Monday, April 8, 2013
Worse Than They Say
Claire Gordon at AOL on how the number of jobless is actually worse than what is reported in mainstream media. Remember, government records only count those who are without jobs and are actively looking for work. That is, of course, no where near a full representation of the entire demographic. Have a look.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Enemies of Monarchy
They are everywhere, even among the wealthy.
Mr. Matthew has posted a touching tribute to King Charles I for January 30th, the anniversary of his horrible murder at the hands of plutocratic revolutionaries under orders of the kangaroo court presided over by said traitors. And despite what testimony is given by constitutionalist Whigs and even American professors of history, Charles was no horrific tyrant who repressed his people; even his eleven years of Personal Absolute Rule were popular with the commoners as the king attempted political reform to better serve his people against the rising capitalism of land enclosures. The hostile takeover of England by Parliament in the name of fighting against "absolute tyranny" and making a representative government that was representative of whoever the political class allowed representation to was just a rebellion by rich people. It was the Royalist cause, the noble Cavaliers who stayed loyal to their righteous king, who had the interests of the people at heart. The goals of the pro-Parliament Roundheads was to consolidate their power over the crown and lowering their taxes on personal profits. Anyone who knows, really knows, what happened after the execution of the king is where the true tyranny began under the Interregnum.
This is not the only incident of plutocratic antagonism to monarchy. The Constitutional Monarchy in Brazil made the South American nation the hegemon of its continent both economically and politically, with progressive economics and social reform (such as the abolishment of slavery and the push for women's and civil rights). In the very early years of reign, Emperor Pedro I encountered an attempted separatist movement in the northeast spearheaded by wealthy land owners. The secession attempt was not very popular, even in the states that were supposedly to take part in the rebellion, and as such the movement failed. Antimonarchism remained prevalent among the economic elite, however, in particular coffee plantation owners and military officers. The monarchy's end came at the hands of these plutocratic traitors who were outraged when their slave labor was freed; the republican coup replaced the progressive monarchy with a dictator to serve their own interests over the interests of Brazil, paving the way to the glamorized corruption filled republic we know today.
On most monarchist blogs I encounter I often notice (and I am being superficial here... slightly) a trend of staunchly defending laissez-faire capitalism. Granted, I am sure that this is a reaction against the hostility from the collectivist ideals of socialism and especially communism. Dont get me wrong: communist movements have always actively worked against monarchy and are responsible for many, many abolished crowns up to as recently as Nepal's Maoists. And socialists have an irritating habit of always scapegoating the crown over the problems of poverty and national financial trouble; they are idealists just like their opposition, after all. With all that said, this does not mean that capitalists or free market proponents are crown-friendly. Yes, capitalism can be more pragmatic and open to monarchy than economic collectivists, as long as the crown does not interfere with the invisible hand. When that changes, you can count the invisible hand to demand revolution in unison with all the other anti-monarchy demagogues.
My fellow monarchists can keep writing their love letters to capitalism, but I wonder if they will ever realize that the feeling is not mutual. In reality, monarchy has no friends on the economic front. Or ideological, for that matter. Capitalism, communism, liberals, conservatives, their main purpose is to win hearts and minds and stamp out the rest. To them, the crown can either collaborate or be sent to the guillotine.
Mr. Matthew has posted a touching tribute to King Charles I for January 30th, the anniversary of his horrible murder at the hands of plutocratic revolutionaries under orders of the kangaroo court presided over by said traitors. And despite what testimony is given by constitutionalist Whigs and even American professors of history, Charles was no horrific tyrant who repressed his people; even his eleven years of Personal Absolute Rule were popular with the commoners as the king attempted political reform to better serve his people against the rising capitalism of land enclosures. The hostile takeover of England by Parliament in the name of fighting against "absolute tyranny" and making a representative government that was representative of whoever the political class allowed representation to was just a rebellion by rich people. It was the Royalist cause, the noble Cavaliers who stayed loyal to their righteous king, who had the interests of the people at heart. The goals of the pro-Parliament Roundheads was to consolidate their power over the crown and lowering their taxes on personal profits. Anyone who knows, really knows, what happened after the execution of the king is where the true tyranny began under the Interregnum.
This is not the only incident of plutocratic antagonism to monarchy. The Constitutional Monarchy in Brazil made the South American nation the hegemon of its continent both economically and politically, with progressive economics and social reform (such as the abolishment of slavery and the push for women's and civil rights). In the very early years of reign, Emperor Pedro I encountered an attempted separatist movement in the northeast spearheaded by wealthy land owners. The secession attempt was not very popular, even in the states that were supposedly to take part in the rebellion, and as such the movement failed. Antimonarchism remained prevalent among the economic elite, however, in particular coffee plantation owners and military officers. The monarchy's end came at the hands of these plutocratic traitors who were outraged when their slave labor was freed; the republican coup replaced the progressive monarchy with a dictator to serve their own interests over the interests of Brazil, paving the way to the glamorized corruption filled republic we know today.
On most monarchist blogs I encounter I often notice (and I am being superficial here... slightly) a trend of staunchly defending laissez-faire capitalism. Granted, I am sure that this is a reaction against the hostility from the collectivist ideals of socialism and especially communism. Dont get me wrong: communist movements have always actively worked against monarchy and are responsible for many, many abolished crowns up to as recently as Nepal's Maoists. And socialists have an irritating habit of always scapegoating the crown over the problems of poverty and national financial trouble; they are idealists just like their opposition, after all. With all that said, this does not mean that capitalists or free market proponents are crown-friendly. Yes, capitalism can be more pragmatic and open to monarchy than economic collectivists, as long as the crown does not interfere with the invisible hand. When that changes, you can count the invisible hand to demand revolution in unison with all the other anti-monarchy demagogues.
My fellow monarchists can keep writing their love letters to capitalism, but I wonder if they will ever realize that the feeling is not mutual. In reality, monarchy has no friends on the economic front. Or ideological, for that matter. Capitalism, communism, liberals, conservatives, their main purpose is to win hearts and minds and stamp out the rest. To them, the crown can either collaborate or be sent to the guillotine.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Gun-Control Debate: How Americans Exploit a Tragedy
I'm sure you all have heard of the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School that took the lives of 26 innocents, 20 of them being little children. This is the second worse tragedy after the Virginia Tech massacre in terms of body count, but in terms of the victims' age I feel this is much more devastating; being a volunteer teacher assistant at an elementary school myself, I was utterly horrified. It is difficult to imagine this harmless age group being targeted by a lunatic for mass murder, and of all times of the year it has to be with the winter holiday closing in. I cannot begin to imagine the pain that community is going through.
Honestly, I really would rather not give any commentary about this event as I thought there was no need to. But lo and behold, like a scheduled appointment, politics rears its ugly head to exploit this tragedy and turn this time of mourning into a time of argument. Already, the debate over gun control is now the main issue for Americans whether for or against. Every time there is such a tragedy national attention shifts to one half of the country demanding stronger gun laws while the other half makes claims that things could have turned out better if one of the victims was armed.
Personally, I am undecided on gun control; true, the United States has the highest number of firearm related deaths per year by far, but I am not convinced that it is due to high rates of private gun ownership. Switzerland has a very high rate of private gun ownership, and yet their firearm-related death rate is much closer to Japan's (who to my understanding has strict gun control laws) statistics than the US's. What bothers me about the gun-control debate is that after each massacre both proponents and opponents blindly claim the event as the ultimate case for their side. In truth, both sides and the debate itself are all irrelevant. A firearm is nothing but a tool to be used for whatever the purpose. The weapon the murderer used was the absolute intent and desire to hurt and kill. When the will to kill is that strong, a firearm is not necessary; the killer could have easily has made this body count with a samurai sword, a kitchen knife, or a police baton. I wonder where the gun control debate would go if a massacre really did happen with one of those...
Having a firearm did not cause the Sandy Hook killer to go on a murder spree. We have not heard enough about what sent him over the edge (though clearly he chose to attack Sandy Hook due to it being a familiar comfort zone) and made him murder innocent children. It would not surprise me if he was mentally ill; thanks to Reagan the US is now really lacking in the field of mental health. And I will concede: mental illness combined with easy access to firearms is a recipe for disaster. So is mental illness with easy access to anything that can be used as a weapon. Which one is more of a problem?
As for opponents of gun control, they are equally clueless. Their number one argument is always that if one of the victims was armed, the tragedy could have been averted. First of all, this lacks common sense; a firearm at an elementary school? And what happens if the teacher is unaware while a student finds it and starts playing "Call of Duty in RL"? Secondly: a firearm is just a tool. It cannot defend you if A. You know nothing of the tool's capabilities and limitations. B. You have no training and/or experience using it. C. Have been antagonistic to the idea of using it up until when you need to. Even if a teacher had a Desert Eagle .50, she would have hesitated at the moment of truth (or even if she didn't, maybe hurt herself or another innocent) if it was her first attempt at wielding it while under the pressure of saving her class.
Bottom line, both sides are irrelevant. Their only concern is to prove the other side wrong, and thus each and every tragic massacre that happens is their ultimate case in point. How is this not exploitative? Until we start examining the true causes of what creates the will to kill in these crazies will we be able to take steps to prevent another tragedy.
Honestly, I really would rather not give any commentary about this event as I thought there was no need to. But lo and behold, like a scheduled appointment, politics rears its ugly head to exploit this tragedy and turn this time of mourning into a time of argument. Already, the debate over gun control is now the main issue for Americans whether for or against. Every time there is such a tragedy national attention shifts to one half of the country demanding stronger gun laws while the other half makes claims that things could have turned out better if one of the victims was armed.
Personally, I am undecided on gun control; true, the United States has the highest number of firearm related deaths per year by far, but I am not convinced that it is due to high rates of private gun ownership. Switzerland has a very high rate of private gun ownership, and yet their firearm-related death rate is much closer to Japan's (who to my understanding has strict gun control laws) statistics than the US's. What bothers me about the gun-control debate is that after each massacre both proponents and opponents blindly claim the event as the ultimate case for their side. In truth, both sides and the debate itself are all irrelevant. A firearm is nothing but a tool to be used for whatever the purpose. The weapon the murderer used was the absolute intent and desire to hurt and kill. When the will to kill is that strong, a firearm is not necessary; the killer could have easily has made this body count with a samurai sword, a kitchen knife, or a police baton. I wonder where the gun control debate would go if a massacre really did happen with one of those...
Having a firearm did not cause the Sandy Hook killer to go on a murder spree. We have not heard enough about what sent him over the edge (though clearly he chose to attack Sandy Hook due to it being a familiar comfort zone) and made him murder innocent children. It would not surprise me if he was mentally ill; thanks to Reagan the US is now really lacking in the field of mental health. And I will concede: mental illness combined with easy access to firearms is a recipe for disaster. So is mental illness with easy access to anything that can be used as a weapon. Which one is more of a problem?
As for opponents of gun control, they are equally clueless. Their number one argument is always that if one of the victims was armed, the tragedy could have been averted. First of all, this lacks common sense; a firearm at an elementary school? And what happens if the teacher is unaware while a student finds it and starts playing "Call of Duty in RL"? Secondly: a firearm is just a tool. It cannot defend you if A. You know nothing of the tool's capabilities and limitations. B. You have no training and/or experience using it. C. Have been antagonistic to the idea of using it up until when you need to. Even if a teacher had a Desert Eagle .50, she would have hesitated at the moment of truth (or even if she didn't, maybe hurt herself or another innocent) if it was her first attempt at wielding it while under the pressure of saving her class.
Bottom line, both sides are irrelevant. Their only concern is to prove the other side wrong, and thus each and every tragic massacre that happens is their ultimate case in point. How is this not exploitative? Until we start examining the true causes of what creates the will to kill in these crazies will we be able to take steps to prevent another tragedy.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
The New Fad
I'm sure that by now, you have heard of the petitions from just about every state asking for secession from the Union. A mere trend - probably started by disappointed Romney supporters - and I expect that it will die out in a month or two. Most everyone is treating this like a silly gesture, even myself. With that said, I do hate to admit that I seriously considered starting a CA secession petition myself if Romney won (but since he lost, that shame has gone to someone else). I used to be one of the biggest secession opponents I knew of; I considered such a topic to be utterly disgraceful and disloyal.
Have I done a 180 degree turn on secession? Not exactly. Honestly, my faith in Washington has become irreversibly shaken down to abysmal levels and I truly feel that the United States is on a downward spiral that Obama can only slow down rather than stop. The only remedy I can even consider to inspire the radical change we need to salvage society and bring back the days of worker prosperity is to abolish our entire political system and start from scratch. From there, we restructure everything to ensure that the political class is weakened as much as possible; social democracy, unionized and/or cooperative employment, and heck, maybe even a crowned Head of State to block plutocrats from expanding their reach? (I know, that last one is a pipe dream.) California can certainly handle its own, being one of the biggest economies in the world, being an epicenter for trade, cultures, activism, and having one of the last strong middle-classes in the nation.
HOWEVER, I still strongly doubt that full-on secession will solve anything. No one needs to tell me that there are just about as much idiots in Sacramento as there are in Washington; why should said idiots be given more power through national sovereignty? After all, it should be a no brainer about what government the CA political class would establish if given a chance (without even considering alternatives): a rotten, counterproductive, worker-hostile, plutocrat-friendly republic. The government model of the new CA republic will pretty much be the same as the failing system in Washington, and therefore generate the same exact problems. Back to square one...
I honestly don't really give a horse's keyster anymore about disgruntled citizens calling for their state's independence, but I will not offer my support for Cali's independence either. At least, not unless I hear plans for restoring the working class's dignity that does not involve neoliberalism (or even "Austrian" economics) or empowering plutocrats.
Who knows; maybe this comes true, and a crowned Head of State is even thrown in to sweeten the deal. Then the newly independent Empire of California becomes a new bastion of worker prosperity, where the people have the power over their rights and welfare, where politicians can no longer touch education funding, where there are positive icons to follow and the publicity hungry entertainment elite is no longer idolized! A shining beacon along the coastline, showing the world the example to save our society!
But I know I have a better chance of winning the California Lotto. So excuse me, I think I will buy some tickets.
UPDATE: On the Californiality blog, there is an entry that briefly discusses the alternative of Sub-national Sovereignty for the Golden State, which could supposedly benefit both CA and the US. Have a look.
Have I done a 180 degree turn on secession? Not exactly. Honestly, my faith in Washington has become irreversibly shaken down to abysmal levels and I truly feel that the United States is on a downward spiral that Obama can only slow down rather than stop. The only remedy I can even consider to inspire the radical change we need to salvage society and bring back the days of worker prosperity is to abolish our entire political system and start from scratch. From there, we restructure everything to ensure that the political class is weakened as much as possible; social democracy, unionized and/or cooperative employment, and heck, maybe even a crowned Head of State to block plutocrats from expanding their reach? (I know, that last one is a pipe dream.) California can certainly handle its own, being one of the biggest economies in the world, being an epicenter for trade, cultures, activism, and having one of the last strong middle-classes in the nation.
HOWEVER, I still strongly doubt that full-on secession will solve anything. No one needs to tell me that there are just about as much idiots in Sacramento as there are in Washington; why should said idiots be given more power through national sovereignty? After all, it should be a no brainer about what government the CA political class would establish if given a chance (without even considering alternatives): a rotten, counterproductive, worker-hostile, plutocrat-friendly republic. The government model of the new CA republic will pretty much be the same as the failing system in Washington, and therefore generate the same exact problems. Back to square one...
I honestly don't really give a horse's keyster anymore about disgruntled citizens calling for their state's independence, but I will not offer my support for Cali's independence either. At least, not unless I hear plans for restoring the working class's dignity that does not involve neoliberalism (or even "Austrian" economics) or empowering plutocrats.
Who knows; maybe this comes true, and a crowned Head of State is even thrown in to sweeten the deal. Then the newly independent Empire of California becomes a new bastion of worker prosperity, where the people have the power over their rights and welfare, where politicians can no longer touch education funding, where there are positive icons to follow and the publicity hungry entertainment elite is no longer idolized! A shining beacon along the coastline, showing the world the example to save our society!
But I know I have a better chance of winning the California Lotto. So excuse me, I think I will buy some tickets.
UPDATE: On the Californiality blog, there is an entry that briefly discusses the alternative of Sub-national Sovereignty for the Golden State, which could supposedly benefit both CA and the US. Have a look.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
What I'm Happy About
When President Obama was announced the winner yesterday, I did not feel like celebrating. Let's face it, both candidates pretty much believe in the same thing, in spite of all the garbage spewed on the Rupert Murdoch media empire. Obama and the Democrats have shown to be just as neoliberal and jingo as their opponents; elaborating on the latter, Obama's supporters rightfully woe over Romney's desire to attack Iran, but seem oblivious (or even supportive) over Obama's eying of Syria. The question to me was not "will we invade a country in the next four years", but rather "which country will it be".
With all that said, there is plenty I am happy about. With their relentless tactics and growing neoliberal and autocratic extremism, Romney and his supporters needed to lose this election. Although the popular vote was disturbingly close, the Tea Party fueled GOP was dealt the defeat needed to at least slow down our downward spiral.
Yes, I am happy that Romney has lost.
I am happy that Paul Ryan will not be VP, although he will still infest Congress with his horrible bills of Objectivist austerity. And I'm still concerned about his new publicity; positive or negative, it can still be a stepping stone for him to run for POTUS in the future.
I am happy that the Tea Party has taken a few punches in the face with the loss of Scott Brown and Allen West, in addition to not having a Tea Party friendly President.
I am happy that the GOP SuperPACs and their endless amount of money from their corporate leash holders suffered defeat. All that money...
I am happy that all the despicable, relentless tactics used by the GOP to influence voters, OPSEC Team swiftboating, restrictive voter laws, voter intimidation by David Siegel (among others), were in the end not enough.
I am happy that the birthers lost, which is always a treat. Anything that makes Orly Taitz and Donald Trump squirm.
I am happy that the Ayn Rand doctrine of hating those who are not rich has been rejected and will not enter the White House.
I guess there are several things to be happy about. Things could be a lot better; as I mentioned before, the popular vote was far too disturbingly close to be a good sign, and Ryan and Bachmann are still in Congress. However, a Romney win would have been so much worse.
I am not celebrating, there is nothing to celebrate. But I am breathing a huge sigh of relief.
With all that said, there is plenty I am happy about. With their relentless tactics and growing neoliberal and autocratic extremism, Romney and his supporters needed to lose this election. Although the popular vote was disturbingly close, the Tea Party fueled GOP was dealt the defeat needed to at least slow down our downward spiral.
Yes, I am happy that Romney has lost.
I am happy that Paul Ryan will not be VP, although he will still infest Congress with his horrible bills of Objectivist austerity. And I'm still concerned about his new publicity; positive or negative, it can still be a stepping stone for him to run for POTUS in the future.
I am happy that the Tea Party has taken a few punches in the face with the loss of Scott Brown and Allen West, in addition to not having a Tea Party friendly President.
I am happy that the GOP SuperPACs and their endless amount of money from their corporate leash holders suffered defeat. All that money...
I am happy that all the despicable, relentless tactics used by the GOP to influence voters, OPSEC Team swiftboating, restrictive voter laws, voter intimidation by David Siegel (among others), were in the end not enough.
I am happy that the birthers lost, which is always a treat. Anything that makes Orly Taitz and Donald Trump squirm.
I am happy that the Ayn Rand doctrine of hating those who are not rich has been rejected and will not enter the White House.
I guess there are several things to be happy about. Things could be a lot better; as I mentioned before, the popular vote was far too disturbingly close to be a good sign, and Ryan and Bachmann are still in Congress. However, a Romney win would have been so much worse.
I am not celebrating, there is nothing to celebrate. But I am breathing a huge sigh of relief.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
King Abdullah II talks of Mid East peace... Again
The Daily Show with John Stewart once again had the distinct honor of being visited by the royal sovereign of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. King Abdullah II returns to the comedy show to speak of the Arab Spring, Iran's rowdiness, and Jordan's own attempts to stay stable and peaceful.
Have a look.
Have a look.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Debacle of Persian Women
See the Radical Royalist's response to to the Islamic Republic of Iran's recent atrocity of banning their women from universities, as well as comparing the roll of women during the days of the Shah and during the republic. Even with a hereditary succession with male primogeniture, which system is still more likely to produce a female Head of State? Ponder that question, and then have a look.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)