of what is coming if the far left should win an election. This May Day, International Workers’ Day rally should be a wakeup call for every true lover of Britain who desires to try and salvage at least some of the beating heart of a proud nation for them not to allow such leaders to take to the fore in their political arena. Unfortunately, this is likely a muted call which will be drowned out with chants for “Uncle Joe” and his promise of a slice of pie for everyone and free everything off the backs of forced laborers and the return of collectivist farms and famine. Those were the hallmarks of Stalinist Russia and Ukraine, but that is history and nobody cares to learn history any longer.

 

Joseph Stalin Celebrated During May Day, International Workers' Day Rally

Joseph Stalin Celebrated During May Day, International Workers’ Day Rally

 

Marchers at May Day, International Workers' Day Rally Waving the Red Flag Banners

Marchers at May Day, International Workers’ Day Rally Waving the Red Flag Banners

 

Few More Shots of Marchers at May Day, International Workers' Day Rally

Few More Shots of Marchers at May Day, International Workers’ Day Rally

 

One would think that such a march with Stalin brought to the fore would not shock us, after all youth have been wearing “Che” T-shirts thinking they were one of the kewl-people simply for wearing a t-shirt with a mass murderer emblazoned across the front and likely some feely-touchy slogan on the back all about equality, fairness and sharing (see examples below). For those who either do not remember or were never taught the reality behind Che Guevara, he was the executioner for Fidel and Raul Castro who took great pleasure in his assigned position. Che Guevara had received a medical degree in 1953 but after he became radicalized, he found that he preferred taking lives to saving them. He was the hatchet man for more than just Cuba as after he was no longer required in Cuba, Che Guevara assisted with communist uprisings in Congo-Kinshasa and later in Bolivia. It was in Bolivia where CIA backed anti-communists, also known as our butchers by the American government rather than the Soviet’s butchers, where Che was captured and found himself poetically on the other side of a firing squad. Che was born on June 14, 1928, and summarily executed on October 9, 1967, at the age of thirty-nine. Yes, we know he authored books on revolution and social equality and held positions other than official executioner and commander of the firing squads. One description of Che Guevara given by Ronald Radosh, a Hudson Institute adjunct fellow, as stated in “‘Che’ spurs debate, Del Toro walkout” in The Washington Times from January 27, 2009, “He took joy in killing counterrevolutionaries and was one of the most hard-edged, most Stalinist, pro-Soviet communists of the whole leadership.” This was the man seen on campuses across the developed world, image made larger than life and who holds a place of the grandest of illusions that Che was the best of the best and they ignore that this physician preferred killing to healing, that was the real Che Guevara.

 

Various Che T-shirts

Various Che T-shirts

 

Still, communism continues to hold sway and the far leftists always have the same reasoning for their desire to impose extreme socialist governance upon societies which are producing wealth and improving the standard of living over the widest range of the citizenry. But the socialist leftist revolution does not see this, they only see that some have great wealth and for them this is a crime, not an example to emulate. Their reasoning is that they know it has failed every time it has been attempted, but this time it will work as it is supposed to work because this time they are the right people who will make it work. They fail to see the basic problem with the entire formula which has two main problems. The initial problem is once the power structure is in place and they no longer serve any purpose, they will be discarded and if not careful, simply shot as someone who is no longer necessary but insists on continuing the revolution. They do not realize that the revolution is always about changing the people who have great wealth from those who produced items people desired to the leadership of the revolution, usually the top three percent of the revolutionary figures, the rest are executed or escape and live silent and wretched lives on the fringe of the new order. The other mistake is the formula of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” the formulation by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. In such a system, the intelligent choice is to have a great list of what you need and a short to nonexistent list of your abilities. Communism, or any form of extreme socialism, is based on limiting needs while forcing people to work as given the choice people will always have great hopes for realizing their needs but far less enthusiasm for working hard to realize them. Once a small percentage refuses to work but is still permitted to live at an equal level to those who work diligently and with great zeal and effort, soon the zeal wanes, the diligence become slack and effort goes out the window. This formula is doomed to fail as it works against the basic nature of people in a society. This can only function in a small group where everyone knows everyone else and thus slacking is immediately addressed by the whole group. Once the population gets large, there is no mechanism for shaming slackers, thus they begin to increase in numbers.

 

We may as well talk of why capitalism works so much better than socialism. The problem is people are, for the most part, greedy. We do not mean greedy as in avarice, but people want often more than they can reasonably afford. In socialist governance, they simply get on the waiting list and eventually they receive their desired items. Working for these items is not required because there is no connection between desires and work produced. Work is required according to one’s ability, and when one denies having any ability, in a large collective they get to skate. Further, if they are active in the ruling party and go to every party meeting, appear at every rally and show great enthusiasm, despite producing nothing of value, they will be rewarded simply due to their apparent enthusiasm, nothing more. Capitalism works completely differently. Capitalism realizes that people desire goods and services, often beyond their economic standing. Capitalism simply states that you will be rewarded for effort you make in providing something of service to the society. The more valuable your service or goods provided, the higher your reward. Higher reward means more goods and the one with the most toys wins. Greed drives production in capitalism, and that is the secret. Greed, desire for more drives one to produce more in order to be rewarded with more. The desire to acquire more items and live a richer life drives the individual to work harder and smarter. The desires are satisfied directly according to effort, not independent of effort as in socialism where as much as possible is made free for everyone.

 

But people still want something for nothing such as universal healthcare, free college educations, even free jobs created by the government simply to provide everyone with employment, not necessarily productive employment, just employment. When one adds in the fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage for these government jobs, many people making less will be quitting their productive work to apply and receive, automatically, these high paying government busy work jobs. They tried this in Mao Zedong’s China. One of the government jobs was mowing the grass in the capital city of Beijing. Each person was provided a pair of nail scissors and a six-centimeter ruler and was instructed to start at one end of a large multi-acre field of grass and to measure each blade and cut them individually all to two centimeters in height. When they finally weeks later reached the other end, they were returned to the beginning and instructed to perform the same job once more. This job employed one thousand people taking two to three weeks to finish the job once only to repeat their job endlessly.. The same job in a capitalist system would be performed by three or four people within a few hours with lawnmowers, powered clippers and an edging machine. Yes, the capitalist job would also require repeated performance of the tasks every three weeks or once a month as described in the contract. The complaint the socialists have is that capitalism makes for uneven wealth with themselves, the leadership of the political movement in the socialist camp not being the ones with the wealth. It is no accident that after the socialist revolt, the leadership suddenly becomes very wealthy and live lives of excess while those who had produced much to gain wealth are removed from the equation.

 

Joseph Stalin was a case in point. Stalin was a very powerful force for the Communist Revolution which placed Vladimir Lenin in the top position. Lenin was supposed to have asked Leon Trotsky to make sure upon Lenin’s death that Stalin never takes power. Leon Trotsky was a thinker and not a man of action and definitely not a man of violence. Stalin was all those things and Trotsky had to flee but was eventually settled with Stalin as he was murdered in Mexico by a Stalinist agent. Stalin was brutal and when the farmers refused to allow collectivization, Stalin sent the military and secret police to take all their produce for the cities leaving them nothing and starving them into submission. Many farmers continued to resist and were murdered. Soldiers who had fought particularly well in the revolution were rewarded with farms and told to grow crops for the revolution. These soldiers were city dwellers and knew nothing of farming and their lack of yields proved their incompetence. This lack of food production caused famine and in order to feed the cities and prevent another revolution overthrowing Stalin, he used the military and literally stole the produce of the now conquered Ukraine. Children who , out of starvation and depravation, would try to steal into the fields seeking dregs of the harvest were simply shot. The census takers were executed such that it was never to be revealed how many died in the Ukraine. What did Stalin care, these were not real Russians and his real Russians in the cities had to be fed and kept from turning against his governing. Stalin also began to place Russians into the Ukraine so as to keep the area under his control. These Russians were agents of the government and were rewarded with, what else, farmlands for their use. Needless to point out, this led to another famine. Stalin was estimated to have caused the deaths of anywhere from twenty million to sixty million people all included. Stalin was not the worst of the communist killers as that title falls to Mao Zedong whose numbers reach into the hundreds of millions. One telling of the story through essays is the “The Black Book of Communism,” a book contested by those defending Communism. One item many forget is that the Communists are only one side of the far leftist socialism, the International Socialist. There are also the Nationalist Socialists who some insist are right wing. The most deadly examples of these nationalist socialists were the Nazis, which stands for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

 

Europe has been drifting further and deeper into socialist governance with obvious results on the horizon. It is all spelled out in the Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance (see image below). There are those in the United States who also support socialist governance. An example of such a politician would be Bernie Sanders whose platform included national healthcare, fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, free college education, and so much more as listed here. There are those who theorize that Communism could work provided it was applied to a nation which has a universal work ethic. This theory is most often used to claim that socialism would work in the United States simply because of the work ethic. It is believed that these efforts would continue unabated into the future. Where such a supposition might well hold its validity for those working at the time of the imposition of socialist governance, there is no promise it would continue into the following generations. The United States is already witnessing the youth expectations for a ready job waiting for them as soon as they receive their degree. Many have bought the idea that raising the minimum wage by almost doubling it would reduce poverty. In actuality it would increase poverty, cutting the numbers of minimum wage jobs by at least half if not much greater. Other results of such an increase would include many small businesses closing, automation wherever possible, a rush to produce AI humanoid robotic units, many workers who had pushed their performance simply to get a raise and a promotion now finding themselves back at minimum wage would be disheartened, the entire system would become broken, and lastly and the most oppressive result would be a general doubling of all prices as massive inflation would adjust everything to be in the same proportionality to the minimum wage, just adjusted for this level. Raising the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour would not produce any advantages, as within a year all prices would have reestablished their relative position to the minimum wage. For an example, let us assume that a fast food meal cost three times the hourly minimum wage, which with the minimum wage at $7.85 setting the meal price of $23.55. Now we increase the minimum wage to $15.00, what would you assume would happen to that cost for the meal? Initially it would remain the same but would very soon start to work its way up and up to $33.00 and then $40.00 and finally coming to rest at $45.00 if not slightly higher. So, within a year the average minimum wage paycheck would be worth exactly the same amount of money, but the people who own the businesses or have stocks in the large companies and especially those who own land and properties, these people would see a huge increase in their wealth and the end result would be an even larger abyss, a real chasm, separating the have’s from the have-not’s.

 

Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance

Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance

 

Should communism come to the United States through elections and the slow creeping socialism eventually overtake everything else, the same people will be in charge and giving the orders to the same people doing the work. The problem is with a higher minimum wage and free healthcare, college and all the other government giveaways, taxes would be raised on the working Americans resulting in even more being forced from the workforce as businesses tightened their belts and steeled up against the coming storms. In the end you would have approximately half the population not being productive yet receiving full benefits and the half that are working, many will not be putting their best foot forward after witnessing others getting their toes cut off for their efforts. Once the people feel the full effect of government removing the rewards for hard work and simply giving the exact same result to those putting forth no effort, that is when the workforce walks away from their jobs and the system once again will fail. This is what we can expect should the far leftists get their dream candidates into the White House. Should we assume that President Trump will be reelected and his Vice President wins a term, then it will take at least two and probably three Presidential terms for the leftists to turn everything around. The problem is after elected the same candidate twice to the Office of the Presidency, they would very likely declare themselves to be the Leader of the Revolution and President for Life. The highest officers in the military would already have been weeded with the conservative core removed and preening pretenders promoted in their place. These leftists already have pretty much a chokehold on the major cities which they regard as their own voting machines to wield as they see fit. They have taken over almost every school board and have control over the curriculums of their schools which currently produce Democrats sold on the idea of the socialist collective mentality where everything is produced by a committee where two or three people out of twenty perform all the work but everyone shares the glory. Perhaps the brakes will be applied in time, but eventually this will be the future. As we stated above and depicted, it is simply the way the wheel turns in the Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance, and there is no getting around this cycle by going the other way, that has been the proof of history. It is all very sad but true and so unfortunate. It is a result of urbanization as people residing in rural areas learn to do for themselves while those in the urban jungle learn to call a specialist. The differences are stark and spell the difference between dependence and liberty, serfdom and freedom, fear and courage, and finally living in a society best defined by some deformed and maladjusted confluence of George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” described musically by Steppenwolf’s song “Monster” as compared against the Bible and Plato’s Republic with the spirit of Charlie Daniels’ song “In America” describing an alternative. Socialism becomes slavery while capitalism encourages innovations. Innovations are the necessity of a healthy economic base and without innovation, a society faces stagnation, an evil which impairs progress and curtails all hopes for a better tomorrow.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

November 23, 2017

Air Force General Jay Silveria Viral Speech

 

Air Force Gen. Jay Silveria made an impassioned though brief speech responding to an incident at the academy’s prep school where racial slurs were found written on message boards outside their rooms. You have probably already heard the speech as it went absolutely viral and deservedly so. For those who missed his excellent speech we have included it below. He spoke of “diversity” and referred to that as the strength of the Air Force, the Air Force Academy and at the academy’s prep school. This was to make an obvious point but one which is in many ways contrary to much of the purpose of these Air Force systems. Where the variety of diversity of which the general spoke does exist within the Air Force systems, this diversity is not strength unless it is applied in a dedicated system. When it comes to that dedicated system, the Air Force systems have no diversity and does everything in their ability to unify everyone into a single operating system where everyone works towards a likewise goal, that of the Air Force and the military of which it is a vital cog. Let us explain after we take a short break allowing those who have not seen the video to see it now and for those who wish to see the video again to do so.

 

 
The military and the universities have something in common, diversity where there actually is no diversity. These two places use diversity in exactly the same manner, a visual diversity where every variety of personhood is represented, every gender, race, religion and numerous other variety and classifications imaginable. Beyond the diverse appearance, diversity dies a quick and cold death at both institutions. In the military and its training academies and prep schools everyone is made to appear the same, to walk to the same marching beat, to run in groups, to wear their hair in a similar manner, to eat together, to sleep together, to wake together, to work towards that singular goal where each plays their specific role, to be one of a whole. In the university, all are taught to think the same, to share the same versions of history, of politics, of morality, of acceptance and to share beliefs in all manner of ideas ruling out any diversity of thought. Both places demand unity of thought and purpose from their parts, either officers or professors and either cadets or students. University or the military both require unity of thought out of their members. It was not always this way in at least one of these places. Where the military must require unity of behavior which requires acceptance of all other members ignoring any differences, universities have not always been so demanding of uniformity of thought where one is to celebrate all differences with amazement and graciousness towards the others of society, the more foreign to the old norms, the more celebrated such variety must be accepted, exalted and given preferential treatment. The corollary to this is the degradation and casting down of all whose ancestors previously held the power as the norm as they had advantages by definition of who they were, or at least that is the current belief being peddled at many of our institutions of higher learning. Let us see how diversity and uniformity are treated in both the university and the military and try to understand the similarities and the differences.

 

The university claims they celebrate diversity. They use these celebrations by identifying each person by their measure of their potential to be diverse from the straight, white, Judeo-Christian, male which is the one who is seen as the anti-diversity. As the anti-diversity entity, the straight, white, Judeo-Christian, male is seen as an evil from the old system which must be overturned so each of these classifications is seen even individually as a form of contagion. Should you have anything in any way in common with the classification of straight, white, Judeo-Christian, male which you share is a badge of disgrace, then you are to behave and be humbled. Thus being white has to be countered by some special diversity quality which negates the stigma. Being male is another which if added on top of white would now require more than one special diversity quality which negates the stigmas. Add straight to your gender and you lack an opportunity to show true love for diversity. Add in practicing religious individual of a Judeo-Christian religion and you might never be capable of proving you have anything desirable as a personal diversity as that might be the one unforgivable classification. There is one classification which may be even worse, though it often goes hand-in-hand with belief in Judeo-Christian religions, that is being pro-Israel or even worse, Zionist or actually Israeli, and most of us here checked off all those boxes. The universities have invented new classifications of gender and one is free from all biological old-fashioned identifiers which the old world cruelly imposed on us from birth without any sympathies for feelings and the dreams of our hearts. The more diversity qualifiers one can pile onto their identity, the greater their stature in the university societal structures. The universities tend to drive people to find solace in individual social groups, each one independent and separate from the others. Universities use diversity to divide and conquer where by spreading each person into as small a group and having as many of these groups as diversity makes possible allows the university to control people through suspicions of the other which is made all the easier when almost everyone is an other.

 

Air Force General Jay Silveria Giving Impassioned Speech Condemning Racism

Air Force General Jay Silveria Giving Impassioned Speech Condemning Racism

 

The Air Force, its academy and prep schools as well as everything to do with military groups is to accept all varieties of people and then to mold them into a cohesive unit. They do everything to remove all feelings of individuality. They issue everyone identical clothing in all manner of appearance. They have dress codes and limitations as to how one may wear their hair and wear their clothing with inspections to assure that these standards are kept. They regiment everything in life. Everyone eats in the same hall at the same times and pretty much the same food choices which are relatively limited but nutritious and attempted to be made tasty. They have drill to practice walking in ordered marching order and even run in formation in what is called a “double-time-march” which is a shuffling form of jogging. Their jobs are even regimented and there are specific directions in how each job is performed right down to order which bolts are taken off and replaced on an engine needing full disassembly and reassembly. There are forms required for everything from requisition to how to retire items and then procedures for their disposal. Even painting fences has a correct and acceptable way of applying the paint and any other means or method is considered unacceptable. The military accepts diversity up to defined points and differences are accepted until they run afoul of regulations or get in the way of completing the mission. The military does not celebrate diversity; it accepts diversity and then demands cohesion and uniformity in actions and purpose.

 

Air Force General Jay Silveria was critical of members within the Air Force “family” being denigrated due to an accepted diversity, in this case racial. What he was also upset over was this unacceptable behavior also hindered unit cohesion which is necessary for the mission being accomplished. This action hindered the uniformity between individuals as the military demands that though diversity of personnel is desirable, diversity is to be ignored, differences are to be accepted, not noted or used to differentiate any individual as the military is about units and not individualizing. The military wants their individuals to work as cogs in the machine, and cogs are not differentiable in a machine if they serve a similar purpose. In training, such as in a prep school, differences are downplayed as much as possible treating each individual as equally as possible and the entirety of the group is brought along as a unit disregarding differences as much as possible. In a prep school, the teachers will privately note pupils who act and show some additional degree of leadership or excellence as they are instructed to keep in mind those who might be prepared for officer and command positions. Excellence is about the only diversity which is noted but they still reserve any separate treatment for private counselling and in all other training they treat even those noted as excelling with little if any deference or difference.

 

In the military, excellence is determined through ability to perform tasks and understand and implement instruction and other concrete specifics which define task and are critical for mission accomplishment. Universities also determine excellence by defined criteria. They determine the level of excellence of a person by the numbers of diversity qualifiers one had adopted. This was carried a little too far with the self-definition of one’s chosen diversity in the not too distant past. This came about in the case of Rachel Dolezal who was NAACP Spokane, Washington’s Branch Caucasian President who was outed in June of 2015. She said she identified as black and was not aware that she was actually doing anything wrong as her identifying as black should be sufficient to qualify her to work for the NAACP. She was interviewed and was apparently quite surprised, shocked even, that people, especially the NAACP, were upset and were going to disqualify her from working as she had performed admirably while in the position.

 

Rachel Dolezal was NAACP Spokane Washington Branch Caucasian President

Rachel Dolezal was NAACP Spokane Washington Branch Caucasian President

 

She was probably accepted completely at university as she identified herself or had seen many others who were permitted to act in any capacity with which they felt qualified or identified. She may be only the first trans-person to take trans beyond simply gender. Transgendered people have recently been accepted by the left, by universities and are being forced upon the remainder of the population. Rachel Dolezal should have simply claimed she was transracial and fought to remain as the NAACP Spokane, Washington Branch Caucasian President as their transracial black President. One can only wonder what other criteria one could possibly apply the trans qualifier just by placing it in the front of their desired claim? Height should not be defined simply by measuring on from head to toe. Could we have people who are trans-tall or trans-short? Then there could be trans-slim or trans-plump, pleasantly so, or trans just about anything one may decide they wish they were. Why should trans be limited to transgendered people when there are so many people who wish they could claim to be something they are not? What if one gets up one morning, or after lunch, and decides they wish to be an actor, why not just claim to be a trans-actor, it sounds better than an undiscovered-actor just waiting for the moment when fame and fortune and recognition of their photogenic qualities and other attractive abilities are recognized. There are those who would probably prefer if Donald Trump were simply the trans-President of the United States instead of the actual President of the United States and I know this from the wonderful things I read in the brief moments I spend on social media each day when we post that day’s article. The Arab Palestinians could be defined as a trans-people while the more deserving actual people, the Kurdish People, are repudiated and denied the nation promised them by the British during World War I. There are so many ways in which we could apply the trans moniker which are being ignored by the university elites and we thought they were imaginative and open minded, well, at least imaginative as they are the most closed minded of people when it comes to diversity of political thought. Even the military permits a wider range of diversity of thought which was proven by Spenser Rapone who was the communist, Che Guevara tee under uniform T-shirt wearing cadet who was recently permitted to graduate despite knowledge of his communist beliefs and documented hatred for the United States and its form of government. Perhaps he could have claimed to be a transpatriot. Perhaps you are right and that might be going too far, we are transsorry.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Blog at WordPress.com.