Cultural Marxism: Converting "Dissidents"

"We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn towards those that disagree with us." - Lenin

[http://rlv.zcache.com/thought_police_poster-rdc71cfdb00c2442489eeb8f5a2eb68b6_vpoez_8byvr_512.jpg]

Robert Jay Lifton, studied the dynamics of POW brainwashing in the Korean War and in Chinese camps. He identified a sequence of 10 factors that would reliably break down the personality and rebuild it in the image of the brain washers (Cultural Marxists, today). As a thought experiment, think about the idea of supposed "White Guilt" and "Institutionalized Racism" that is being pushed right now as a "fact".

1. Assault on identity - It's wrong for whites to have any white "pride" or be proud of European heritage because of capitalism, slavery, and colonialism. All positive accomplishments are negated.
2. Guilt - Constantly remind whites about the horrors perpetrated by the colonialists & slave owners in America's past and blame them for poverty and crime in minority communities.
3. Self-betrayal - The person begins to accept the guilt from being constantly reminded of it and surrounded by others who have already confessed.
4. Breaking point - The person finally succumbs to the mental assault and horrible feelings of guilt. They will do and say anything to relieve the pain.
5. Leniency - Now the person has suffered and agonized long enough, they deserve a short reprieve. A reward for suffering.
6. The compulsion to confess - The person is supported by the community to "come out" and "own" his/her "guilt" and be accepted.
7. The channeling of guilt - It's "noble" to admit guilt and now they see it in others.
8. Re-education, logical dishonoring - The person is now taught Critical Race Theory as fact, and embrace the illogical education they previously rejected.
9.  Progress and Harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth 

I don't believe it can be any clearer than that.  We can now use this model to examine the way Progressive Cultural Marxists have pushed "Sexism", "Islamophobia", "Homophobia", "Xenophobia" and "Racism" as mental and psychological disorders.  Now, we all know there are small percentages of people who do truly hate, but it's ridiculous to claim it as a country-wide and world-wide psychological problem.

If you dare to dissent and deny that these problems exist as endemic, you WILL be labeled as a thought criminal and mentally ill by the Cultural Marxists.  They will lie, ridicule, slander, insult, and scorn you until your courage wanes and your dissident spirit is broken. Then they will attempt to use the 10 brainwashing tactics to reform you, because they believe you to be pathologically deranged.

We have to know that these, along with Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and the Cloward-Piven strategy are being used at every single point, every aspect in life by these insane Marxists that want to "Fundamentally Change" America as we know it.  Once you see how they do it, and see behind their "tolerance" and "diversity" double-speak, you will understand this is a fight for the very soul of America and its people.  We must continue to be mentally strong and resilient in the face on non-stop attempts to break our spirit and relinquish our core virtues, values, and morals (even the Law & Constitution).

To a logical Libertarian conservative or just a regular person who values personal freedom, wants to be left alone, respects others choices and doesn't want to "change" anyone's belief system and thus is not in the thrall of the "progressive" mindset, this mentality is frightening and dangerous.  To us, we think, "Who in their right mind could want to police peoples' very thoughts? Who desires more control over peoples lives? How can they not just see and understand the facts I'm presenting"  Below is a review of the book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

"For years I have tried to discuss rationally with liberals/socialists. The only result I could get was to doubt my arguments, no matter how solid they were, because reason didn't seem powerful enough to move them. I could see that the liberal agenda was economically unsound and even against the basic facts of human nature. Just when I was giving up any possibility of ever understanding the liberal mind and its irrational assaults on reason and human nature, I came across Dr. Rossiter's book.
For the first time I could confirm a long held impression that liberals have some problem in their way of thinking. The Liberal Mind convincingly states that what appears to be just normal people worried about real social and political problems is in fact a neurosis which manifests itself in trying to manipulate those who just want to live their lives autonomously and cooperatively by attacking their freedom. Dr. Rossiter gives a complete description of signs, symptoms and causes of this neurosis. And a didactical one, for he emphasizes and repeats key concepts all through the book, so that when introducing new concepts the fundamentals are never out of sight.

Anyone who still understands man as an autonomous and cooperative being must read this book. The Liberal Mind is a wonderful guide through the sophisms the liberal neurosis creates in the mind of those affected by it, even if the liberal agenda has already dominated the mentality of almost a whole country. "

These are people who literally want to control what you choose to think and do, while at the same time claiming they are the "tolerant" ones, fighting for the freedoms of the oppressed, poor, and minorities.

The Liberal Mind is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains. [From The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD]

[Relevant Links]

Obama's new 'domestic extremism' czar teams up with leftist front group to persecute conservatives and libertarians
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis (Cloward-Piven)
Canadian Man Gets 18 months in Jail & Probation for Saying Islam is Evil
Conservatism as a Mental Illness

Lower Taxes = Higher Revenue (No, really!): The Laffer Curve

Fact: People change their behavior based on actions.

So, what really happens when taxes are lowered? Based on the propaganda from the "Left" and "Progressives", you would think that raising taxes significantly would generate more revenue and that would be the logical step in a stagnant economy and a large deficit.  In fact, the exact opposite is true.  The Laffer Curve is a simple economic model with proven positive historical economic results. 

1) The basic premise is: Less (Average) Taxes = More Output  > More Output = More Revenue

According to the Laffer Curve, there is a "sweet spot" to maximize revenue (see graph).  Raising taxes too much penalizes participation in taxed activities (working, starting a business, investing, spending, etc.) and increases the need for expenditures (unemployment, medicare, social services, etc.)

2) A high tax rate on a small tax base, the top 10% percentile, (and what progressive democratic "socialists" label the evil 1%) generates LESS revenue.
A lower tax rate on a large tax base generates MORE revenue.

"Supply-side economics was never just about slashing tax rates. As Laffer told me in a recent interview: “We also emphasized sound money, free trade and deregulation. It was a package of reforms to clear away the obstacles to increased economic output.” [2]

Lets give a few examples.

A) The Harding-Coolidge tax cuts in 1920. This cut the tax rate on the highest-income bracket through to the lowest-income bracket. This increased the GDP, unemployment decreased thus putting more workers in the tax-base, and improved everyone's general quality of life significantly.

[http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2004/bg1765/figure5.ashx]

B) Kennedy tax cuts in 1964. In the 4 years following JFK's tax cuts, the top tax bracket went from 94% > 70%, as well as lowering taxes for all other brackets as well.  The government revenue increased 9% annually and at a faster rate. 

[http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2004/bg1765/figure7.ashx]

C) Regan tax cuts.  During the 1980's the country was suffering from Stagflation, which is high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment.  Reducing income taxes and capital gains taxes in 1981 helped launch what we now appreciate as one of the greatest and longest periods of wealth creation in world history.

"Prior to the tax cut, the economy was choking on high inflation, high Interest rates, and high unemployment. All three of these economic bellwethers dropped sharply after the tax cuts. The unemployment rate, which peaked at 9.7 percent in 1982, began a steady decline, reaching 7.0 percent by 1986 and 5.3 percent when Reagan left office in January 1989.

Inflation-adjusted revenue growth dramatically improved. Over the four years prior to 1983, federal income tax revenue declined at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year, and total government income tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Between 1983 and 1986, federal income tax revenue increased by 2.7 percent annually, and total government income tax revenue increased by 3.5 percent annually.

The most controversial portion of Reagan's tax revolution was reducing the highest marginal income tax rate from 70 percent (when he took office in 1981) to 28 percent in 1988. However, Internal Revenue Service data reveal that tax collections from the wealthy, as measured by personal income taxes paid by top percentile earners, increased between 1980 and 1988--despite significantly lower tax rates."

Reducing capital gains taxes in 1997 further increased asset values, productivity, and private sector capital investments than in the previous decade starting in 1987.

During periods of tax increases, budget offices consistently over-estimate revenues because they fail to consider economic feedback effects incorporated in the Laffer Curve. 

"Seldom in economics does real life conform so conveniently to theory as this capital gains example does to the Laffer Curve. Lower tax rates change people's economic behavior and stimulate economic growth, which can create more--not less--tax revenues."

 Sources:
1. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-laffer-curve-at-40-still-looks-good/2014/12/26/4cded164-853d-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html
3.  Supply-Side Economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Socratic Dialogue: Socialism is Theft

A: I believe in Socialism and equality, yes! We need to make Wall Street and greedy corporations pay their Fair Share so the majority of the population doesn't suffer while the 1% have basically all the wealth in America. It's completely unfair!

Q: So, as an example, you believe it is acceptable to approach a rich stranger and force them to give you an amount of money you deem "fair" so you can spread it around to people who you think deserve it? Even if they don't work or produce anything of value? Just because they are unequal in wealth?

A: I've always loved Robin Hood, so yes, I agree. It's a morally grey area.  Morality is relative, it's my personal opinion.

A: I wouldn't personally steal from you!  I would actually help you, you're my friend. You're also not a millionaire or a billionaire! There is no reason to take your stuff, you're not the 1%.

Q: But theft is wrong. Stealing from me isn't any different than stealing from anyone else.

A: Most people think stealing is always wrong.  I think it's usually wrong but it all depends on the circumstances.

Q: So if we make up the rules as we go along, murder, rape, theft; all can be justified depending on the circumstances at the time.

A: No! Murder is always wrong! Rape is always wrong! It's never OK to harm another person, but theft isn't as bad as murder or rape.

Q: What if the outcome of a theft caused death or bodily harm?

A: Well, I guess you wouldn't be able to know the final outcome until it actually occurred.

Q: So, knowing the outcome of theft is uncertain, would it not be correct to say that it is always wrong?

A: I guess you are right. We don't know with one hundred percent certainty what the consequences of our actions will be.

-------------------------------------------------------

Q: The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions.

A: But I think we need to transcend the idea of right and wrong.  People make their own choices.

Q: But if you want to live in a functioning society, not chaos, isn't it true people need to agree on "principles" and "rules" in how to go about their daily lives?

A: Following your line of reasoning, correct.

Q: Otherwise there would be no "civilization".

A: Yes, I guess it would be quite messy, actually. You can't really call chaos or hunter gatherer groups "civilization" in the modern sense.

Q: So if you believe in the Golden Rule, you logically have to agree that stealing is wrong, otherwise you disagree with the Golden Rule (do unto others).

A: Yes, I see.

Q: You can agree that in order for large societies to function there must be an agreement on some kind of Ethics that everyone *should* abide by. Otherwise you will be punished for disobeying the cultural agreements of The Golden Rule and Private Property Rights.

A: Logically you are making sense. I am following you.

Q: The other side of the coin is chaos and no civilization, where no one can agree on any Ethics or Moral code. So, to take the argument further, is there any circumstance where it is allowed to take someone else's property? As an example, if a person borrowed money and entered into a voluntary contract with another person or entity and never paid it back, then yes, it would be allowed because they violated the contract.

A: How about certain circumstances? What is a person was starving to death and needed to steal food from someone  or a store in order survive?

Q: Ethically, the person who is starving and on the verge of death is functioning at the basest level of existence, so he is compelled to act unethically in order to survive.  This, however, does not change the definition of said ethics and morals.

A: Ok, that makes sense.

Q: So the next question is how do we compromise and find solutions in a society that are ethical and moral?

A: I'm unsure. Laws?

Q: We know from our conversation that stealing is wrong.  It does not matter if the person is rich or poor.  The ethics don't change from person to person.

A: Based on your line of reasoning...yes.

Q: So, we must come up with solutions that do not violate these principles.  Saying "Take all the money from rich people and give it to the poor" isn't ethical or logical.  And when you accept that then there are no vague arguments for generalized redistribution of wealth based on subjective ethics or morality. So, to reiterate, 1) stealing is wrong, and 2) ethics do not change from person to person or situation to situation.  That is true equality because everyone is treated equally, or they are not.  And also, based on reasoning we can now come to an agreement on what laws are "just" and "unjust".

A: Yes.

Q: The world is a complicated place, we both agree.  The next logical step is how does a society deal with people who violate these principles and violate the Golden Rule?

A: Not sure.

Q: We can now discuss further, since we have both agreed on what these concepts are.

A: Yes.

Q: You stated earlier that you were a socialist and also that you believed stealing was justified in certain circumstances. So, based on these principles, if you agree with them, you can not believe in a socialist government because it is based on redistribution of wealth and property by force (theft).

A: Ok, but based on your argument isn't it also wrong to let people die from health complications because they can not afford health care?

Q: Hold on, we're not quite there yet!  So, how does a society take care of the indigent in an ethical way?  If we both agree on the Golden Rule, the solution can not be taking a wealthy person's money by force just because they happen to be wealthy.  If we believe in equality, we must treat everyone the same.  And this is where we get problems because society at present is not working in an ethical or equal way.

A:  Based on your argument, yes.  Based on my feelings, I think the wealthy need to pay more than they currently do, and I have wealthy friends and family.

Q: Ok, but those are your feelings, not logic.

A: Ok, right!  But some people starve and some people are so rich! There is no equilibrium!

Q:  This is where the conversation begins about equality. What is equality? Can people in society ever really be equal?  The answer is no. So if you look at equality, we start with some very simple examples.  Some people are born beautiful and they have that advantage and become models or actors. Some people are tall and athletic and have advantages in sports or physical pursuits.  Some people are born with high IQ's, or blind, deaf, poor, short, disabled, etc.

A: Sure, sure!

Q:  So we know that humanity in the most simplistic sense is not equal in advantages and traits and circumstance.  Some are at the top percentile, like geniuses, the majority of us are just average, and the small percentage at the bottom are more disadvantaged for whatever reason.

A:  True, we all have our strengths and weaknesses.

Q:  So, would it be fair and ethical to take the eyes from someone and give them to a blind person just because you wanted everyone to be equal?  It's a yes or no question.

A:  That would not be ethical, no.

Q:  So if we follow the same logic, would it be fair to take the wealth and property of someone like Bill Gates, who in the top percentile invented amazing products that have value, and give it to people who happen to have less just for the sake of equality?

A:  I see what you are saying, ok.

Q:  So I take it that your answer is no, it's not ethical to do that.  So, it's unethical to take someone else's eyes or money or beauty or intelligence and try to redistribute it.  It's ethically wrong and it's also impossible in most cases!  So logically we have concluded that the world and humanity is inherently unfair and not equal, and it's unethical to attempt to make it so by force.

A:  I see now.

Q:  This is where we have a fundamental misunderstanding at present with one group of people who believe it is "right" to take from others by force and give it to the rest.  And another group who, when faced with these dilemmas know it's unethical.  So we have come to the conclusion that we live in an unfair world.  Now how do we deal with this?

A:  Not sure! But I follow you.

Q:  So, ethically we now know socialism, at its core, and with all the emotional rhetoric is inherently unethical in its foundational principles.

A:  Yes, based on our conversation, yes!  I guess I don't really identify as a socialist, I just like some of the ideas.  The idea of taking care of everyone is a very good idea.

Q: Yes, the basis of socialism is what I said previously, you just like the rhetoric and the emotional aspect of altruism, not the logic.  The "idea" of taking care of each other is a great and noble desire.

A:  Right, so how do we go about taking care of one another? By force, or not?

Q:  Before I continue I must say that the majority of people who are against socialism know the ethical arguments, even if they can't articulate it like I just did.  They just know it's wrong and unfair.  They aren't "right wing nut jobs who hate the poor". They understand that their beliefs and the socialist model are not compatible, even if they can't articulate it in economic jargon.

A: Yeah.

Q: Ok, so for the most part, the majority of Christians are not socialist because they believe in the Golden Rule and the 10 Commandments so they are not crazy zealots either, like a lot of the progressive "left" would have everyone believe.  This is a huge misunderstanding and a reason why the two camps fight and don't philosophically get along.  The are diametrically opposed like magnets.

A: Yep.

Q:  So you can't have a cohesive society when the people can't agree on basic right and wrong.  It will eventually self-destruct from within.  We can discuss economics and corporations next time.

A: Goodnight!

Bernie Sanders: Reading Past the Campaign Slogans (Part 3)

"All power struggles need to create a "bad guy" to justify retaining their positions of power."

[Image source: http://bluestarchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Occupy_Wall_Street.jpg]

In the "us-vs-them" mentality, especially in politics, Right-vs-Left, Democrat-vs-Republican, Rich-vs-Poor, the disagreements and anger serve as a tool to divide and incite mistrust, and treats the public (you) as a means to and end: votes for political and ideological power.  As Kant rightly said, "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only".  This moral philosophy seems to fall on deaf ears in our current political climate, rife with identity politics and corruption.

Bernard Sanders is using you, preying on your hatred for the "Rich 1 Percent" in order to secure your vote and legislate via his numerous "Acts" a socialist ideology in place of what should be a free market with limited government, otherwise called a Constitutional Republic.  Continuing with the sentiments and frustration that spurred Occupy Wallstreet, Sanders' main campaign platform calls for the Rich 1% and Wall Street to pay their "Fair Share".  But what does this actually mean? Calling things by their proper names is the beginning of wisdom.

Sanders said, "The fairest way to reduce wealth inequality and to rebuild the disappearing middle class, preserve our democracy, is to enact a progressive estate tax on multi-millionaires and billionaires," and "Our nation cannot survive morally or economically when so few have so much and so many have so little. We need a tax system which asks the business class to pay it's fair share of taxes." 

At face value, these statements seem perfectly logical and hit a nerve with the majority of Americans.  But: What is fair? What is equality? Logically we all know nobody is exactly equal to another.  Some people have greater intelligence, or greater beauty.  Some people are born extremely tall or athletic, giving them advantages in sports.  Some people are geniuses who invent amazing and profitable inventions.  We know that not everyone can be exceptional, and in reality the majority of us are destined to be perfectly average. For the in depth scientific study on this topic, see The Bell Curve. 

This rhetoric implies that the rich are evil.  It implies the rich and business class prey upon the lower and middle class by cheating, lying, and stealing to create their wealth.  This is pure propaganda created to incite anger, resentment, frustration, and indignation at a group of people in America that for the most part, created their wealth by hard work, ingenuity, delayed gratification, intelligence, smart investments, and creating products and services that have value.  Now, if a wealthy person makes money but doesn't produce anything of value that is stealing.  You have to ask yourself, did all the people in the say, top richest 10% of society make all their money by stealing it from the bottom 90%? No! They created value and provided services that the market and consumers demanded.  Communism preyed on the hatred and resentment of the rich Bourgeoisie, which is the class of people or the "other" that you are allowed to hate and despise.  So why not just steal from the Bourgeoisie to reduce inequality if all they do is steal from us? The faulty logic says, "I am poor because someone else is rich." This is a ridiculous zero-sum argument and lacks basic economic understanding of how markets and government actually function.  Politicians like Sanders promise to take rich peoples' money and redistribute it to the "underclass" - this is simply a bribe for your vote.  So when people say Sanders is a Communist, even though they are technically incorrect, they're not far off. 

"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." - F.A. Hayek. For further reading: The Road to Serfdom - Hayek

On Liberty

Reading my philosophy book, I came across this great passage from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", written in 1859. 

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mindkind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty or action of any of their number, is self-protection.  That the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised ove any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.   His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right.  These are good reasons for remostrating with him or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.  To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else.  The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

The man who wrote this (a white, British, male!) also wrote another work, a century ahead of its time , "The Subjection of Women" (1869), for women's emancipation and continued to extend his argument in "On Liberty" to include women.

John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham were "Utilitarian". The principe of utility maintains that there is only one way to determine whether something is right or wrong, good or bad, and that is by considering its usefulness or "utility" in bringing about pleasant results.  An action is right if it brings about more happiness than any other possible action; it is wrong if some other possible action could have produced more happiness.  Utilitarianism is a "teleological theory", that is, any theory that evaluates the rightness and wrongness of an action by the consequences likey to result from it.

Moral & Intellectual Virtues

Moral Virtues

This is the case with the other moral qualities.  They are, in the main, means or point of balance between two extremes, each extreme being a vice either of excess or defect.  Modesty is thus the mean between pride (resulting from too much vanity) and humility (resulting from too little); ambition, between greed (excess) and sloth (defect); and so forth. 

It is in the nature of moral qualities that they are destroyed by deficiency and excess, just as we can see (since we have to use the evidence of visible facts to throw light on what is invisible) in the case of bodil health and strength.  For both excessive and insufficient exercise destroy one's health, and both eating and drinking too much or too little destroy health, whereas the right quanitiy produces, increases and preserves it.  So it is the same with temperance, courage and the other virtues.  The man who shuns and fears everything and stands up to nothing becomes a coward; the man who is afraid of nothing at all, but marches up to every danger, becomes foolhardy.  Similarly, the man who indulges in every pleasure and refrains from none becomes licentious; but if a man behaves like a boor and turns his back on every pleasure, he is a case of insensibility.  Thus temperance and courage are destroyed by excess and deficiency and preserved by the mean. (Book II, ii)

We have now said enough to show that moral virtue is a mean, and in what sense it is so: that it is a mean between two vices, one of excess and the other of deficiency, and that it is such because it aims at hitting the mean point in feelings and actions.  For this reason it is a difficult business to be good; because in any given case it is difficult to find the mid-point--for instance, not everyone can find the center of a circle; only the man who knows how. So too it is easy to get angry--anyone can do that--or to give and spend money; but to feel or act towards the right person to the right extent at the right time for the right reason in the right way-- that is NOT easy, and it is not everyone that can do it.  Hence to do these things well is a rare, laudable and fine achievement. (Book II, ix). --Aristotle (Ethics).   

Although much of the Nicomachean Ethics is dvoted to the analysis of this docrine of the "golden mean" (as it has come to be called), Aristotle's most memorable illustration of it is to be found not in the Nicomachean Ethics but in his Rhetoric, in the description of the three main stages of life as represented in the Youthful Man, The Man in His Prime, and the Elderly Man.  In terms of major virtues, the Youthful Man represents excess, The Main in His Prime represents the mean, and the Elderly Man the defect. 

Intellectual Virtues

If the mean is a relative thing that differs for different people (and even for the same people in different situations), so that no precise rules can be laid down as to what it might be at any one time, how does one go about determining it? Aristotle replies that it requires knowledge and wisdom, and thus to attain happiness we need to attend not only to the moral virtues but to the intellectual virtues (prudence, foresight, wisdom).

However, what Aristotle now says about the attainment of these intellectual virtues is discouraging, for it soon becomes apparent that if he is right, only few of us can hope to achieve true happiness.  For the perfection of the intellectual virtues, although indispensable in keeping the passions in check, is described as having a value and purpose all its own. The goodness of intellect that makes possible the goodness of character, which brings happiness, is itself, intrinsically finer and higher than anything else available to us. 

*Does this mean the "good life" is only available to the very few? (those who have intellect, health, family, wealth)

*Does this mean there is only one true road to happiness?

*Doesn't a carpenter, a reformer, a teacher, a clerk, a farmer deserve to attain true happiness?

Apparently, the happiness the virtuous man is to seek is not anyone else's but his own.  I am obliged, says Aristotle, to look after only myself.  Aristotle does indeed instruct us in altruistic virtues such as honesty, generosity, friendship, etc. but their justification is not that they will increase the general happiness but that these things are desirable for the individual to have.

Yet we can see that if it is true that in order to attain happiness one must cultivate and realize certain potentialities, then such happiness can only be obtained by attending to oneself.  And if such happiness if realized, society could not help but benefit.

Whose good ought I choose in case of conflict?

Bernie Sanders: Reading Past the Campaign Slogans (Part 2)

1. Minimum Wage: "Wednesday, July 22, 2015, Sanders introduced a bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour over a period of five years, called the "Pay Workers a Living Wage Act." You can view the press release here, the summary here, and the full bill here.

This bill proposes the follow wage adjustments:

+ Minimum wage - $9 in 2016, $10.50 in 2017, $12.00 in 2018, $13.50 in 2019, and $15 in 2020.
+ Tipped min wage - $3.15 in 2016, then increased $1.50 each year until matching standard minimum.
+ Youth min wage - can be no less than $3.00 less the standard minimum.

Business are expected to adjust their finances to cover this cost." (Source)

Question: Why does no one mention the elephant in the room? Inflation. 

1972: Dollar removed from gold standard
Average costs:
Car: $4,500
Home: $40,000
Gallon of gas: $.36
Visit to the doctors: $25.00
Average nominal salary: $8,424

Today: [price || percentage increase]
Car: $32,495[5] || 722%
Home: $208,000[7] || 520%
Gallon of gas: $3.48[8] || 966%
Visit to the doctors: $220[9] || 880%
Average nominal salary: $49,486[10] || 587%
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/02/history-u-s-dollar-inflation-infographic/ 

"So let's take this claim apart. Suppose some menial job is now offering $15 dollars an hour. That does increase the employment pool because more people will want to apply for it. But what that really means is that some people who would have never dreamed of doing that job, because they were too overqualified for it, now don't really care about that, they just want the $15/hr. So, now the low-skilled people who would normally be competing among themselves, are now competing with much more educated high-skilled people for the same job. And so the people who are the most vunerable, who have the least skills are even LESS likely to find entry jobs. How does this help the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder?" -Tom Woods

Inflation Calculator

So, if the buying power of the dollar has decreased, yet the Federal Government wants to mandate a higher minimum wage without taking into consideration how inflation affects the economy (a hidden tax), this will force businesses to raise the cost to produce goods and provide services.  These cost increases affect the lower-income and middle-class the most.  Higher Minimum Wage + Higher Costs for Goods = No Significant Net Benefit.  As well, mandating a minimum wage increase will deter many companies that hire those employees to cut back on hiring new employees who have little skills and need those jobs the most.

Bernie Sanders: Reading Past the Campaign Slogans (Part 1)

Going past the campaign slogans of the self-proclaimed Socialist Democrat {Part 1}

[Image credit: http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Bernie-Sanders.jpeg]

A Bernie Sanders supporter sent me an article recently wanting to explain how Bernie Sanders proposes to "pay" for "everything", assuaging my fears and recent points doubting the feasibility of the $18 trillion dollar plan.  This actually got me reading a lot of documents I would have not been reading otherwise - but, I understand I need more knowledge ammo if I'm going to debate Bernie Sanders supporters. Oh, and the article does not explain how Bernie is going to pay for $18 trillion in new programs, it says this: "Sanders has been somewhat less-vocal on how he plans to financially support all his amazing positions without running the Federal Government into the ground..." Can I get a what-the-hell? That's NOT a very smart way to introduce your article, but anyway, here are a few good pieces of information I found today.

1. On Carbon Taxes: The article states, "The carbon tax imposed by these pieces of legislation (Climate Protection Act, Super Pollutants Act, and the Sustainable Energy Act) would be more than enough to provide the funds for these initiatives, with the specifics being a $20 carbon tax per ton of carbon emissions that will rise by 5.6 percent over the course of 10 years."

From the CBO's PDF document called "Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment". "The Burden of a Carbon Tax - that is - the hardship caused by price increases for fossil fuels and emission intensive goods and services and by the reduction in wages and returns on investments would fall disproportionately on these groups:

1) Low Income Households (because of the increase in the cost of goods)
2) Workers and investors in emission-intensive industries and
3) People in regions of the country that rely on emission-intensive industries for their livelihood or use emission-intensive fuels to produce power.

The high prices resulting from a carbon tax would tend to be regressive - that is, they would impose a larger burden (relative to income) on low-income households than high-income households.  The reason is that low-income households spend a larger share of their income on goods and services whose prices would increase the most, such as electricity and transportation. "

"Lawmakers could balance these trade-offs (see part about tax swaps, etc) by choosing to use the revenues in more than one way. For instance they could allocate some of the revenues to offsetting costs to hard-hit households and the rest to reducing economy-wide costs. By one estimate, offsetting the cost of a carbon tax for households in the lowest two/fifths of the income distribution would take less than 30 percent of the gross revenues ; offsetting the costs for households in the lowest one/fifth would take roughly 12 percent."

So, after reading the document, it basically says depending on how they use the revenues from the CO2 tax, it could equalize the negative effects it has on the economy and maybe surpass it, but at first it would have more negative effects than positive, seeing as the economy and businesses would need to make huge adjustments and build new ways to produce electricity, etc.

2. Single-Payer Healthcare: The article states, "Perhaps the single most memorable aspect of Sanders’s platform is the fact that he wants to expand Medicare to every American in this country. Sanders justifies this by pointing out how we pay much more for a lower-quality system than other countries with a single payer plan."

"Single-payer systems cause shortages of general physicians and specialists and reduce access to medical technology. As an example, Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Peter Ferrara has noted only one-quarter of women in the United States diagnosed with breast cancer die of it, whereas the corresponding death rates are 35 percent in France and 46 percent in Britain, two nations with single-payer health-care systems.

Single-payer systems are notorious for long waiting lines and limited access to care. Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute notes, “Forty percent of the population in Canada does not have a general practitioner because there are so few doctors. Even though they have theoretical entitlement [to health care], they can’t get it.” Such long queues force citizens in single-payer systems to seek care in the United States." [https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-dangers-single-payer-health-system]

As well, I found this interesting tidbit no one seems to mention: "In 2011, the Vermont state government enacted a law functionally establishing the first state-level single-payer health care system in the United States. Green Mountain Care, established by the passage of H.202, creates a system in the state where Vermonters receive universal health care coverage as well as technological improvements to the existing system.

On December 17, 2014, Vermont Democrats abandoned their plan for universal health care, citing the taxes required of smaller businesses within the state.[1]" 

[ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform.]  Hmmm, Bernie never mentions that.

3. Fixing America's Infrastructure:  To me, this sounds great at first. Who doesn't want to fix America's crumbling bridges and roads?

"Tuesday, January 27, 2015, Sanders introduced legislation to create 13 million jobs, called the "Rebuild America Act." You can view a press release here, a summary of the bill here, and the full bill here.

The bill proposes to spend $1.6 trillion on rebuilding America's roads, bridges, railways, airports, waterways, ports, national parks, and electric grids from 2015 to 2022. Funding for this proposal appears to come in the establishment of a National Infrastructure Development Bank to give out loans."  Source.

Cost: $1.6 trillion. (Here is a visual representation of what a trillion looks like) Bernie Sanders doesn't propose any new taxes to pay for this, but the creation of a new government owned bank called the National Infrastructure Development Bank.  The qualifications to run this bank are a) to have public sector experience and b) to have private sector experience. That's it. That's all it says.  The bank will "borrow on the global capital market and lend to regional, State, and local entities and commercial banks for the purpose of funding infrastructure projects, and "Purchase in the open market any of the Bank's outstanding obligations at any time and any price". 

In simple terms, this just means more debt!

"Racist" Facts White People Dare not Talk About

Yes, Blacks CAN be Racist

Before I begin, I have to give a "trigger-warning" (ha!) disclaimer; racism is the most taboo and policed of all thoughts in this "tolerant" country and is extremely difficult for people to openly discuss the topic without the discussion disintegrating into total logical chaos and ad hominem attacks. I posted this topic for this very reason as to see what kind of debate could take place. Also, for my black and minority friends and followers, I also have to give a disclaimer because some will inevitably take a conversation like this personally when in reality I am trying to address the larger issue of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory. The topic of black racism is the most taboo subject of all. I find it absurd and frankly distressing that our society teaches and condones the fact that only whites are capable of racism and that whites are responsible for "institutionalized racism". This is clearly false, and there are numerous examples to illustrate this, some I will quote later.

Clearly, no one denies the history of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, etc. But the fact is, we have come a long, long way since segregation was the law of the land and the US has done more than almost any other country to equalize the opportunities for blacks and minorities. The US has instituted affirmative action, The Civil Rights Act, The Fair Housing Act, School Integration (Brown vs. Board of Education), and the first anti-discrimination laws were passed 30 years before the Civil Rights act of 1964 during the New Deal. Congress passed Title VII, ending discrimination in employment. Section 703(a) forbade any employer to “limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment” based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. President Johnson issued Ex. Order 11246 which established color-blind hiring rules for federal contractors. We have grants, scholarships, minority fraternities and groups in universities. This has effectively equalized opportunities for minorities and leveled the playing field. I have never witnessed anyone – employer, teacher, clerk, etc. - deny service or equal opportunity to blacks or other minorities. I have, and I know you have, had perfectly normal and great professional and personal relationships with people of color where race was really never a thought in our minds. I believe this is the norm in 2015.

Growing up in the last 30 years in America, I never really thought about race much because I was taught everyone was equal, had the same god-given rights, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I was shocked after discovering numerous examples of overt hatred of whites (which I will share below) and shocked further still after attempts to broach this subject I was met with the same response in varying degrees of malice and indoctrinated hatred of the “white male oppressor” theme. Where was this coming from I asked? What is going on here? I had come to think race relations were improving in the US, so why can't a meaningful conversation take place without the argument that minorities are still, after all I have listed “systematically and institutionally oppressed and disadvantaged on all levels”? It is apparent that the US has done more to insure that blacks and minorities are in fact NOT “systematically and institutionally oppressed and disadvantaged on all levels.” These are the questions that led me to discover Critical Theory, Cultural Marxism, and the insidious effect this type of thought has on the "oppressed minorities" in the "evil Capitalist West".

The famous quote from MLK: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Malcom X: “I am not a racist. I am against every form of racism and segregation, every form of discrimination. I believe in human beings, that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their color.” 

In stark contrast: “From his adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 until he left the organization in 1964, Malcolm X promoted the Nation's teachings. He taught that black people were the original people of the world,[71] and that white people were a race of devils.[72] In his speeches, Malcolm X said that black people were superior to white people, and that the demise of the white race was imminent.[73]” This is the very definition of racism. (“Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”) Malcom X is held in extremely high regard in the black community.

"In January, (1991) Minister Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad of the Nation of Islam gave a talk at Columbia University sponsored by the Black Students Organization. He spoke of “Columbia Jewniversity” and “Jew York City” and argued that the blacks who attacked the Central Park jogger were in jail because of a “no-good, low-down, nasty white woman.” He said that the government had killed Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, and that blacks were the fathers of civilization. Whites, on the other hand, had produced nothing but “murder, bloodshed, destruction, misery, slavery, colonialism, racism, sexism, Zionism, and all forms of madness.” Minister Khalid’s visit was paid for out of the university’s mandatory student activities fee, and his remarks were reportedly met with great enthusiasm. His speech was certainly a tour de-force exercise of free speech...” (Paved With Good Intentions, Jared Taylor)

“On Sunday, the St. Petersburg/Tampa, Florida, chapter of the New Black Panther Party issued a tweet calling for the murder of white people.
“Kill these racist h**keys, these cr***ers, these pigs, these pink people, It has been long overdue!” the organization said on Twitter.
In a 32-page newsletter released in May, NBPP leader Malik Zulu Shabazz suggested that violence may be the most effective way to advance their agenda. (Posted by EU Times on Apr 21st, 2015).”

The city of Dallas, TX was searching for a new police chief in the fall of 1990. A black commissioner promised mass violence if the new chief did not meet his standards for racial sensitivity, “If you try to bring a 'good 'ol boy' in this system, we're going to be in the streets – physically, literally shooting folks,” he said. (United Press International, Omaha World-Herald, Sept. 20, 1990, pg. 10)

Louis Farrakhan: “The Mother Wheel is a heavily armed spaceship the size of a city, which will rain destruction upon white America but save those who embrace the Nation of Islam.” -and this: “The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” -Louis Farrakhan 

Here are some excerpts from an opinion piece written by a black student in the college newspaper of Penn State University:

“After looking at all of the evidence there is only one conclusion: white people are devils…. I believe that we must secure our freedom and independence from these devils by any means necessary, including violence…. To protect ourselves we should bear arms (three handguns and two rifles, maybe an M-16) immediately and form a militia…. So black people, let us unite, organize and execute.”

Execute? What accounts for words like this from a young black man attending a well-known university? Why would someone who grew up in an era not only of civil rights and integration but also of affirmative action write these things?" (Chino Wilson, “African Americans Should Not Trust 'Devilish' White People,” The Daily Collegian (Penn State University), Jan. 28, 1992.)

After reading these examples, (there are more, but I am trying to be brief) how can anyone say black racism is “impossible”? How is it acceptable for anyone of any race to advocate violence in such a way, use racial slurs, with absolutely no reprecussions. In Critical Race Theory, if a white priveliged male said these things there would be an international news sensation and calls for firing, violence, and social ostrisizing! Look at the original comment response that started this thread. I believe this is a response created from years of reinforcing and teaching in universities Cultural Marxism, an idea that breeds hatred, self-segregation, and group think that is a now knee-jerk level response to anyone wanting to ask serious questions about race relations at present. I refuse to self-censor myself at the alter of political correctness. 

Amiri Baraka was famous as one of the major forces in the Black Arts movement of the 1960s and ’70s, which sought to duplicate in fiction, poetry, drama and other mediums the aims of the black power movement in the political arena. One wonders what influence a poem like this has on the mindset of a person: 
 

“[Y] ou can’t steal nothin from a white man, he’s already stole it
he owes you anything you want, even his life.
All the stores will open if you will say the magic words.
The magic words are: Up against the wall mother fucker this is a stick up!
Or: Smash the window at night (these are magic actions)
smash the windows daytime, anytime, together, let’s smash the window
drag the shit from in there. No money down. No time to pay. Just take what you want.”

(Quoted in Anne Wortham, The Other Side of Racism, Originally in The Black Poet, ed. Dudley Randall, p. 226)

I am disturbed at the silence (well, not really- they are run by the MOT) in the media when it comes to this topic. I am also deeply concerned about the level of censorship, political correct policing of thoughts in today's universities and academia. No topic, no matter how difficult, can ever be addressed if it is ignored. Every other racial group can freely advance its interests at the expense of others, but whites are forbidden to organize and work for their own interests, and are expressly forbidden to talk about race. My question to you is: Why is this topic forbidden? Why are white people in 2015 responsible for “The sins of the father”? If there is a body of thought that shows all the signs of doctrinaire rigidity, willful ignorance, and even duplicity, it is what is thought and said about race. In blaming “institutional racism,” it attempts to transfer responsibility to an entire society, even when there is no intent to discriminate. It does away with the idea of individual responsibility, while essentially declaring all whites guilty.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/black-americans-react-to-farrakhans-call-to-stalk-and-kill/

Hidden Influence: The Rise of Collectivism (2015 Documentary)

Bulletin from the MOT (Ministry of Truth)

When I comment on YouTube videos concerning Muslims, Islam, etc. I often come upon the statement that Islam (Arabs) created the mathematical concept "Zero" and preserved tomes and tomes of knowledge and history, thus helping the free world continue on the spectacular path to the Enlightenment and Modern Society. This is completely false.

From Vox Popoli: A history lesson originally written by John Wright [OP]:

"Within twenty-five years after the death of Mohammed, the southern and eastern reaches of the Byzantine Empire, all Christian lands, and all fertile, were reduced by terror and sword to a wasteland. Te Jewish colonies of Yemen were conquered. Libya and much of Egypt to this day retains this character. All seven of the Churches mentioned by name in the Book of Revelation were conquered.

The Mohammedanism, like the Stalinism who came later, demand history be abolished, and are responsible for the burning and loss of nine tenth of the known lost ancient manuscripts of history. The destruction of the Stone Buddha statues in Afghanistan, or the famous museum in Babylon, was not a mistake or the act of some odd extremists: it is a central part of mainstream Sharia. Christian churches and relics are destroyed whenever they fall into Mohammedan hands: to this day, the Church of Saint Sophia in Constantinople is used as a mosque, in triumphant mockery of the defeated Christians.

You have no doubt heard that there was a Golden Age of Islam, where Muslim scholars preserved the works of Aristotle and the ancients, invented the zero, or made great strides in astronomy and mathematics. This is all an outrageous lie, the precise opposite of the truth. There were certain Spanish scholars, mostly Jews and Christians, conquered by Muslims, but who preserved the ancient texts despite the Muslim program of destroying them. The Byzantine Empire preserved what we have of ancient learning, and scholars fleeing the downfall of one Byzantine theme, province, or city after another in the relentless onslaught of Mohammed reintroduced them into the West. The Moslems not only were not the preservers of the knowledge of the ancient literature, they were the main force destroying it."

For further reading, The Closing of the Muslim Mind is an excellent in depth history of the two factions of Arab philosophical thought and how the fundamentalist Ashar'ite sect triumphed, thus preventing Islam from embracing Logic, Science, and Philosophy.