Yeah I know that the elite media and most liberal Internet forums like The Daily Kos, Kuro5hin, IWETHEY, etc use racist slurs and personal attacks against women and people of difference races (non-white like Arabic, African-American, Asian, Native American, etc.) and I have friends of difference races, religions, national origins, etc. My grandfather taught me not to be a bigot like most people in the world. Diversity is a good thing, and sometimes someone who is different in a way can help out as part of a team because they know something I don't or a different viewpoint and we can both learn from each other.
Most of the racist stuff are done by liberals because they are either Karl Marx Communists (anyone not European in origin is seen as inferior to them unless they are not of European origin Communists) or Nazis, Aryan nation members, or KKK members who are racist to all non-white races. There are also the secular humanists like Saddam Hussein that are liberals that are racist towards Kurds and Jewish people and Christians and in a way it is bigoted as well. Then there are Liberal Christians like Hugo Chavez that are Anti-American and Anti-Christian to any Christians that don't believe in Liberal Christianity (which is a secular version of Christianity).George W. Bush's administration hired a lot of women and people of many races, unlike the Clinton Administration that was almost all white and mostly male, and women like Monica Lewinsky got sexually harassed and made to perform sex acts like oral sex.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Envy
Thanks for the compliment, Wry; and thanks for the question,Blackhearted Pirate Lee.
I think that envy is not genetic, but I think it is deeply ingrained in human culture/experience and dates back to hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution in a tribal context. In a primitive tribe there were three classes. Two of the classes had only one member. These two classes were leader and shaman. The shaman might have one assistant because the tribe does not want to be without a shaman.
I believe in natural psychic ability in some humans. I believe that we have lost this ability because it is no longer life and death to have it. If a tribe lost a cave and the tribal leader needed to find another one he would go to the shaman to get a general sense of direction. The shaman could sense where to go at least in a general sense. The shaman could also sense perils along the way. People could not fake being a shaman. If you made too many mistakes as a shaman you would get your skull crushed by large rocks.
The vast majority of tribal members were hunters and gatherers. There was really no reward for being very good as a hunter or very good as a gatherer. If you were the best hunter and played a huge role in downing a mammoth then maybe your nuclear family would get a good organ from the mammoth to eat. There was not any lasting rewardf or being good, though.The only way out of the hunter gatherer class, if you were not psychic, would be to defeat the leader.
Females had no chance to be leader. The only chance at upward mobility for a female was to hope you were psychic. The best gatherer did not become leader. The best hunter did not become leader. The best assassin of the existing leader became leader. The leader would have the greatest combination of size, strength,meanness, brutality and enough intelligence to keep an eye on possible rivals. The leader would also have a high sex drive. The sex drive is important because the only perk of being leader is that you could have sex with any unattached female in the group. Probably in some groups the leader would be entitled to have sex with any female in the group. Females would be required to comply with this because it was essential to the structure of the tribe. Without the incentive of sex there would be no takers for the leadership job.
So, by destroying the leader the destroyer gains the perks of the leader. Many tribes apparently believed that eating the brain ofyour enemy gave you power. This was probably just myth. But there is no doubt that killing the leader gave you the power and perks of the leader. So dragging the leader down actually elevated you.
Democratic capitalism flies in the face of tribalism. Democratic capitalism is designed to reward the best hunters and the best gatherers, not with sex but with more food, clothing and shelter. It is also worth noting that if you go to the richest sections of any metropolitan areas you will see the hottest women (so there still maybe some sexual rewards). It does no good to kill them. If you kill a great gatherer it will not improve your gathering skills one iota unless you torture them first to make them tell you the ten best habits of successful gathering. In fact, if you kill the great hunters and gatherers you actually hurt your own prospects to eat well because typically surpluses would be shared. Envy exists because there has been so little time in human history when the person who dragged someone down did not gain the powers of the defeated individual.
Envy will only be eliminated when we re-wire ourselves during many generations to realize that greatness should inspire, be copied, be analyzed but should never be punished. Punishing success hurts everyone and the people who get hurt the most are the weakest (poorest) who rely on surpluses for survival.
I think that envy is not genetic, but I think it is deeply ingrained in human culture/experience and dates back to hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution in a tribal context. In a primitive tribe there were three classes. Two of the classes had only one member. These two classes were leader and shaman. The shaman might have one assistant because the tribe does not want to be without a shaman.
I believe in natural psychic ability in some humans. I believe that we have lost this ability because it is no longer life and death to have it. If a tribe lost a cave and the tribal leader needed to find another one he would go to the shaman to get a general sense of direction. The shaman could sense where to go at least in a general sense. The shaman could also sense perils along the way. People could not fake being a shaman. If you made too many mistakes as a shaman you would get your skull crushed by large rocks.
The vast majority of tribal members were hunters and gatherers. There was really no reward for being very good as a hunter or very good as a gatherer. If you were the best hunter and played a huge role in downing a mammoth then maybe your nuclear family would get a good organ from the mammoth to eat. There was not any lasting rewardf or being good, though.The only way out of the hunter gatherer class, if you were not psychic, would be to defeat the leader.
Females had no chance to be leader. The only chance at upward mobility for a female was to hope you were psychic. The best gatherer did not become leader. The best hunter did not become leader. The best assassin of the existing leader became leader. The leader would have the greatest combination of size, strength,meanness, brutality and enough intelligence to keep an eye on possible rivals. The leader would also have a high sex drive. The sex drive is important because the only perk of being leader is that you could have sex with any unattached female in the group. Probably in some groups the leader would be entitled to have sex with any female in the group. Females would be required to comply with this because it was essential to the structure of the tribe. Without the incentive of sex there would be no takers for the leadership job.
So, by destroying the leader the destroyer gains the perks of the leader. Many tribes apparently believed that eating the brain ofyour enemy gave you power. This was probably just myth. But there is no doubt that killing the leader gave you the power and perks of the leader. So dragging the leader down actually elevated you.
Democratic capitalism flies in the face of tribalism. Democratic capitalism is designed to reward the best hunters and the best gatherers, not with sex but with more food, clothing and shelter. It is also worth noting that if you go to the richest sections of any metropolitan areas you will see the hottest women (so there still maybe some sexual rewards). It does no good to kill them. If you kill a great gatherer it will not improve your gathering skills one iota unless you torture them first to make them tell you the ten best habits of successful gathering. In fact, if you kill the great hunters and gatherers you actually hurt your own prospects to eat well because typically surpluses would be shared. Envy exists because there has been so little time in human history when the person who dragged someone down did not gain the powers of the defeated individual.
Envy will only be eliminated when we re-wire ourselves during many generations to realize that greatness should inspire, be copied, be analyzed but should never be punished. Punishing success hurts everyone and the people who get hurt the most are the weakest (poorest) who rely on surpluses for survival.
RNC and Poor People
I respectfully disagree with Blackhearted Pirate Lee about the GOP being enemies of the poor.
It is true that the GOP would like to get rid of the poor. Poor people are not part of their base and they can never get much support from the poor. But as far as I can tell, the GOP does not kill poor people. They get rid of them by dragging them into the middle class. The worst thing that could happen to the GOP is for the middle class to fall apart and swell the ranks of the poor. This would mean the end of the party.
The Dems, on the other hand, would be greatly helped by the collapse of the middle class and the growth in numbers of the poor. This is exactly why the dems favor uncontrolled immigration. Not only are immigrants poor, but the increase in laborers drag down the prevailing wages for various semi-skilled and low skill jobs, thereby moving US citizens who were lower middle class into the poverty class.
Lets talk about class. The way the economy works is that the upper middle class provides working capital to entrepreneurs in the lower middle class (who are the true workers and have all the energy). The lower middle class converts this capital into new businesses, more jobs, more tax revenue, ROI to the upper middle class and improved property values. This system works against the Dems. This is why the Dems favor the income tax. The income tax slams the upper middle class and successful entrepreneurs and closes off the escape hatch into the middle class for the poor. What about the upper class? The upper class does not pay income tax. They typically do not have incomes because they sit around pools and play tennis. They also do not invest in small business start-ups. They invest in large corporations, large start-ups and bonds. Often they invest in tax free bonds so that they do not have to pay taxes at all.
The Dems are not interested in taxing the rich. The Dems are interested in taxing the people who are trying to get rich (the upper middle class) because that way they decrease lower class start-ups and keep more people poor. An added "benefit"for the dems is that they also prevent upper middle class from making themselves rich. The rich are exclusive. They do not want a bunch of technocrats, dentists, lawyers and ball players joing their ranks. This is why the very rich are often democrats and are primary campaign contributors for the dems. This works out great for the dems and the rich. The rich keep their exclusivity because the upper middle class is taxed heavily. The poor are kept poor because the upper middle class can no longer invest in small business start-ups(which are owned by the lower middle class and managed by the poor,who soon become lower middle class) so the Dems get contributions and they get a large number of poor people.
So why do poor people vote for Dems? Poor people vote for Dems because Dems give them beer money. Its as simple as that. The poor unknowingly exchange their chance to break into the middle class for a few crumbs. The poor, who live day by day, see the beer money as a victory and do not associate it with the real cost. They often refer to things from dems as "free." They do not realize that they are paying a horrible cost as a class of people. Dems/socialists in Europe have a much easier time. In Europe people mentally trap themselves in the lower class and all the poor care about is beer money. They don't care about the source of the beer money. I think it is a continuation of European peasant culture. It is a harder sell in the US because too many peasants think of themselves as upwardly mobile or that their children are upwardly mobile. The dems in the US deal with this by bringing out their biggest weapon -- envy. Envy is a whole other subject, but let me just say that it is no coincidence that every majorspiritual/philosophical/ethical model in the history of humankind has opposed envy. Even Karl Marx and early socialists carefully kept envy out of their world views.
It is true that the GOP would like to get rid of the poor. Poor people are not part of their base and they can never get much support from the poor. But as far as I can tell, the GOP does not kill poor people. They get rid of them by dragging them into the middle class. The worst thing that could happen to the GOP is for the middle class to fall apart and swell the ranks of the poor. This would mean the end of the party.
The Dems, on the other hand, would be greatly helped by the collapse of the middle class and the growth in numbers of the poor. This is exactly why the dems favor uncontrolled immigration. Not only are immigrants poor, but the increase in laborers drag down the prevailing wages for various semi-skilled and low skill jobs, thereby moving US citizens who were lower middle class into the poverty class.
Lets talk about class. The way the economy works is that the upper middle class provides working capital to entrepreneurs in the lower middle class (who are the true workers and have all the energy). The lower middle class converts this capital into new businesses, more jobs, more tax revenue, ROI to the upper middle class and improved property values. This system works against the Dems. This is why the Dems favor the income tax. The income tax slams the upper middle class and successful entrepreneurs and closes off the escape hatch into the middle class for the poor. What about the upper class? The upper class does not pay income tax. They typically do not have incomes because they sit around pools and play tennis. They also do not invest in small business start-ups. They invest in large corporations, large start-ups and bonds. Often they invest in tax free bonds so that they do not have to pay taxes at all.
The Dems are not interested in taxing the rich. The Dems are interested in taxing the people who are trying to get rich (the upper middle class) because that way they decrease lower class start-ups and keep more people poor. An added "benefit"for the dems is that they also prevent upper middle class from making themselves rich. The rich are exclusive. They do not want a bunch of technocrats, dentists, lawyers and ball players joing their ranks. This is why the very rich are often democrats and are primary campaign contributors for the dems. This works out great for the dems and the rich. The rich keep their exclusivity because the upper middle class is taxed heavily. The poor are kept poor because the upper middle class can no longer invest in small business start-ups(which are owned by the lower middle class and managed by the poor,who soon become lower middle class) so the Dems get contributions and they get a large number of poor people.
So why do poor people vote for Dems? Poor people vote for Dems because Dems give them beer money. Its as simple as that. The poor unknowingly exchange their chance to break into the middle class for a few crumbs. The poor, who live day by day, see the beer money as a victory and do not associate it with the real cost. They often refer to things from dems as "free." They do not realize that they are paying a horrible cost as a class of people. Dems/socialists in Europe have a much easier time. In Europe people mentally trap themselves in the lower class and all the poor care about is beer money. They don't care about the source of the beer money. I think it is a continuation of European peasant culture. It is a harder sell in the US because too many peasants think of themselves as upwardly mobile or that their children are upwardly mobile. The dems in the US deal with this by bringing out their biggest weapon -- envy. Envy is a whole other subject, but let me just say that it is no coincidence that every majorspiritual/philosophical/ethical model in the history of humankind has opposed envy. Even Karl Marx and early socialists carefully kept envy out of their world views.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Fairness
Tampico
The biggest flaw of the Fairness Doctrine was that it assumed therewere two sides to every story. Most issues have 38 sides. Also, it gave the government the responsibility to decide what constituted a side.
On most major issues I can identify several views:
HHH Liberal (Hubert H. Humphrey) FDR, constituent groups
Marxist Liberal (includes black liberation)
Centrist/Pragmatic Liberal (Clintons)
RF Kennedy Judicial Liberal
Anti-State Libertarian, Hippie Libertarian, Anarchist Liberatarian
Constitutional Libertarian
Neocon Libertarian
Neocon
Social/Religious Conservative
Militarist/Police Conservative
Corporate Conservative
This is ten clear, distinct points of view. There are actually many more and there are also major political figures who have elements of several of these in their views. Also, I made no reference to moderates or centrists or compromisers because I don't know how to describe them accurately. Moderates tend to not have exact philosophies but base their views on finding solutions half way between major contending views. One day they can be halfway between Marxists and Neo-Cons, the next day they can be half way between Klingons and William Shatner.
The biggest flaw of the Fairness Doctrine was that it assumed therewere two sides to every story. Most issues have 38 sides. Also, it gave the government the responsibility to decide what constituted a side.
On most major issues I can identify several views:
HHH Liberal (Hubert H. Humphrey) FDR, constituent groups
Marxist Liberal (includes black liberation)
Centrist/Pragmatic Liberal (Clintons)
RF Kennedy Judicial Liberal
Anti-State Libertarian, Hippie Libertarian, Anarchist Liberatarian
Constitutional Libertarian
Neocon Libertarian
Neocon
Social/Religious Conservative
Militarist/Police Conservative
Corporate Conservative
This is ten clear, distinct points of view. There are actually many more and there are also major political figures who have elements of several of these in their views. Also, I made no reference to moderates or centrists or compromisers because I don't know how to describe them accurately. Moderates tend to not have exact philosophies but base their views on finding solutions half way between major contending views. One day they can be halfway between Marxists and Neo-Cons, the next day they can be half way between Klingons and William Shatner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
