Monday, November 21, 2005

Xpatriated Texan - A Maverick Believer in the Garden State: That Gouge in your Wallet is the Oil Companies

An excellent academic blog.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

The Royal Families

Jack Carter, drug abuser and son of former President Jimmy Carter, has announced he will benevolently save us all once he defeats John Ensign in his senatorial campaign.

He is running because he is frustrated with the current state of national affairs. Instead of having an agenda, political philosophy, or a clue what he’s doing, Carter is depending on his small town roots and a listening tour to decide his positions for him.

Carter, an investment consultant, has little experience with politics and his main claim to fame is that he smoked weed and dropped acid while in the US Navy. To be fair, he spent one whole day campaigning for the US house in 1980.

I don’t care who you are, do not vote for this man. He has no qualifications, he has no philosophy, and he has a dubious personal history. Why are we even talking about this lifelong ne’er-do-well?

It’s our political policy. Americans like electing royalty to the highest posts— if Jack had not inherited the last name “Carter,” nobody would care.

For evidence, take a look at our current government. The leadership of both major parties is made up of royals and nobles. In the Republican Party we have King George Bush the second and Crown Prince Jeb Bush pulling all the strings. Lord Steve Forbes, former presidential candidate and heir to the billion dollar Forbes empire, has shown he is willing to replace the house of Bush and to substitute the Imperial Forbes Dynasty. In the Democratic Party there is Duke Edward Kennedy, who inherited party leadership after the deaths of his brothers, King John and Barron Robert.

These people are royalty. None of them have ever done anything wonderful to earn any of their power. The real road to power seems to follow a slightly more haphazard course. Namely, do lots of drugs, spend the first thirty or so years of you life trying to land in a trailer park, have a few criminal children and then spend lots of daddy’s money ascending to the throne.

This aristocratic bunch is a slap in the face to the American Dream. Work hard and come up through the ranks my ass.

Please, please, please, learn a little about your candidates. Voting for someone based on their name is how we got into this mess.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Meritocracy



How to encourage more guys like these to run the world




and fewer guys like these


This is a very brief outline of my meritocratic model of power.

Postulations:

Humanity, in its social capacity, has two opposite goals. They are the goals of inevitable superiority and of power. Inevitable superiority is a state of inheritance in which the recipient is given infinite wealth and power and cannot loose them regardless of how incompetent or stupid the recipient is. Power is the ability to destroy others and the ability to avoid destruction.

Inevitable superiority is expressed in four main ways.

1. Fiscal inheritance. The undeserved gifts of nepotism and resources based solely on birth. This is unique among the inheritance crimes in that it is the only one which is not always associated with undeserved prides. In other words, gaining a financial inheritance is not often a source of pride in the recipient. The purpose of fiscal inheritance is to directly achieve the goal of inevitable superiority.
2. National inheritance. Patriotism is national inheritance. This inheritance allows the useless individuals who cannot justify their own existence (most people) to feel good about themselves. They can bask in the completely accidental glory of “their” country. It is inevitable superiority because it is inherited, cannot be taken away (at least not if the individual is passive) and because it makes an individual powerful or elevated in status as part of a completely random circumstance, ie birth. People partake in patriotism because it justifies worthlessness.
3. Racial inheritance. This is the most idiotic inheritance pride in that the individual cannot ever change his racial standing. This makes it completely outside the realm of achievement. It serves a function identical to national inheritance. Included in this is the unfortunate lie that people have “proud heritages” of which they can take pride. It also serves to destroy talent by stereotyping its members into “proud” niches. A convenient example is the American Black, who is the victim of pressure in his own race to fit almost exclusively into the niches of criminal, rapper, and athlete.
4. Religious inheritance. This is the acceptance by the younger generation of the older generation’s religion. To accept the religion given you by inheritance is to cheat god if you decide to believe in him/her/it and a massive slight to yourself if you don’t believe in god. From religion flows the question; “What am I?” From this flows “What am I for?” From “What am I for?” flows the entire life purpose of an individual. To base this on inheritance is random, massively lazy, and wasteful of human talent. Religious pride exists for the same reasons as racial and national inheritance/pride.

The goals of power are not really goals at all. Power is simply the necessary condition for survival and dominance.



Power comes from three sources:
1. Access to human talent. A nation, tribe, alliance, ect cannot build power if it cannot access talented individuals. Examples of this are populations so racked with disease or other afflictions that the individuals of talent either die young, or cannot develop their talent because of their focus on bare survival.
2. Utilization of human talent, and ensuring dominance is in the hands of the talented. A society that draws its talent from a small pool (royal families for example) cannot utilize most of the human talent available to it. This is why they have been destroyed and marginalized by societies more open to utilizing power. Optimum utilization of human talent requires large amounts of upward, and more importantly downward, mobility, education and a large population base. Anti immigration laws and the concept of national sovereignty are examples of efforts to limit the acquisition and utilization of human talent.
3. Natural resources. The other two are contingent on this, however, if the former exist previous to entering an area without natural resources, they can overcome their surroundings to a great extent.

In the progression of the state, there has been a shift farther from inevitable superiority to power as powerful states kill off the weaker ones. However, morality (the basis of socialism and communism) is unrelated to power and has hindered it progress. The relations to power of the various human forms of government are outlined below.

Egalitarian tribes. Because they are unable to access the first source of power, they are weak. However, because they only survive, they cannot afford inevitable superiority either.

Despotism/Feudalism/Slavery. These forms actively suppress talent and power. They have resources that make them more powerful than the egalitarian tribes, but are essentially conservative and unable to further their power. The hereditary rulers are the essence of inevitable superiority.

Capitalism. Allows some freedom in the choice of work, and tolerates modest upward mobility. It allows and encourages inheritance however. At best, capitalism is power neutral.

Socialism/Communism. These are anti-inevitable superiority. However, they are also anti power. They actively stifle the talented from achieving dominance. This makes them power neutral as well. This form, ironic considering their anti-religious rhetoric, embraces practical Christian morality as its basis. To paraphrase Nietzsche, for every little step taken away from the church, they must show themselves ever more to be moral maniacs.

Meritocracy. This state would ban fiscal inheritance and instead provide an equal disbursement (current inheritances average $49,000) to each person upon reaching adulthood. It would invest heavily in education and work to equalize the quality of education. It would actively recruit and acquire talented individuals from everywhere and work to dissolve nations into larger units. For example, instead of the US and EU, a meritocracy would combine the two into “western civilization” to not only maximize the talent available to it, but to increase its access to natural resources. A critical part of this would be defeating the other inheritance crimes/prides and moving people cross culturally in large numbers. This would not only result in the homogenization of culture over time, but allow the best aspects of each to be incorporated into the pro-power state. The power state would seek nothing less than domination of the entire earth. Only with this condition met, can it seriously implement policies detrimental to its short term power, namely, protection of the environment and help for people who do not contribute to power like the elderly, the very infirm, and the mentally impaired.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Paramount Nature of Power

You don’t want a moral politician. Governments are not legitimately concerned with happiness, longevity, the preservation of heritages or moral rectitude. Power is their only legitimate goal because the only alternative is weakness. Ask the Native Americans, the Australian Aborigines or any of the other groups destroyed by immoral and powerful societies.
Power, for our purposes here, is the ability to destroy others and the ability to avoid destruction. To have more power means that the powerful have greater access resources and human talent. The happiness and prosperity that come from power are accidental and unimportant. Without power there is only destruction. For example, if the United States had steered away from the nuclear bomb because it was a morally horrid device it would have put itself at the mercy of its competitors and been destroyed. Whether by Germans or Russians or British, the United States would have fallen surely and quickly to the legitimate, immoral governments seeking the resources, industry, and educated populace to make themselves more powerful.
Iraq for example, is a moral war. We invaded to stop a murderous madman and to bring freedom to a horribly oppressed people. Instead, because we were focused on doing the “right thing” and because we wanted to be moral, power hungry remnants of the former regime, and opportunist foreigners have been able to set up a very strong resistance. Also, by invading Iraq, the United States weakened the unity of the strongest power on the planet, Western Civilization.
Communism may be the ultimate expression of the government based on morality. In the communist state there is equality, there are no poor and the Christian moral precepts of charity, humility and fellowship are followed far better than in a powerful capitalist state like the United States or a pseudo communist state like modern China. What it does not do is make any effort to get its best people into positions of power, or domination, over the rest of the public. It pursues morality and not power. This is why it was destroyed by more powerful less moral western governments.
What is the source of power? Power comes from but one source, human talent. Human beings with the mental power to create something new, to improve on something, to change almost anything, these are the sources of power. How many of these people you have, and how many you can develop are then the legitimate tests of how effective a government is. As such, is patriotism conductive to power? It tends to favor the natural born citizen and exclude the outside talent. Is ethnic pride positive? It tends to stereotype the individual and limit them to a few narrow fields. Is religious nativism (retaining the religion of your birth) positive? It leads to moral governments who then destroy each other by fighting over morality.
Let us then strive for strength and the prosperity and happiness that happen as a result of it.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Social Mobility

Quoting Paul Street.
"Rags to Rags, Riches to Riches The American Dream is More Livable in the Old World"
by Paul Street;
May 28, 2005

Hey, guess what: the social class into which you are born matters a lot when it comes to where you stand on the American socioeconomic ladder. It matters more in the United States, the supposed land of upward mobility, than it does in Europe. The American Dream of "rags to riches" is less livable in America than it is in the aristocratic Old World that America rejected when its founding document proclaimed that "All Men Are Created Equal." If you don't believe me, check out the front page of the capitalist Wall Street Journal two weeks ago. In an article titled "As Rich-Poor Gap Widens in the U.S., Class Mobility Stalls: Those on Bottom Rung Enjoy Better Odds in Europe" (May 13th), Journal reporter David Wessel notes that recent scholarship does NOT bear out "the notion that the US is...a meritocracy where smarts and ambition matter more than parenthood and class." In reality, Wessel finds, the odds that a child born into poverty will climb into the middle or upper class are slighter in the U.S. than they are in "class bound Europe." According to the latest and best research, the Journal reports, the U.S. and its junior partner England are "the least mobile societies" among the world's "rich countries." France and Germany "are somewhat more mobile than the U.S.; Canada and the Nordic countries are much more so."These are interesting findings on the front page of the world's leading business class newssheet, whose editors believe that evil social-democratic and regulatory policies mire European economies and societies static "sclerosis." Two days after Wessel's article, the New York Times noted that mobility up from poverty is less common in the U.S. than in Britain, France, Canada and "some Scandinavian countries." The best the Times could say about America was that American upward mobility is still "not as low as in developing countries like Brazil, where escape from poverty is so difficult that the lower class is all but frozen in place" (Janny Scott and David Leonhardt, "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide," New York Times. 15 May, 2005). Rags to Rags, Riches to RichesHow fixed is class position in the supposedly hyper-fluid "land of opportunity?" The best current research determines, the Journal reports, that "at least 45%" and "perhaps as much as 60%" of "parents' advantage" is "passed on to their children." If you go with the 60% estimate, Wessel notes, then rich peoples' inherited edge - and poor peoples' inherited disadvantage - go back as far as five generations. That happens to take us back to the end of the Civil War and the constitutional abolition of slavery.According to Chicago Federal Reserve economist Bhashkar Mazumdor, who matched government survey data with the Social Security records of thousands of men burn during the 1960s, just 14% of American men born to fathers in the bottom tenth of the wage structure have risen to the top 30%. Conversely, just 17% of men born to fathers in the top tenth have fallen into the bottom 30th. It gets worse, Wessel notes, when you factor in race. He cites economist Tom Hertz's finding that fully 42% of blacks born into the bottom tenth of families for income fail to escape the lowest ten percent. By contrast, just 17% of whites born into the bottom tenth stay there as adults. It Gets Worse When You Look At Wealth It should also be noted that the Wall Street Journal's focus only on income mobility leads it significantly understate the real degree of socioeconomic immobility in the U.S. The astonishing extent of American socioeconomic and related racial disparity becomes more fully evident when you factor in wealth. In the U.S., the most unequal nation in the industrialized world, the top 1 percent owns more than 40 percent of the wealth. The top 10 percent owns two-thirds of US wealth, leaving the rest of us - 90 percent of the population - to fight it out for one third of the nation's assets. Things get worse, again, when you factor in race. By 1999, economist Thomas Shapiro finds, the "net worth (all assets minus all liabilities) of typical white families was $81,000 compared to $8,000 for black families" in the US. By the recessionary year of 2002, black net worth fell to seven cents on the white dollar. Encouraging InequalityMass popular ignorance of these and other facts indicating a predetermined and immobile class-race structure holds dark ideological significance in the U.S. False perceptions of the U.S. as a special land of rampant upward socioeconomic progress encourages many of its citizens to be more tolerant than Europeans of the deepening economic inequality that results from U.S.-led corporate globalization. As Wessel describes mainstream American wisdom, "it is ok to have ever greater differences between rich and poor, as long as [your] children have a good chance of grasping the brass ring." People who accept the dominant U.S. mobility myth are more prone, Wessel notes, "to elect politicians who oppose using the muscle of government to restrain the forces of widening inequality" through such measures as an increase in the minimum wage. More...http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7954&sectionID=10"



I agree with the data, however I reject the solution that most of the democratic conservatives (as they all are) propose. Reduction of class inequality could potentially be somewhat beneficial, but the elimination or reduction to the point of triviality of social class would be a mistake.
Class inequality is positive in a society operating according to the principals of power. The principal of power is that actions that increase the ability of a state/coalition/civillization to destroy rivals and avoid destruction are the ONLY legitimate actions it will take. States not operating on this principal have the tendency to be destroyed quickly and thoroughly. Following from this, and realising that power can only be measured in relative terms, one must get the most power into the hands of the most talented people one can access. Therefore necessitating that they become the upperclass whilst the dullards of everyday life become mere cogs in the system. As such, there is a direct relationship between a society's utilization of the talent available to it and its power. This is why social stratification is necessary.
However, the inheritance poisoned US and its similarly poisoned western affiliates, with rare exception, leave the positions of power to only those with sufficient inheritances. This is a huge waste of talent, and leaves your ruling class with a random smattering of people. As I think we can all agree, most people are far too stupid and unimaginative for power. This means that random is a very poor sample for your power class.As such I advocate the elimination of inheritance. The proceeds could easily supply start up money to all 18 year olds regardless of heritage and would be infinitely preferrable for getting talented individuals into the ruling class where they belong.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

The Uselessness of Stopping Immigration

The History of American Policies Against Immigrants in Order to Insure National Security


The United States’ recent passage of the Patriot Act has created a furor amongst civil rights groups and a corresponding reaction amongst security “hawks.” An aspect missing from the current debate however is the history of similar laws and practices. Another aspect missing is an examination of the historic “loyalty” amongst the native born and the immigrant. Herein the major precursors of the Patriot Act are examined not only for content but also for effectiveness. Starting with the earliest, the Alien Act, and continuing through the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the Japanese Internment all major acts combining immigration and national security are addressed.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798 by the Federalist party in order to not only ensure national security in times of war but also to prevent the unlawful slandering of the president or government (Alien Act 3). Critics, probably justifiably, labeled the Sedition Act as designed to thwart the influence of Thomas Jefferson’s fledgling Democratic-Republican party. The Alien Act, however was much more important for our purposes here. It provides for the removal of “all foreign nationals, being male and over 14 years old” and for them to be “apprehended, restrained, secured and removed.” (Alien Act) If any charge can be brought against them they can be prosecuted within any of the courts in the US, local, state, and supreme courts. If they are found to be “chargeable with actual hostility” they will be “secured” until they can make provisions for their “goods and effects for removal.” The law in effect gives the President the authority to deport all foreign nationals in time of war.
The Alien Act, like the Sedition Act, was never implemented by the government. In fact the Democratic-Repulican party used outrage over the Alien and Sedition Acts in order to sweep into power in 1800. While the Alien Act was never used much it did scare a number of people out of the US, particularly the residual French nationals left from the American Revolution. However the Alien and Sedition Acts were castrated by public opinion very quickly and their most important legacies lie in likewise castrating President Adams and alienating the formerly friendly French.
The next legislation of note is the Chinese Exclusion Act. This act was in response to the influx of Chinese labor escaping China and settling in California. As the railroad building boom reached it’s climax Chinese immigrants were heavily recruited as cheap labor by railroad companies. In the 1860’s they were considered polite, hard working, self sufficient, and clean. However as the labor market became saturated these “happy” stereotypes morphed into secretive, greedy, clannish and anti western. This was further developed into their being a “threat to good order” and took on a security aspect as well. Ironically the primary lobbying to illegalize Chinese immigration was done by the Knights of Labor. The Knights of Labor were a massively powerful labor union otherwise notable for incorporating blacks and women (Boyer 567). However they used vicious racist tactics to stigmatize Chinese. Largely because they were perceived as a threat to labor they were villianized.
The Chinese Exclusion Act itself is designed to vigorously exclude any Chinese person from coming to the US “and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States.” Chinese being stranded in the US due to some problem at sea are to be carefully tracked during their stay. “Chinese laborers, which shall be entered in registry-books to be kept for that purpose, in which shall be stated the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, physical marks or peculiarities, and all facts necessary for the identification of each of such Chinese laborers, which books shall be safely kept in the custom-house; and every such Chinese laborer so departing from the United States shall be entitled to, and shall receive, free of any charge or cost upon application therefore, from the collector or his deputy, at the time such list is taken, a certificate, signed by the collector or his deputy and attested by his seal of office.” (Chinese Exclusion Act) The act was to be in effect for a period of 10 years but was extended twice before being made permanent in 1910.
The act had the effect of ending the immigration by Chinese into the US. China was so weak at the time that its protests were inconsequential. It did improve the security of the nation by reducing the number of race riots in California. Also it caused the price of labor to rise as the Knights of Labor and other unions consolidated their control over workers and further excluded Chinese from work. Thus, ghastly and racist as it was it was perhaps the most effective of all anti immigration laws put into effect in the US.
Executive order 9066 is the most recent precursor and is most similar to the Patriot Act in its purpose. It was designed so as it “requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities.” (Executive Order 9066) It also authorized the “The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary.” (Executive Order 9066) In other words it authorized internment into concentration camps. Also, much like in the Patriot Act, it authorized internment of any “Japanese” on suspicion alone and did not provide them with any legal recourse. (Korematsu) Suspicious people were almost exclusively Japanese community leaders, especially labor leaders (this seems to be confusing the racist Fascist Japan of WW2 with communism?). (Weber) The national hysteria of the time and fear of Japanese invasion can neatly be summarized in this excerpt from Korematsu “ we cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the war-making branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that in a critical hour such persons could not readily be isolated and separately dealt with, and constituted a menace to the national defense and safety, which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard against it.“
This measure was largely ineffective. Not one case of sabotage by Japanese Americans has ever been reported (Weber) from the WW2 era. This can hardly be seen as a vindication of the policy however, Hawaii had a sufficiently large Japanese American population that they could not be interned without ruining the local infrastructure and still there was no sabotage. The anti Japanese hysteria did have at least one very important consequence however. In order to limit the opportunity for sabotage American planes in Pearl Harbor were rolled out of their armored hangars into the middle of the taxiways on December 7 1941.
All of these policy’s operate under the assumption that natural born citizens are more loyal than immigrants. This is in spite of the widely ignored fact that the natural born citizen has made no effort to become a citizen where the immigrant has, and often has made a huge effort. The effort is often based on the assumption that the immigrant is more likely to engage in acts of espionage than the native born. While the secretive nature of espionage makes direct study difficult the names and information of known traitors is often made public. The interesting thing about them is that they are almost universally betraying their country of birth. Also they are very nearly all well educated people from high class non immigrant families.
From a list of high profile spies against the US that have been captured nine of nine have spied against the country they were born into. Only one spied for “his people.” Aldrich Ames sold out twenty five operatives for almost twenty million dollars. The people he exposed all ended up with large caliber holes in the back of their heads. He was a well educated middle class man born in Wisconsin. Christopher Boyce and Andrew Doulton Lee, from California and Connecticut respectively, sold numerous military secrets to the USSR. The motivation seems to be thrill seeking. Richard Hanssen, the all American religious man from Illinois sold Russia secrets relating to “the tunnel” in exchange for diamonds. The tunnel was an operation for tracking Russian operatives in the US. The Cambridge Spies, all graduates of Cambridge and native born Englishmen, managed to get nearly all of the correspondence of Harry Truman, Winston Churchill, and Franklin Roosevelt into Stalin’s hands. Klaus Fuchs was a German scientist who left his native West Germany to help with the Manhattan project. After the war, however he sold the scientific information to the USSR, knowing full well West Germany would likely be the battleground in a US-USSR nuclear war. Alger Hiss was a rich young man from Baltimore. He became politically radical as a reaction to his conservative parents (his dad committed suicide) and proceeded to sell the confidential material passing through the Supreme Court. The Walker Spy family sold massive quantities of sensitive military information to the USSR during the 70’s and 80’s. They were a group of American born navy sailors with a history of con jobs. The only spy I found who sold out the US for the sake of his “people” was Jonathan Pollard. Pollard was an American born Jew who sold military technology to Israel in the 60’s, and changed them outrageous sums for it.
Viewed in a historic context the success of Patriot Act type bills has been minimal. They usually target the wrong people and are dependent on hysteria for their support. Furthermore immigrants have historically proven incredibly loyal and thus make dubious targets for added security measures.







Chinese Exclusion Act. Executive Order 9066.
Alien and Sedition Acts
The Japanese Camps in California by Mark Weber (off internet http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p-45_Weber.html)
Boyer, Paul S; Clark, Clifford E. Jr; Kett, Joseph F; Salisbury, Neal; Sitkoff, Harvard; Woloch, Nancy. The Enduring Vision, A History of the American People Vol.2. 2004. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston.

Monday, July 18, 2005

The Most Important Civil Rights Leaders You Never Hear About



Nikita Kruschev and Josef Stalin, the most influencial figures in the Civil Rights Movement.

We are all familiar with the romantic stories about how good overcame evil in the civil rights movement. Nights in shining armor such as Dr. King and President Kennedy fought the dark forces of racism because they were good people and racism is wrong. Now Dr. King, being an oppressed citizen had an obvious secondary motive in the civil rights movement. What many fail to apprecieate however is the mechanism of power I believe most primarily responsible for the civil rights movement amongst those who did not directly profit from it.


Starting almost immediately after the fall of Germany in WW2 the US and the USSR began competing for control of the 3rd world. The west was protecting them from the communists and the communists were liberating them from the capitolists ect. Much of the third world, as you may well have noticed, is in Africa.

From the USSR's position Africa was a very tempting prize, much of it is rich in natural resources and the largely uneducated population is easier to control (the US saw this too no doubt). Large scale invasion by either superpower would have been an absolute PR dissaster and an invitation for defection with allies and rebellion with the occupied territory. Not to mention, an invasion by either would likely have brought the other in to protect the continent (and start a big war). Political means, therefore, were much prefered. The US, however had a very large skeleton in its closet when courting African nations. It treated blacks at home like shit. The leaders of the USSR, particularly Kruschev were not stupid and took very effective advantage of this to leverage much of Africa away from the US politically. It was also using the US's horrible treatment of blacks for PR all around the third world. "See this, this is what the capitolist pig wants to do to you." They were of course correct, the US did want to treat the third world that way. To counter this effective PR campaign, and to hold onto its slice of the third world the US needed the civil rights movement, and it had nothing to do with "the right thing."

Therefore, I believe that as Glastnost was a Soviet PR adjustment to its human rights abuses being aired out, the civil rights movement was an American PR campaign reacting to it human rights abuses.