Search This Blog

Monday, June 6, 2011

The Ouroboros.

This is a great article that I stumbled across with the help of Google as I was mentally picturing Socialism as being the economic equivalent of an Ouroboros.   I hate to be posting an article that disputes, Dr. Stiglitz, an economics professor from my beloved Columbia University before I even set foot into a classroom there, but I have my convictions, I knew it was a very liberal leaning school when I applied and should I ever be denied the freedom to maintain my convictions, I will quietly walk away from its campus.   Now, the article:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/inequality_and_politics?page=1

and in the spirit of fairness, I will include the link to Dr. Stiglitz's article to which the above link refers.
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=all

Sunday, May 15, 2011

The Umbrella Murder

As a nod to SooBrett, a lady who tastefully titled her blog umbrellamurder, no "the", I feel it most appropriate to link to her blog which is dedicated exclusively to the Georgi Markov assassination.  It even questions whether or not the murder was actually carried out with an umbrella, but let's not allow facts to screw up a perfectly fascinating story.  Here is the link:
http://umbrellamurder.blogspot.com/

I would also like to paste this article which summarizes the incident.  Forget James Bond, this is the real deal:

Thirty-two years ago this week, on September 7, 1978, Georgi Markov, a Bulgarian émigré, who lived and worked in London, was assaulted in broad daylight on London’s Waterloo Bridge. His life and death give evidence of just how far a regime will go to silence its opposition. Time magazine in February 2010, ranked the murder of Georgi Markov at number 5 of the “top 10 assassination plots”, just below the murder of Leon Trotsky in 1940 and the attempt on Adolph Hitler in World War Two.
Who was Georgi Markov?
Georgi Markov had been a prolific and successful literary figure in Bulgaria before defecting to the West in 1969. He settled in England and became a broadcast journalist for Radio Free Europe, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC), and the German international broadcast service Deutsche Welle.
Markov had a large listening audience in Bulgaria, who listened to his prime time Sunday-night broadcasts over Radio Free Europe. He dared to tell his audience that Bulgarian President and Communist Party chief Todor Zhivkov wore no clothes.
The Assassination Plot
In June 1977, Communist Party Chairman Zhivkov chaired a Politburo meeting, and stated he wanted the activities of Markov stopped. The Interior Minister reacted and requested KGB assistance in the killing of Markov. Though he wanted Markov killed, he wanted no trace to Bulgaria. The Chairman of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, agreed to the assassination, as long as there would be no trace back to the Soviets. Thus, the Bulgarians and Soviets were operating under a double case of “plausible denial. “
Former KGB general Oleg Kalugin has publicly admitted his role and the role of the KGB in supplying the Bulgarian intelligence service with both the weapon and the poison. Purportedly, the highly secret KGB laboratory known as the "Chamber" developed both the weapon, concealed in a US-manufactured umbrella, and biotoxin ricin impregnated in a wax-coated pellet the size of a pinhead.
Markov received various warnings and anonymous threats to stop broadcasting his inside knowledge of Zhivkov and the obsequious circles of Bulgarian intellectuals and government officials. Until his death, Markov persisted and peeled away the artichoke leaves of lies and corruption in Bulgaria.
Three Murder Attempts
A grotesque black comedy followed with three attempts to kill Markov in 1978. The first attempt was in Munich in the spring, when Markov visited friends and colleagues at Radio Free Europe. An agent failed in an attempt to put a toxin in Markov's drink at a dinner party held in his honor. The second failed attempt was on the Italian island Sardinia while Markov enjoyed a summer vacation with his wife Annabel and daughter Sasha. The final and successful attempt was in London on President Zhivkov‘s birthday September 7, 1978.
On that day, Markov worked a double shift at the BBC. After finishing the early morning shift, reportedly he went home for rest and lunch. Afterwards, he drove to a parking lot on the south side of Waterloo Bridge to take a bus to his office at the BBC. As he neared the waiting bus queue, he experienced a sudden stinging pain in the back of his right thigh. He turned and saw a man bending to pick up a dropped umbrella. The man, facing away from Markov, apologized in a foreign accent, hailed a taxi, and departed. He has never been identified.
Though in pain, Markov continued on his way to the BBC building. He then noticed a small blood spot on his pants, told colleagues what happened, and showed one friend a pimple-like red swelling on his thigh. Afterwards at home, Markov developed a high fever. His wife called a colleague at BBC, who took Markov to St. James hospital, where he was treated for an undetermined form of blood poisoning. He did not respond to doctors’ efforts, went into shock, and after days of delirium, pain and suffering, Georgi Markov died in London at age 49 on September 11, 1978.
British authorities later ruled that Markov had been “unlawfully killed” and died of "septicemia, a form of blood poisoning caused by bacterial toxins, possibly a result of kidney failure."
Post-murder Information
Investigative reporter in Bulgaria Hristo Hristov has published two books in English, based on his years of research into Bulgarian intelligence files, which include a copy of the passport and photographs of an Italian art dealer and small time-criminal, code name “Piccadilly”, seemingly used by Bulgarian intelligence service in the murder.
A copy of an umbrella that was adapted into a “pistol” and believed by many to have been used to deliver the ricin that killed Markov, is on display at the International Spy museum in Washington D.C. Former KGB General Oleg Kalugin, however, stated to a Bulgarian newspaper interview in 1998: “The umbrella was only a cover. Georgi Markov was killed with a small special instrument. A weapon like a pen manufactured in the Soviet laboratories.”
The minute pellet that contained the poison is on display today in the Crime Museum at New Scotland Yard in London. It has been estimated that one ounce of ricin could kill as many as 90,000 persons. British scientists later estimated that only about 450 micrograms were used to kill Markov
One Bulgarian general committed suicide rather than face trial for destroying thousands of pages of information about Georgi Markov. Another general was found guilty, spent a few months in jail, and reportedly now lives quietly in a villa in Bulgaria.
The case has been investigated by generations of Scotland Yard policemen and remains open in England. In Bulgaria, the case should have been closed in 2008, due to thirty-year statute of limitations, but authorities decided to keep it open another five years.
In 2006, WNET of the television public broadcast service (PBS) network in New York aired a program on Georgi Markov’s death called Secrets of the Dead: Case File Umbrella Assassin. The producers have made their findings available on the Internet, including a re-enactment of the murder, photograph of the pellet, video clips, and an interactive “Teacher’s Toolbox” for educators and students to “examine the evidence.” Also included in the program was an interview with Dr. Christopher Green, who had assisted in the forensic investigation in 1978. Dr. Green said:
We had pretty much all of the story from a forensic point of view. We had the body, the thing in the body that he was hit with -- the pellet -- and the stuff from the pellet. We knew that the material used to kill him, ricin, had been under development by a foreign service linked to the incident. We also knew that he had been a target of assassination attempts in the past. The story of him being a target was very well known. Therefore, we had information on the means, motive, and the opportunity.
And yet, with all the public information and years of official investigation, no one has been charged with the crime. The dots have not been completely connected. The final piece of the puzzle to complete the picture remains to be found. Georgi Markov’s death proved how far a totalitarian regime would go to protect itself from the truth. The murder of Georgi Markov seems destined to be another footnote in the history of the Cold War. Georgi Markov deserves a better fate.
Georgi Markov was buried in the Saint Candida and Holy Cross Churchyard cemetery in Whitchurch Canonicorum, Dorset, England. The epitaph on his gravestone reads in Bulgarian on one side and English on the other side:

In Memory of Georgi Ivanov Markov
Novelist & Playwright
Most dearly beloved
By his wife Annabel
His Daughter Sasha
His Family & his Friends
Born Sofia 1. 3. 39
Died London 11 .9. 78
In the Cause of Freedom

Here is the link in keeping with the spirit of citation and fair use: http://www.historytimes.com/fresh-perspectives-in-history/20th-century-history/cold-war/358-the-murder-of-georgi-markov-the-mystery-remains

Sunday, May 1, 2011

R.I.P. Poly Styrene

Here is a little tribute to a very unique artist that spoke to me with such a beautifully overt misfit individuality and keen insight.  Poly Styrene and Xray Spex were not an easily acquired taste for many others, but for me they were as natural as a breath of spring morning air and equally refreshing.  In honor of this song, please go forth and refuse to fit into someone's neat little stereotype.  Delight in not fitting in and don't ever let anyone tell you to shut up or smile pretty if you don't feel like it.  Have a brain and don't be anybody's tool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AS4bBEMT44&feature=related

Also, if someone smarter than me can tell me how to imbed this video instead of having to settle for a link, please do.  Thank you in advance.

Human Nature and Socialism

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/is_socialism_against_human.php

Okay, this article asks if Socialism is against human nature, and in contrast to what a left leaning person would expect, I say no.  Rather, I believe that its fatal flaw lies in human nature and its naive denial of its existence.  This means that it isn't so much contradictory to it as much as it buries its head in the sand upon its mention.  It's the lax nature of having a social safety net that makes Socialism an uncompetitive economic structure in a naturally competitive world.  None of this is rocket science.  In fact, it should be considered self evident, but leftists often feel the need to outthink the room; too much thinking and not enough knowing, I suspect. 

How often do we hear it said "It's only human nature?" And mostly about an anti-social piece of behaviour, as if it couldn't be avoided? Curiously, it is not often said about the best things that people can do. On hearing that someone has risked their life to save another, for some reason we are not inclined to say "Yes, it's human nature."

This is completely untrue.  Empathy and even the urge to risk your own safety for the sake of a loved one is very much in line with human nature.  They are mistaking forced charity in the name of the common good for a heroic act such as taking a bullet for your child.  They are also discounting the often powerful urge to help others voluntarily.  It is very important not to mistake a dire life or death instant with the life situation of a reasonably capable human being who should be expected to be able to take care of his or herself.  The latter has nothing to do with risking your life for saving another and they are attempting to make a very flimsy connection between the two.

Mostly, the idea of "human nature " is a reflection of a divisive society that is incapable of creating a decent life for all its members. This failure is then rationalised as a pessimistic view that all people (mainly other people) are inherently selfish, greedy, and lazy. This view has been used as an objection to socialism, in which all the bad examples of human behaviour under capitalism are called upon to say that a society based on equality and voluntary co-operation is impossible.

The sad truth is that there is a percentage of society that is selfish, greedy and most importantly in this case, lazy.  The left must ignore this fact in order for their beliefs to hold even a drop of water.  Who in their right mind is naive enough to believe that there is not a sizable percentage of the population that is either lazy or at least willing to "just get by"?  In an increasingly entitled society, I am willing to wager this is a majority even.  Capitalism uses human nature's penchant for greed to drive it; you can think of pure Capitalism as using human nature as the proverbial carrot that draws the cart.  If that doesn't work, you can at least bank on a person's fear of failure to ensure that they are pulling their fair share.  Socialism, however, is a system that look quite good on paper, but to their cart, human nature serves as a brutal stretch of potholes. 
Many like to point to the Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Sweden and such with exhorbitant tax rates as Socialist quasi-utopias.  That's all well and good and another dirty secret of human nature is that it has a very keen sense of things that are different.  I suspect that as soon as you add a significant population of Greeks, Jews, Somalis, Asians or Latinos that this delicate utopia would easily crumble.  Why?  Because it is much easier in these very ethnically homogenized societies to feel that everyone is working for the same team.  But differences, even though we don't like to admit it, breed suspicion.  Nobody who is being honest with themself will deny this fact.  This is not to say that our many differences don't enrich our society to the nth degree which they do; it means that under the circumstance of inevitable inequality of wealth distribution, these differences can breed contempt.  Even in the case of perfectly equal distribution, suspicion can still arise simply from warped perceptions.  This is why Socialism will never work in America.  Our differences are our strength under Capitalism.  They will be our undoing under Socialism. 
(I discovered this article a few days after posting this piece and it confirms what I say in this paragraph even beyond what I would have expected http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938)

This prejudice is also reinforced by arguments which assert that our behaviour and our relationships result from the way we are biologically or genetically programmed. These focus on competition, leadership, possessiveness, aggression, social and sexual inequality and an alleged drive to be territorial but, again, all these are behaviour patterns that reflect capitalism.

C'mon now lefty, we are again being disastrously naive in thinking that there isn't still a little wild animal in our species.  This assertion is that Capitalism puts the human animal on a level with snakes, spiders and sharks when in fact we are, like elephants, dolphins and our fellow primates, also biologically programmed to be sharing, sympathetic, deferential and welcoming.  I think that Capitalism tries to give the human animal a little more credit than the left while also embracing the idea that there is a little human animal in us.
I still hate seeing competition used in such a negative context.  Competition combined with our unique evolutionary advantages has driven humanity to its lofty status in the world.  Furthermore, it is quite hypocritical of the left to cleverly sport Darwin fish with legs on their cars while uttering the word competition with the same expression as if they were smelling sour milk. 

The arrival of capitalism is a relatively recent phenomenon within human history, ninety per cent of which has been spent living as hunter gatherers, in small tribes moving from place to place. This ended with the rise of settled agriculture about ten thousand years ago and a variety of different forms of social organisation have followed across different parts of the world. If our social arrangements were determined by our biology then this diversity of human behaviour, relationships and culture would never have arisen.

Really?  So the left claims that there was never any competition for game, nuts and berries?  Do you think that in the days of hunters and gatherers that the slow, dimwitted or lazy were alotted a certain percentage of the bounty of the smart, fast and motivated?  I really don't think so.  These poor saps died and never bred.  Ugly?  Why does it have to be ugle when we always tout the beauty of mother nature and her balance?  It's simple Darwinism, remember?  Socialism is anti-Darwinism.  Then in the case of agriculture, I suspect that circumstances were very similar except that good farmers thrived and reproduced and the bad ones died.  Or maybe, much to the dismay of Socialist theory, their neighbors may have voluntarily helped them motivated only by human kindness out of their own free will instead of being compelled to do so by a governing body.

The real scientific evidence shows humans are able to adapt to cope with the challenges presented by the natural and social environments within which they have had to live. Evidence from the now completed human genome project supports the view of the adaptability of human beings. Dr Craig Venter, President and chief scientific officer of Celera Geonomics (the private firm that wants to patent genes for profit and thus not someone to be suspected of anti-capitalist or pro-socialist leanings) declared in the official press release issued by the journal Science which published his firms results in its 16 February issue:
"There are many surprises from this first look at our genetic code that have important implications for humanity. Since the June 26, 2000 announcement our understanding of the human genome has changed in the most fundamental ways. The small number of genes—30,000 instead of 140,000—supported the notion that we are not hard-wired . We now know that the notion that one gene leads to one protein and perhaps one disease is false. One gene leads to many different products and those products-proteins- can change dramatically after they are produced. We know that regions of the genome that are not genes may be the key to the complexity we see in humans. We now know the environment acting on these biological steps may be key in makin us what we are. Likewise the remarkably small number of genetic variations that occur in genes again suggest a significant role for environmental influences in developing each of our uniqueness."

So we have been remarkably capable of adapting and coping with challenges presented by natural and social environments for as long as we have been human, yet the basic belief of Socialism lacks the confidence in the individual to do so.  The article wants to argue that we are survivors, yet their economic belief banks on the idea that many of us are quite helpless. 
It looks like the scientific study this article quotes is simply stating that there are a small number of genes that account for the unusually diverse phenotypes within the human race.  So what?  Am I missing a point?  Again they are using a Darwinian concept of variation and adaptability to argue for a system that disallows those very Darwinistic concepts.

While human beings' genetic nature leaves much scope for variation in behaviour, there are certain features that we all share and distinguish us from other species. These include the ability to walk upright, binocular colour vision, hands with opposable thumbs, organs capable of speech, and the ability to think conceptually. These physical features have led to the versatility of the human species as embodied in their labour as well as social behaviour such as the accumulation of shared experience that can be passed down through the generations. The development of tools, from the flint-working technique during the paleolithic period to the computers and space vehicles of today is central to understanding human history.

Absolutely; and if that first humanoid that picked up a rock to open a nut or club a squirrel had instead been too busy helping some other deadbeat monkey wipe his ass, I wouldn't be on this computer writing this rebuttal right now. 

It may have been that this toolmaking tradition played a key part in the development of human consciousness. The tools made by early human kind objectified the existence of the tool makers and in contemplating this they become conscious of their own existence. This reflection of their own lives in their own creations may have led to a heightened self awareness and an ability to think in an expanded timeframe of past, present and future. Language could then develop from basic references to material objects to higher levels of abstract thought which expressed a developing, more complex vision of their world. It was possibly then that humanity created ideas and culture, becoming less instinctive and more decision-making. Through this dynamic interaction between human characteristics and the environment which was essentially the labour process, humankind not only altered their conditions of life, they changed themselves. What this required was not an invariable set of behaviour patterns programmed by genetic coding but adaptability.

This is very true, but not totally true.  Yes, we evolved into self-aware, conscientious beings.  The problem is that we are, once you take the clothes off, aniimals that lust for sex, eat like pigs, and often get angry, argue and fight.  Again, we are not on a par with the snakes and sharks, but we still have more animal in us than we are humble enough to admit.  Again, the article continues to speak of Darwinism to support their decidedly non-Darwinistic beliefs. 

But none of this would have been possible without co-operation. Whilst we may not say that co-operation is programmed through our genes, it is certainly predisposed by our physical make-up. The view that co-operation was essential to the survival and development of human society has recently been supported by the work of the anthropologist Andrew Whiten. He argues that egalitarianism, sharing and lack of domination were the most prominent features in hunter-gatherer societies.

For tens of thousands of years, man has co-operated to a certain extent and done so without any form of mandate to it.  It happened because when left to his own conscience, man is often quite charitable.  When he stops feeling that way is when charitability is forced upon him.  I am quite suspicious that there was not a measure of competition in these early societies.  This paints of picture of rosy, hand-holding communes when in fact I assure you that these early humans were far less sympathetic than famous capitalists such as Andrew Carnegie or Donald Trump when it came to those who could not carry their weight.

By co-operating with others through a division of labour we greatly increase what can be produced for our mutual benefit. Besides these material benefits, co-operation enables us to develop as individuals. Our individuality grows and finds its expression in relation to others and this would be impossible in social isolation. In this process of individual growth we draw not only on personal relationships, we draw on society in general and even on the lives of those who lived in the past.

Of course voluntary co-operation is a very essential part of human advancement.  Only a fool would argue against that.  The problem is that Socialism does not foster co-operation as much as it fosters as extreme a degree of Robin Hoodian theft as possible.  Socialism's brand of co-operation eats itself alive.  It crushes individuality and please remember what I said about individuality in a previous blog.  Socialism crushes it.  Never let a leftist preach individuality.  Never let him or her argue that their system fosters relationships.  It does quite the opposite.  It erodes the family because in their system, a person can lean on the state greatly reducing the necessity of a strong family unit where generations could be counted upon to meet the needs of their more vulnerable members.  This should cross-reference nicely with my blog entry concerning liberal racism since it is a well-established fact that the African-American family is, on a whole, more dysfunctional than other races, particularly white America.  The liberal agenda exploits this as this has become a very reliable voting block for them.. I assure you that if these reliable votes could cast off the yolk of leftist slavery disguised as welfare, they would be as conservative as the lily-whitest of us middle class Caucasians.

Co-operation is sometimes said to be impossible because there is an inherent conflict between self-interest and the interests of others. In fact, the reverse is true. The interests of the individual are best realised when people are working together.

This is so, so true except that the inherent conflict arises when co-operation is forced.  The second charity becomes an obligation, it is no longer co-operation and more importantly, it is no longer noble. 
So in closing, I encourage the left leaning of you to embrace your inner human animal a little and  furthermore, to give it a little more credit.  Enjoy the fierce competition that the world offers, be glad that we aren't in a third world country or some homogenized nanny state in Denmark sucking our thumbs.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Songs We Don't Ever Need to Hear Again

I had the radio on in the car today and while flipping through the stations, I caught two or three seconds of  the song "Old Time Rock and Roll".  It made me think that I need to make a list of songs that need to be forever retired.  If I never heard a single note of these songs again, it would be an improvement to my life.  It seems like there is no occasion where these songs don't pop up.  As always, comments and your own additions are appreciated.  I will not entertain any suggestion of "You Shook Me All Night Long".  Everyone in every English speaking country should hear that song at least once a day. 
  • "Old Time Rock and Roll"  -Bob Seger.  This was an above average song at best to the most diehard of Bob Seger fans.  To the rest of us, there is no explaination why we still hear this mediocre piece of crap so often.
  • "We Will Rock You"  -Queen  When you hear the phrase "it's a copycat league", that isn't limited to on the field strategies.  It is also rampant in stadium music.  This song is a powerful, primal force to be reckoned with the first few thousand times you hear it.  Sadly, it has been repeated to the point of impotence.  Also, as good as this song is, its sister song "We Are the Champions" is even better and a little less underplayed.
  • "In the Air Tonight"  -Phil Collins  Seriously, world.  IT'S PHIL COLLINS!!!  This song sucks.  He sucks.  Everything he does sucks and this song is no exception.  His involvement in anything in this world instantly strips it of any artistic credibility whatsoever. 
  • "Bad to the Bone"  -George Thorogood  This song was pretty sweet when I was in middle school.  This song is pretty sweet while accompanied by Al Bundy living a rare moment of glory.  Other than that, this is a very formulaic, boring, blues riffing, snoozer. 
  • "All Star"  -Smashmouth  Again, blame sports and their inability to find original songs. 
  • "I Gotta Feeling"  -Black Eyes Peas  You may be sitting here thinking, "but Mitchell, this song is only a couple years old."  Just give it time, my reader.  Give it time.  You will be hearing this song for decades to come.  I was sick of hearing it by the end of the first verse of the first time I heard it.  It may take you a few more years, but your time will come too.  Think of it as a preemptive strike.
  • "I Love Rock and Roll"  -Joan Jett and the Blackhearts.  I loved this song so much throughout my years, but objectively, it's one of their worst. 

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Fun With Personality Tests

Take the Pierley/Redford Dissociative Affect Diagnostic Test
http://www.hypnoid.com/psytest2.html

These are my results:
Handy in the real world manipulation of objects and events, you are easily enthused by practical projects. You often ignore or conveniently forget rules and boundaries that limit your freedom. This need for freedom extends even to the personal sphere and though you are kind and gentle, you will often be hard to pin down to a monogamous lifestyle. Because you tend to verbalize so seldom, you can be seen as phlegmatic or impassive. In moments of high tension you can often surprise those around you with a lighthearted or humorous remark. Because of your facility with the physical world, you are often engaged in sports that require dexterity, such as motorcycling or hang gliding. You will rarely have time for flights of fancy or unproductive discussion. Constraints on your freedom will be regarded as a personal attack.

Other than the hang gliding and motorcycling, this is pretty spot on. 

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Anthem, the good part. Shall we argue now?

I would now like to pull what I felt was the important part of Anthem and open this up for some political and philosophical discussion.  I think the smart thing for me to do is to simply transcribe it to the blog so everyone is on the same page.  Frankly, this is the only really important part of the book in my opinion which you probably already know if you read my critique in my previous entry.  Here goes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever road I take, the guiding star is within me; the guiding star and the loadstone which point the way.  They point in but one direction.  They point to me.

I know not if this earth on which I stand is the core of the universe or if it is but a speck of dust lost in eternity.  I know not and I care not.  For I know what happiness is possible to me on earth.  And my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it.  My happiness is not the means to any end.  It is the end.  It is its own goal.  It is its own purpose.

Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish.  I am not a tool for their use.  I am not a servant of their needs.  I am not a bandage for their wounds.  I am not a sacrifice on their altars.

I am a man.  This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before!

I do not surrender my treasures, nor do I share them.  The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of spirit.  I guard my treasures:  my thought, my will, my freedom.  And the greatest of these is freedom.

I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them.  I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others.  I covet no man's soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me.  And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born.  I do not grant my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it.  I honor men with my love.  But honor is a thing to be earned.

I shall choose my friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters.  And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey.  And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire.  For in the temple of his spirit, each man is alone.  Let each man keep his temple untouched and undefiled.  Then let him join hands with others if he wishes, but only beyond his holy threshold.

For the word "We" must never be spoken, save by one's choice and as a second thought.  This work must never be placed first within man's soul, else it becomes a monster, the root of all the evils on earth, the root of man's torture by men, and of an unspeakable lie. 

The word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it.  It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it?  What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me?  What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and the impotent, are my master?  What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?

But I am done with this creed of corruption.

I am done with the monster of "We," the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.

And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.

This god, this one word:

"I."
------------------------------------------------------------------
So the natural question that spawns from this is, "How much responsibility do we bear for those less fortunate than ourselves?"  I say that the only civil answer beyond our immediate circle of family and close friends is as little as possible.
I will make an analogy where the human race is a heard of zebras and the challenges of life are a pride of lions.  I challenge you with this question.  Is it not at least equally morally reprehensible for the slow zebra to expect the fast one to delay or halt his escape to come to his aid as it is for the fast zebra to refuse his aid?  Is it not morally corrupt for the slow zebra to refuse to condition himself for the inevitable chase then to have the audacity to request aid in his getaway?  Even a mother zebra will only aid and protect her young so much as they are able to help themselves.  In the zebra world, it is every zebra for himself.  This preserves the species and ensures that the strongest, fastest zebras run in the front of the heard in order to lead the other zebras to safety, food and drink.  It is the responsibility of all zebras to maintain this pace or perish, for if the best zebras are not in the front of the pack, but instead burdened by the slow and lazy, their talents are wasted.  The whole herd is now vulnerable to attack. 
Well, the argument that you will hear is, of course, that humans beings are not animals.  We are above that way of thinking.  We are better than that.  While it is nice to think so, it just isn't true.  That is either the cry of the burdensome or of one whose superior talent, motivation or resources are not being stolen and cast into the abyss of that which is often called social justice or the greater good.  It is incomprehensibly naive to think that the world is not a fiercely competitive place be it nation versus nation, person versus person or any other way you choose to divide the teams.  This greater good is only good for those who are foolish enough to ignore this fundamental fact of life and take the necessary measures for survival in such an environment.  It has become morally acceptable, and in many instances laudable, to steal from one for the benefit of another whose merit I personally call into question.  This theft is known also by the kitschier name of Socialism.
Socialism and all entitlement programs thrive on the jealousy of the common masses.  It instills the belief that everybody deserves to have what the richer of us have.  If you read the comments posted after any given Yahoo! News article that mentions the economy, you will see that they are deluged with comments by those demanding that businesses and the wealthy and the politicians give up their exhorbitant paychecks for the greater good.  Let's be honest about what jealousy really is.  Jealousy or the hatred of others based on what they possess, be it wealth, beauty, intelligence, talent, etc., is nothing more than a hatred of our own inadequacies.  Socialism wants you to feel inadequate.  It wants you to hate the wealth and talents of others.  This is the only way which Socialism will exist. 
So Socialism throws around these romantic ideas of equality.  Everyone has everything that they need provided by resources to which everybody works very hard to contribute, right?  The unaccounted for variable here is human nature.  I have worked for the state for five years and I know that people who are in an environment where their ceiling for achievement is limited, but their base security is guaranteed are not motivated contibutors.  If the end result of a person's efforts is always equality among all, his motivation is no longer to succeed, but rather to do no more than the person next to him.  So I ask of Socialism, how successful will your herd of zebras be with this kind of mentality?
Now back to the Anthem.  The ideology in this book specifically, and of Ayn Rand in general, I find to be very liberating.  I feel it is ultimately hardwired into the human brain to be selfish.  Despite many selfless heroic acts and examples seemingly to the contrary, if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that the human being is a very selfish beast.  Rand applauds the natural state of this selfishness and goes as far as to assert that it is our duty to be selfish.  Our selfishness, pride and pursuit of our own happiness results in our not being a burden on our fellow man.  It is in fact, very unselfish for us to be more selfish.  A parent who is too preoccupied with meeting the needs of the rest of the family without considering his or her own well being is ultimately bringing a lesser piece to the family puzzle.  A healthier, wealthier, more attractive, happier mother or father/husband or wife will always result in a mother or father/husband or wife that is even more capable of meeting his or her family's needs.
I can only imagine how empowering it would feel to stand on a mountaintop and read aloud the pages that I copied into this blog.  The empowerment of the individual makes one well up with the human spirit.  This is why capitalism is the true economic system of the proud, the rebellious, the spirited and the individualistic.  Capitalism is the system which favors those who defiantly declare, "Yes I can."  You are not being rebellious by declaring yourself a socialist.  You are, in fact, declaring yourself a coward and a conformist.  Pseudo-intellectuals love to wax poetic about the merits and civility of Socialism and in doing so, unwittingly declare themselves and their fellow man to be weak, common, incapable, dumb, average, insignificant, sheepish, etc.  Any man who will look upon you and try to explain why Socialism is a great idea is doing nothing short of insulting your abilities to your face. 

Blogger's final thoughts:
I know as soon as I finished the passage from Anthem, I went into more of a stream of consciousness rant than a discussion of the passage itself, but as I sit here I am satisfied that I have captured the essence of what it said to me which, in its own way is also a commentary on the passage.  Besides, that is why these blogs are open to comments by the reader and in cases like this, I don't even believe it becomes interesting until I start to hear what others have to say. 

Literary Analysis: Anthem by Ayn Rand

          The book Anthem by Ayn Rand must be critically viewed in two very separate lights.  The first of which is viewing the book as a story.  The second of which is as a platform for the author's ideology.  The former is a very stilted, short, predictable story that falls well short of other books of this genre.  The second is served only in a tiny, brilliant morsel wedged into the story near the end of the work. 
          To address the matter of the story itself, I simply do not get the impression that Ayn Rand the philosopher translates well into Ayn Rand the storyteller.  Anthem falls woefully short when held to the standards set by other dystopian classics such as 1984, Brave New World or Fahrenheit 451.  The story seems to be pushed along clumsily as if it were merely a means to a more important end.  1984 is a personal favorite of mine and as I read that book, I thought the author George Orwell does a masterful job in making me feel the oppression of the society which he creates.  I am drawn into the mind of the main character as he copes with and then attempts to undermine the drudgery surrounding him.  The same cannot be said for Rand's Anthem.  I just don't care about the main character, Equality 7-2521.  Though I must admit, having finished the book only an hour ago, I have already forgotten his nameand had to refer back to the book, which may serve as a testament to the forgettability of the individual in her world of conformity. 
          Another fault I found in her dystopian world is the relative ease with which Equality 7-2521 is able to do as he pleases.  In what is comparatively a very short book, this man is able to steal away every single night for three hours without ever raising suspicion until his own forgetfulness finally betrays him as he loses track of the time spent in his underground hideaway.  Then, after being caught, he is interrogated as to his whereabouts to which he naturally remains silent.  He is then whipped severly and thrown in jail.  Here is where I would expect an all-powerful, individuality-crushing uber-state to grind not just a confession from him, but also every ounce of pride and spirit that Equality 7-2521 had left in his soul.  This was not the case.  Instead the jail is constructed so poorly that he is able to break out of the Palace of Corrective Detention with astonishing ease, retrieve his precious glass box which I imagined to be a very large light bulb and then stroll into the room of this society's ruling body of government with absolutely no opposition.  I would think that a place called the Palace of Corrective Detention would offer a little more resistance to aspiring escapees, but apparently not.  Of course, upon his arrival, the World Council of Scholars did not approve of his glass box as he had hoped, so they order his execution.  No problem.  Equality 7-2521 is able to leap out of a large window with his glass box in hand and run to the Uncharted Forest without a single threat of his capture.  Conveniently, the beautiful woman in the story, the one he had tabbed the Golden One, shows up and they essentially live happily ever after.  I know the book is extremely short, but this is just too incredibly easy. 
         If I may briefly play the devil's advocate, I could defend the aforementioned glaring weaknesses in Rand's vision.  I will say that the very basis for her whole belief system is the shabbiness of a world of collectivism and conformity.  I can argue that these apparent holes also serve to illustrate the meager quality of craftsmanship and courage of men in such circumstances.  It is hinted that this is most likely the case as she describes the escape:
          The locks are old on the doors and there are no guards about.  There is no reason to have guards, for
          men have never defied the Councils so far as to escape from whatever place they were ordered to
          be.  Our body is healthy and our strength returns to it speedily.  We lunged against the door and it
          gave way. 
I would like to think that in the hundreds of years this government was said to have been in place, at least one other person would have had the wits and fortitude to try this.  I understand why it was so easy to escape, but it is still a grievious flaw in this story. 
          The saving grace of this schitzophrenic work is when the personality of Ayn Rand the lecturer reveals herself and steps in to relieve Ayn Rand the storyteller.  The moment when Equality 7-2421 discovers the word I, Rand steps to the pulpit and delivers a three page sermon of her philosophy of objecivism, individuality and virtue of selfishness.  The book suddenly takes on a voice of strength and clarity as she makes declarations such as, "I do not surrender my treasure, nor do I share them.  The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of spirit.  I guard my treasures:  my thought, my will, my freedom..."  This is the kind of writing that I believe is her strength and this philosophy is why Rand is loved by many and reviled by many others.  She returns to the pulpit after three pages to preach about the way "The worship of the word 'We'" has destroyed the greatness of man and allowed society to regress to the point of futility where a man can apparently put a shoulder into the door of his jail cell and run unfettered down the street to make his escape.
          I personally love the philosophy of Ayn Rand and think that she is a brilliant, courageous woman; though this being my first experience reading one of her works, I can say that I was very thankful that Anthem is such a short book, because storytelling is apparently not her strength and I would be wary of investing the time necessary to see what her other, more famous works, Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, have to offer.  My advice to an aspiring reader of this book would be to first read 1984 or Brave New World and upon finishing, read the final two chapters of Anthem.  This strategy will afford the reader a far better dystopian story followed by a powerful declaration of the philosophy that one presumably seeks when he or she elects to read one of Ayn Rand's works.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Liberalism and Racism.

            In an effort to correct a common misconception, I would like to discuss the relationship between race and economic policies.  I believe that the Conservative Right has long gotten an unfair reputation for being inherently racist when in fact, liberal economic policy, mostly through unabashed pandering actually has an abysmal track record when it comes to benefitting minorities; particularly African Americans.  I feel that these misconceptions have grown largely from the fact that the left has taken much liberty in baseless accusations of racism toward the right.  Through the use of facts and hypothetical situations, I will attempt to show the folly of this way of thinking by sticking to the effects of policy on the population.
            The first thing that must be considered in this discussion is that I must make it clear that when I speak of Conservatism, I am speaking principally of Conservatism in its most laissez-faire, utopian state.  This is not to be confused with the Republican Party, nor is it to be confused with individuals within the Republican Party or any other right leaning political group.  As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, there are racists in every political party in the land.  For the good of their political careers, all but a foolish few know to keep their mouths shut.  Also, let us not just assume that being Republican automatically makes one conservative.  Ronald Reagan ran up a budget deficit.  After we read his lips, George Bush raised taxes and most recently, George W. Bush continued to spend as if the coffers were bottomless.  In contrast, one of the Republican Party’s whipping boys, Bill Clinton, actually ran the country with a balanced budget. 
            I never thought I would use the phrase “He who smelt it, dealt it” in anything more highbrow than a discussion about who farted, but in this case, it makes quite an apt analogy.  If one is looking for racism, the best thing to do is follow the cries of racism.  The adage “people accuse others of that which they themselves are most guilty” certainly holds true.  If racism is a fart, the left is the one dealing it.  While unabashedly pandering to African Americans, it is also quite fashionable in liberal circles to hate Christians, Republicans, southerners and rich people.  Based on what I perceive from common liberal attitudes, it is not okay to hate a group of individuals based on their color, but hating them or at least turning your nose up at them for religious, political, financial or geographical reasons is perfectly acceptable.  I will defend until my last breath a person’s right to hate anybody for any reason, no matter how petty or irrational.  The second a person deputizes themselves into the role of the racism police, his or her moral high ground to trash groups of individuals is forfeited. 
            Liberal policy provides for generous social safety nets for the poor in various forms spanning from welfare, health care benefits, food stamps, section 8 housing and earned income credits to name a few.  It also dangles tempting tax credits in the faces of the poor in the form of deductions based on having more children.  Since the African American population struggles with poverty to a higher degree than other groups, on the surface, this sounds like a pretty sweet deal for the beneficiaries which based on percentages, somewhat disproportionately, African American.  Alas, however, it is true that nothing in life is free and this is no exception.  If I walk down your street and hand each individual I see $1,000 and leave without ever saying a word, it would make me a philanthropist, a generous man, a hero.  What if I were to do the same thing, but come back later that year in November and ask if you remember that $1,000 I gave to you and then proceed to ask with a wink and a nod if I can count on your vote without explaining the true impact of my politics on your neighborhood.  What if that money I gave was actually stolen from another neighborhood?  What if I was also receiving my own gift of $10,000 from another entity who actually profits from your impoverishment?  Within that context, suddenly I don’t seem so much like a philanthropist as I do a charlatan banking on your gullibility and your desperate state to garner political gain.  This is exactly the kind of back door racism that the left practices.  They shake the black man’s hand palming a twenty while putting a knife in his back.  This is pandering and pandering is a far more insidious, destructive form of racism than many of its much more overt forms.  This is a policy that assumes that the African American voting block is too stupid and too infantile to think like individuals.  This policy assumes that if thrown a bone, their vote is guaranteed as they will simply fall in line like good, obedient livestock.

This is the point where I either got distracted or ran out of steam.  This is by no means close to finished and I look forward to continuing this discussion in the future.  Hopefully some of you will have a comment or two which may help reignite this topic for me. 
Loose material-My favorite line by Seth Meyers at white house dinner ,,,to Obama.."if ur hair gets any whiter, it will be endorsed by the Tea Party.'   Retweet by Colin Cowherd

Quote-o-rama

Anyone who knows me, knows that when it comes to things like this, I love to make lists of quotes.  I did this on myspace, I retweet them on Twitter, I at least meant to do it on Facebook and I will now start one here.  So without further ado, here is a list of quotes that I like:
  • You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.  (This one just fits the way I like to approach projects.  I am rarely very concerned with collateral damage.)
  • This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.  ~Plato  (Patriot Act, nationalized health care, TSA molestation, FEMA...  It's even more insidious when said protector protects us from ourselves.)
  • He who dreads hostility too much is unfit to rule. ~Seneca  (It's hard to admit, but there is actually a lot you can learn by working for a completely incompetent buffoon.  It has really framed the brilliance of many bits of wisdom which I come across and this one is no exception.)
  • Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. ~ Schopenhauer  (Just a really good analogy, I think)
  • Knowledge without wisdom is a load of books on the back an ass. 
  • Base souls have no faith in great individuals.  ~Rousseau  (Here is another one of those bits of wisdom I just mentioned.)
  • Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results.  ~Margaret Atwood 
  • A person reveals his character by nothing so clearly as the joke he resents.  ~Georg Lichtenberg (This reminds me of the time this really caustic lady in a class I had went on a tangent about how much it bugs her if somebody calls her a bitch; even jokingly.)
  • Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil.  ~Machiavelli 
  • The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt.  ~Ayn Rand
  • We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us.  ~Stalin  (This was spoken in 1931; exactly ten years before the German invasion of WWII)
  • If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.  ~Winston Churchill  (At age 20, I would have thought this was the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  For that matter, I would have at 35.  I have finally managed to synchronize my politics with my true self.  I am actually quite pragmatic at the core and am finally quite comfortable with that.)
  • If you are lonely when you are alone, then you are in bad company.  ~Sartre
  • God gives all birds their food but does not drop it into their nests.  ~Danish Proverb  (I'm not a big god guy, but I find it ironic that this is coming from one of the most socialistic countries in the world.)
  • Can't is the cancer of happen.  `Charlie Sheen.  Yeah, yeah, but you know what?  It makes sense and it's kind of clever, so back off.  We're just here to have fun.
  • The envious person grows lean with the fatness of their neighbor.  ~Socrates  (Just remember this next time you are complaining about those awful rich people)
  • Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.  ~Oscar Wilde  (A little Oscar Wilde by request.  The guy was a quote machine and this is an more eloquent version of my refrain of "Just because you are educated, doesn't mean you are smart")
  • It's not the fault of the pig, but of the one who scratches his back.  (Argentinian proverb that reminded me of the parents that excuse and enable the obnoxious or criminal behavior of their children.)
  • Unions are ultimately the result of a group of individuals who are afraid that one day they will be forced to face the reality that their work is not as valuable as they would like to believe.

Beavis and Butthead were geniuses?

The mission statement.

The Umbrella Murder is, of course, a reference to the assassination of Bulgarian political dissident Georgi Markov in London on my birthday in 1978.  This is a marriage of two worlds which I find endlessly fascinating; those worlds being Cold War intrigue and me.  I'm not sure where I plan to go with this blog, but I imagine that it will simply serve as a vessel for yet another internet hack who just likes to think they have something important to say.  I intend to mostly post political/philosophical essays or stream of consciousness type things.  Comments are more than encouraged as the act of bouncing ideas back and forth is one of the things that gets a project like this to snowball.  It certainly fuels my interest and in return, hopefully helps to hold yours as well.

I'd like to acknowledge my first hit from Russia on my blog.  I would love to see many more Russians visiting me here.  I am looking forward to hearing about the political climate over there and learn more about the culture and such.  It's a great, faxcinating, complex country and I want to know everything.  Okay, I'll stop with being a groupie now.