Fascism unites people through their insecurities, not their strengths. Our critical culture has bred "confidence issues". Perhaps this is due to the competitive nature of capitalism; perhaps due to the culture of entitlement that identifies the haves and the have nots. Regardless, the current society in America is one which promotes victimization and therefor violence.
When reality clashes with what is purported to be reality, disenfranchisement occurs. When there is talk of a level playing field, but all monetary aid given to school districts for special programs goes to ESL classes, or special ed. classes, the majority comes to know that the playing fied is being leveled against them. When a student isn't being challenged to their full potential because the teacher is stretched too thin by dealing with the students who should have been held back for whatever reason, society fails that student, and that student will either teach himself or ensure that others cannot learn either. Probably through violence. When a teacher neglects to spend time with the student who has no difficulty with the subject matter, that student can become starved for attention, and jealous of whatever group seems to be dominating the teacher's time. As Time is a zero-sum entity, this inequality fractures society, leaving it ripe for fascist agendas.
20 November 2008
18 November 2008
Perhaps a biblical Job-ism
When comparing Hitler's vision of fascism to Mussolini's, Hitler at least succinctly outlines his critique and vision. He believes in the holiness of natural selection, and that man must aid this process by mating only with men who equal himself. Suffering promotes improvement. Only when he brings his mistaken assumptions about Jews into the mix does he cease for a moment to make rhetorical sense. [I have no clue where the first came from, but once that is established, the rest simply build upon it] He then goes on to outline the supreme lack of logic in his opponents' methods of creating an ideal, 'peaceful' society "we would have to wage wars in order to arrive at pacifism". When the strongest are all that's left, he agrees that this kind of peace might be attainable, but so long as there is suffering to weed out the weak, let the weak suffer. Especially since "all great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning." America travels the path to sure destruction with her new president elect, a prime example of 'defilement of the blood'.
The urge to preserve the species leads men to form governments. As such, the stare is but the "organization of a community of physically and psychologically similar living beings for the better facilitation of the maintenance of their species". The state, however, requires the sacrifice of the individual for the betterment of the species; suffering for improvement!
06 November 2008
Yay Anarchism!
Goldman makes some grossly positive assumptions about humanity. She goes back to the social contract theory, and says that 'wealth consists in things of utility and beauty'. People should join together only when they wish to. She assumes that men can protect themselves against injustice. In short, she states that Anarchism empowers the individual in a way that no other ideology does. It one-ups freedom.
I read Ayn Rand extensively, and her concept of creators vs. second-handers comes into play with anarchism as well. In a structured society, people doing what they hate to do will of course make it harder [via 'crime'] for people trying to create beauty. In an unstructured society, people are free to make great things, and trade those for things that other people make. The natural conclusion is that if everybody makes something that they want to make, they will make it well, thereby bringing both happiness and satisfaction to all.
I read Ayn Rand extensively, and her concept of creators vs. second-handers comes into play with anarchism as well. In a structured society, people doing what they hate to do will of course make it harder [via 'crime'] for people trying to create beauty. In an unstructured society, people are free to make great things, and trade those for things that other people make. The natural conclusion is that if everybody makes something that they want to make, they will make it well, thereby bringing both happiness and satisfaction to all.
04 November 2008
Apropo...
Thought this would be fitting, as tomorrow is Bonfire Night, as well as the day after our election. Burn some effigies. Woo.And we're starting Anarchism.
...
Like I said, fitting.
Found it at johngushue.typepad.com
26 October 2008
Communism through the ages...
Today I'd like to go on a little segue from the reading [Bernstein vs. Luxemburg]. See, the 'Communist Manifesto' was published in 1848 in the German language in London, but as of that date in the Indiana Territory of the United States of America, two experiments in communal living had failed. [as have all but three in the world, though those are close as of the date of composition...] I'm talking about a little place called New Harmony, Indiana, where I happen to have spent the past summer.
In 1814 a gentleman named Johann Georg Rapp bought a tract of land on the Wabash river to establish a religeous commune for his fellow immigrant/persecuted sectarians. I find this entertaining because he had to raise the capital to do so. I shall now paraphrase how he did so, a full description of his exploits may be found here:
{http://www.usi.edu/hnh/pdf/Expanded%20Text%20on%20the%20Harmonist%20Society.pdf}
Anyhow, by pooling the funds from his followers, he aquired 30,000 acres of prime Indiana swamp. The Harmonists moved there, made the land habitable, and then he rewrote the charter making it nigh impossible for those wishing to leave his sect to have their investment refunded. [One should want to leave if one wasn't a prominent member of the sect and wished to, say, get Married, as the Harmonist principles promoted chastity]
Rapp used capitalist principles to found his community living experiment, and when it failed, he sold the entire town and used teh proceeds to relocate himself. And some followers[Irony?] New Harmony failed because some members of the Harmonists from the old world [Germany] moved to New Harmony but had incredibly different views of how they ought to act while being members of the sect [return again to the previous example of marriage, though Trade and Malaria did figure in]. Wait, wait, wait! They were too far from a trade route, ergo move... we return to Bernstein's idea that socialism needs to change simply into giving means and power to the working class.
The second experiment stemmed from the guys who purchased the land from Rapp, William Maclure and Robert Owen. They tried to establish a commune for educational and equality reasons. Unfortunately, the scientific founding of this experiment meant that they didn't focus enough on agriculture, and it was torn apart because of inequalities in Labor. Hmm... 'Let us intellecutals study while you proletariates farm' doesn't sound like very well thought out communal living to me. Kinda like going back to serfdom. At least the 'leaders' were 'working' though.
New Harmony produced two examples of why communism/socialism fail. Human beings, and most other mammals for that matter, work best in a hierarchic society. This may be due to a lack of self confidence on a personal level. Perhaps socialists would do better to promote individual self confidence as the means to overarching equality, instead of, to borrow a phrase from Schlafley, neuterizing sociery.
In 1814 a gentleman named Johann Georg Rapp bought a tract of land on the Wabash river to establish a religeous commune for his fellow immigrant/persecuted sectarians. I find this entertaining because he had to raise the capital to do so. I shall now paraphrase how he did so, a full description of his exploits may be found here:
{http://www.usi.edu/hnh/pdf/Expanded%20Text%20on%20the%20Harmonist%20Society.pdf}
Anyhow, by pooling the funds from his followers, he aquired 30,000 acres of prime Indiana swamp. The Harmonists moved there, made the land habitable, and then he rewrote the charter making it nigh impossible for those wishing to leave his sect to have their investment refunded. [One should want to leave if one wasn't a prominent member of the sect and wished to, say, get Married, as the Harmonist principles promoted chastity]
Rapp used capitalist principles to found his community living experiment, and when it failed, he sold the entire town and used teh proceeds to relocate himself. And some followers[Irony?] New Harmony failed because some members of the Harmonists from the old world [Germany] moved to New Harmony but had incredibly different views of how they ought to act while being members of the sect [return again to the previous example of marriage, though Trade and Malaria did figure in]. Wait, wait, wait! They were too far from a trade route, ergo move... we return to Bernstein's idea that socialism needs to change simply into giving means and power to the working class.
The second experiment stemmed from the guys who purchased the land from Rapp, William Maclure and Robert Owen. They tried to establish a commune for educational and equality reasons. Unfortunately, the scientific founding of this experiment meant that they didn't focus enough on agriculture, and it was torn apart because of inequalities in Labor. Hmm... 'Let us intellecutals study while you proletariates farm' doesn't sound like very well thought out communal living to me. Kinda like going back to serfdom. At least the 'leaders' were 'working' though.
New Harmony produced two examples of why communism/socialism fail. Human beings, and most other mammals for that matter, work best in a hierarchic society. This may be due to a lack of self confidence on a personal level. Perhaps socialists would do better to promote individual self confidence as the means to overarching equality, instead of, to borrow a phrase from Schlafley, neuterizing sociery.
23 October 2008
We the Slaves
One of the best points Marx makes, especially in light of our modern economic crisis, is that the current ruling class is 'unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery.' Every man deserves a chance to earn his own bread, and not have to exist on the handouts of those more fortunate than he. The other point of his that resonates with me is that 'In proportion, ..., as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases.' This is one that I have experience with.
Summer after sophomore year, I worked at Williamstown Theatre Festival. They have a reputation for doing good work and teaching their carpenters a lot. Also known as three days off over a span of eleven weeks and working no less than ten hours a day. Generally fourteen. Sixteen for three weeks in a row. I made an average of one dollar per hour. The running joke was that children in Bangladesh were making more than the carpenters at Williamstown. And I learned my lesson. I know what I'm worth now. I also know that had I not spent the time at Williamstown, I would not be the craftsman I am now. Only in a place where the contract is not made for me can I leave because of poor working conditions. And because of the poor working conditions at Williamstown, the talent of people going there to work is decreasing. In a capitalist society, you can vote with your dollars. You can vote with your labour.
Summer after sophomore year, I worked at Williamstown Theatre Festival. They have a reputation for doing good work and teaching their carpenters a lot. Also known as three days off over a span of eleven weeks and working no less than ten hours a day. Generally fourteen. Sixteen for three weeks in a row. I made an average of one dollar per hour. The running joke was that children in Bangladesh were making more than the carpenters at Williamstown. And I learned my lesson. I know what I'm worth now. I also know that had I not spent the time at Williamstown, I would not be the craftsman I am now. Only in a place where the contract is not made for me can I leave because of poor working conditions. And because of the poor working conditions at Williamstown, the talent of people going there to work is decreasing. In a capitalist society, you can vote with your dollars. You can vote with your labour.
14 October 2008
On Being Female
Until I read Schlafly, I didn't know that others felt that feminists were inherently evil. Points of hers to that effect:
Feminists believe that 'Women must be made equal to men in their ability not to become pregnant and not to be expected to care for babies they may bring into the world.' While this comment brought a hysteric fit of giggles upon me, it's simply absurd.
Due to the movement to make the above statement true, we've moved from a world where 'women have always cared for their newborn babies. They didn't need any schooling to teach them how. They didn't need any welfare workers to tell them it's their social obligation.' But the feminist movement has brought more horrid layers to gov't.
I prefer to be called Miss and dislike how women's liberationists have gotten the gov't to 'forbid schools and colleges from identifying women students as Miss or Mrs.' As an unmarried woman, I deserve to have my accomplishments belong to me alone, unsupported by any male counterpart. When I am married, I shall be happily so, to someone with whom I shall enjoy sharing my accomplishments. When 81% of women would rather be addressed as Miss or Mrs., 19% have no right to legislate that I cannot be called thus.
"The women's liberation movement, which promotes unisexual values and androgeny, contains within it 'a social and cultural death wish and the end of the civilization that endorses it.'" Why would you try to be something that you're not? Lying to yourself doesn't make others believe you. Liberated Roman women destroyed their families ergo the whole bloody Empire!
The two basic errors of the feminist movement: 1) No emotional or cognitive difference between the sexes 2) women should strive to be like men. I am not a man. I have tits and am not ashamed of it. I will use them to my advantage when I choose to do so. They are not a disadvantage. Damnit.
Equality =/ Justice. Neither does reparation of past lacks of equality.
Uniformity does not trump diversity. Uniformity = boring and inbred. Inbred leads to cognitive issues. AKA mental retardation. Which is bad for mankind.
Sex neutral, or other 'politically correct' language is silly. And not silly in the clown at the circus kind of way. Silly in the retarded kind of way.
A woman who chooses to be a homemaker should not be looked down upon, Damnit!
As for the 'Good Wife's Guide', since the feminist movement got all up in arms, family life has suffered. Period. Most girls who move out on their own cannot cook or clean for themselves, and I know families today who live in refuse simply because the wife refuses to clean after her husband. Not to mention how all but four of the principles laid out in the article merely suggest ways to interact in a positive manner with other people. So long as the husband respects the wife, why should she be averse to doing nice things for him like making his favourite meal and providing means for him to relax?
I am not the traditional woman of the prefeminist movement. I work in what has been primarily a mans vocation since time before time. While I feel an added pressure to succeed because I am female, I am equally as chauvinist as the gents when it comes to other women trying to be a carpenter. I expect more of another woman than I do of her male counterparts because she is defying tradition. I also respect her more if she succeeds. (P.S. The only ones who manage to do work in the field after the age of 27 are balls-on with their work and generally better than the gents)
Feminists believe that 'Women must be made equal to men in their ability not to become pregnant and not to be expected to care for babies they may bring into the world.' While this comment brought a hysteric fit of giggles upon me, it's simply absurd.
Due to the movement to make the above statement true, we've moved from a world where 'women have always cared for their newborn babies. They didn't need any schooling to teach them how. They didn't need any welfare workers to tell them it's their social obligation.' But the feminist movement has brought more horrid layers to gov't.
I prefer to be called Miss and dislike how women's liberationists have gotten the gov't to 'forbid schools and colleges from identifying women students as Miss or Mrs.' As an unmarried woman, I deserve to have my accomplishments belong to me alone, unsupported by any male counterpart. When I am married, I shall be happily so, to someone with whom I shall enjoy sharing my accomplishments. When 81% of women would rather be addressed as Miss or Mrs., 19% have no right to legislate that I cannot be called thus.
"The women's liberation movement, which promotes unisexual values and androgeny, contains within it 'a social and cultural death wish and the end of the civilization that endorses it.'" Why would you try to be something that you're not? Lying to yourself doesn't make others believe you. Liberated Roman women destroyed their families ergo the whole bloody Empire!
The two basic errors of the feminist movement: 1) No emotional or cognitive difference between the sexes 2) women should strive to be like men. I am not a man. I have tits and am not ashamed of it. I will use them to my advantage when I choose to do so. They are not a disadvantage. Damnit.
Equality =/ Justice. Neither does reparation of past lacks of equality.
Uniformity does not trump diversity. Uniformity = boring and inbred. Inbred leads to cognitive issues. AKA mental retardation. Which is bad for mankind.
Sex neutral, or other 'politically correct' language is silly. And not silly in the clown at the circus kind of way. Silly in the retarded kind of way.
A woman who chooses to be a homemaker should not be looked down upon, Damnit!
As for the 'Good Wife's Guide', since the feminist movement got all up in arms, family life has suffered. Period. Most girls who move out on their own cannot cook or clean for themselves, and I know families today who live in refuse simply because the wife refuses to clean after her husband. Not to mention how all but four of the principles laid out in the article merely suggest ways to interact in a positive manner with other people. So long as the husband respects the wife, why should she be averse to doing nice things for him like making his favourite meal and providing means for him to relax?
I am not the traditional woman of the prefeminist movement. I work in what has been primarily a mans vocation since time before time. While I feel an added pressure to succeed because I am female, I am equally as chauvinist as the gents when it comes to other women trying to be a carpenter. I expect more of another woman than I do of her male counterparts because she is defying tradition. I also respect her more if she succeeds. (P.S. The only ones who manage to do work in the field after the age of 27 are balls-on with their work and generally better than the gents)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)