Category Civil Society

Feb 12 2014

Poem Review, The Gods of the Copybook Headings


Just as meaningful today as when written

“The Gods of the Copybook Headings” is a poem written and published by Rudyard Kipling in 1919. Kipling’s editor, Andrew Rutherford said that the poem contained “age-old, unfashionable wisdom” that Kipling saw as having been forgotten by society and replaced by “habits of wishful thinking.” The central message of the poem is that basic and unvarying aspects of human nature will always re-emerge in every society (The Four Turnings of Strauss and Howe) previously discussed on this blog. This is a very fitting piece of artistic work to be inserted here as we are going though what Kipling wrote about almost one hundred years ago again, we have learned nothing.

The copybook headings to which the title refers were proverbs or maxims printed at the top of 19th century British schoolboys’ notebook pages; these books were called “copybooks.” The students had to write the the heading on each page by hand (not print) repeatedly down that page. There were two reasons for the education system (not yet corrupted by the progressives) doing this.  One was to prefect handwriting, for practice makes perfect. The other was to ingrain in the students things that would benefit them later in life.

One hundred years ago as again today we that thrown out all the things that use to be taught which went a long way to make up the moral fiber of a society for example he have the following:

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link
A day’s work for a day’s pay
A fool and his money are soon parted
A house divided against itself cannot stand
The Gods of the Copybook Headings

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Read a previous post listed in my section Civil Society titled “Homeostasis and Civil Society The Destruction of the American Family” for an example of what must be held important along with the dangers of forgetting what works for the sake of personal pleasures as shown is this poem by Kipling.

Feb 11 2014

Why do People Do What They Do?


The Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow, a very famous mid twentieth century psychologist, developed a concept referred to now as Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” in 1943 in a paper he wrote A Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow’s concept was that humans would react to their environment in a particular and structured order to satisfy their internal drives or needs which he called the self-actualization theory.  He further showed this as a pyramid with things like air and water at the bottom and things like personal gratification at the top on the pyramid.

His logic is that air is required for life above all else and therefore that need must be satisfied first.  Next, we must have water and food and then an environment that’s not hostile to us.  Once these basic or core needs are met we get into more personal needs such as love and respect.  These personal or social needs always come after the physical but can become very important if we feel secure that the others have been met and are not in danger of being taken away.  There are the five levels to Maslow’s self-actualization theory.

Level 1 Physiological needs, such as hunger, thirst, and sex

Level 2 Safety needs such as security, stability, and order

Level 2 Belongingness & love needs e.g. affection, affiliation, identification

Level 4 Esteem needs, such as needs for prestige, success, self-respect

Level 5 Self-actualization needs, such as realizing potential

The first two levels of Maslow’s Hierarch of Needs go a long way to explain basic human nature.  For example the movement of Mexicans into the American southern boarder states with Mexico.  The reason being, that differences in the first two basic levels are the reasons for the occurrence of immigration.

From the forward of this book is the fact that the individual will always do what his or her best interest. The logic and theory for this was adequately proven in the book Wealth of Nations first published in 1776 by Adam Smith. And further this is supported by Level 1 & s from Maslow’s work. All attempts to disprove the theory of free markets a central feature of the theories proved by Smith have failed.  They all fail, including the works of Marx and Keynes, because all the examples that are used are not ones where there is a real “free” market.

The second fact, also discussed in the forward to this book is that after many centuries of trying just about every conceivable kind of political or governmental system imaginable we find that there are really only two basic kinds.  The book The Five Thousand Year Leap written by Cleon Skousen gives an excellent explanation on the reasons for this.

The first based on the rule of a single party usually through the leadership of a strongman.  This person could be a King or a President for life and has immense personal power but still must have the support of a group of close confidants that carry out this dictates.  Historically this form of government appears to be the most “common” form of government that has every existed. In this form of government the people exist, only, to support the government, they are subjects.  This form develops from either an attempt at Democracy or form anarchy after the collapse of a government which was until the formation of the United States with its Constitution the only other possibilities there were.

Today the only other form of government that is possible is something new and it is a system based on a set of laws and principles that form the basis for the legitimacy of the government, a fixed constitution.  The U.S. Constitution is the best example of this form being the one that has lasted the longest, so far, since it was designed to be very hard to change. In this system the federal government is there solely at the will of the people and is there solely to protect the people not to rule them. However, there is a great risk here for if this system does not have very strong, not just adequate, checks and balances the politicians will over time turn this system into the government of a strongman, backed by a ruling party.

Why these previous paragraphs are so important is that the principles identified can totally explain the reason for the movement of people from one place to another, be it from one side of town to the other or from one country to another. The movement occurs because of either economic or political restrictions or both on the individual where he or she is and that the individual see’s that he or she can live better someplace else.

If there are no restrictions on movement then the movement will be quick and if there are restrictions the movement will be slowed.  But in either case unless there are significant and insurmountable physical barriers be they natural or man made the movement will not be stopped.

Being a person with a strong technical background it would be logical to be able to put this into a set of principles much like those that are used in science and engineering.  In this case we will use the form used for the explanation of the laws of thermodynamics (which is about the movement of energy – heat).  There are three laws of thermodynamics which we will not go into this is not about engineering. The engineering form (Three principles or laws) used to explain thermodynamics by scientists and Engineers does seem to fit well when also trying to explain the motivation behind the movement of people so that is why it was used here.

The First Law of Motivation can then be stated that the principle factors determining the core of human behavior are predominantly genetically fixed. This is adequately explained in Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs so further discussion here is not needed.  Therefore it can be stated that we are dealing with basic principles of motivation that apply to all humans.

The Second Law of Motivation can then be stated as individuals will move to the place that satisfies the greatest number of their needs in the order explained by Maslow.  Or stated a different way we can say that individuals will always move to a place that allows them to move up Maslow’s pyramid. That flow will be from the least to the most and will be inversely proportional to the strength of the resistance to that flow be that resistance natural or man made.

The Third Law of Motivation is that if there is no individual freedom and there is no opportunity where the person is and there is therefore no way to move then there is no motivation to work or be productive as there is no personal advantage.  This will create a stagnant society where people will only do the bare bones necessities to survive and no more.  Further it will take prodding by the government to get even that done.

The Second Law of Motivation explains why there is and has always been a movement of people into the United States.

The Third Law of Motivation explains why the old U.S.S.R. collapsed when its work force could no longer be coerced into being productive citizens.

The Second Law of Motivation explains why U.S. Citizens almost never move out of the country even when that are extolling the virtues of other political systems.

The Third Law of Motivation explains why in a welfare state there is no incentive for those at the bottom to move out.  All their first level needs are taken care of by the state.

The issue that we face now with immigration legal or illegal is one where the standard of living in the United Sates combined with the higher level of personal freedom that we have makes for a powerful magnet to those not so fortunate.  This is especially true at the border between Mexico and the United States where the disparity is large.  The only thing that has prevented a title wave of Mexicans to enter the country is the desolate land that must be crossed over much of the southern border.  Even still and despite the dangers a high percentage of the hundreds of thousands that start the journey eventually make it across.

The U.S. Mexico border could have been sealed long ago if the government had wanted to.  Would it have been expensive, of course it would have.  That isn’t the question the question is why it wasn’t done.  Three reasons prevent a barrier from ever being built.

One the Democrat Party sees the Mexicans as a source of future votes since they will vote at some time in the future in a higher percentage to them then to republicans’ because of entitlements. 

Two the Republican Party sees the Mexicans as a source of cheep labor and that they could be used as leverage to hold down labor costs for companies. 

Three both saw them (the documented and undocumented) as a cheep source of personal servants to do their menial work and take care of their children. How many politicians have been caught not paying taxes for having au pairs, nannies and other domestic help?

Under President Ronald Reagan an attempt at solving the problem was tried with amnesty and a promise of better broader security. The border security never happened and without securing the border the flow is never going to stop as the Second Law of Motivation explains.  The lure of moving up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was too strong since they, the Mexicans, were on the bottom in Mexico and there was no way they could move down any further, they were already on the bottom, and they also didn’t believe they had any chance to move up where they were.

To stop the flow is not possible but there are two ways to significantly slow it down. One is with a very solid and formidable barrier that makes it very difficult to make it across.  In addition we would need cleared zones, on the U.S. side, that are off limits to everyone so that anyone in them can be detained.  This would require relocating Americans and a significant military presence.  Something like the barrier between the east and west in Europe after WW II is what would be need, only keeping people out not in.  We also know that, that was not 100% effective.

The other method would be to change the differential in the standard of living between Mexico and the U.S. Raising that of Mexico reduces the incentive just as lowering that of the U.S. does. Lowering the U.S. standard is the more practical since raising the standard in Mexico is not what the politicians there want. Either or both minimizes the flow in accordance with the Second Law of Motivation.

If we don’t build a barrier or if we don’t lower our standard of living to be more in line with the rest of the world then we are faced with the problem of having created a very unfair system of immigration.  The reason for this is not enough Mexicans (we’ll use that term for all of Central America) are allowed in nor could there be as we would need to allow many millions in to stop the illegal flow.  And Mexico is not interested in helping with the problem as the flow of people north is a pressure relief on them politically. And besides with the growing Mexican influence Mexico City has a growing influence on policies being established in Washington.

Feb 10 2014

Universal Suffrage


Good or Bad?

Suffrage is the term given for the right to cast a vote.  In a pure Democracy everyone of the established voting age or any other qualifier can cast a ballot.  Then all it takes is for one side to have one vote more then the other side in order to win, which is majority rule.  In addition in a pure democracy all the citizens with the right to vote would vote on all issues directly.  Rousseau wrote about that kind of Democracy in his The Social Contract since he was very familiar with this kind of government from Geneva where he grew up.  Obviously this system only applies to a small area or town.

That direct voting by the citizens on everything has always been considered to be both bad and impossible especially at the Federal level and so when the Constitution was written only men (predominately white) with property were allowed to vote. But that restrictive view was not universal and so a few years later under President Jackson, who believed that voting rights should be extended, they were. Therefore by 1840 universal white male suffrage (and some blacks) was the norm, and nearly all requirements to own property had been dropped.

This expansion of the voting franchise continued unabated until 1971 when by that time all Citizens over 18 male or female and of any race could vote.  Whether that was good or not it was the law of the land through the amendment process to the Constitution (14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments plus various legislative acts).  The United States was the first major country to have full suffrage for women starting with a few states as early as 1869 and completed when the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920.

The problem with this expansion of the franchise was not with any of the various groups that were added but with an ever increasing lack of understanding by the voters on whom or what they were voting for. There were two parts to this:

The first problem was the education system which stopped teaching the principles of government.  This was by far the worst problem for if the Citizens no longer understood their system of government then they could be manipulated by those seeking power.

The second problem was the formation of political parties that took advantage of this and created block voting where it didn’t matter who was running or what the issue was — it was a vote cast only for the party.

With the very lose voter registration process and vote manipulation (this maters a lot when the vote is close) going on today we have created a system where the winner is chosen more by popularity and money then anything that really counts. Who has the best “spin” and/or the most money gets to win today with the TV, radio and the web (social media) as powerful means of communication. An interesting tidbit about the entertainment industry, Plato in his Republic understood that the Arts could influence elections and that therefore they must be strictly controlled so as not to corrupt the Citizens, he would be appalled at what comes out of Hollywood today..

But there is more as we have a representative system of government as the Citizens with the right to vote do not vote directly they vote for Representatives. In the Federal system as originally setup the Citizens voted for someone to represent them in the House of Representatives known as the Peoples house, for obvious reasons.   The House with the Constitutional mandate to prepare an operating budget for the Federal government was given this task so that the Citizens could control the spending since it was their representatives that were responsible for the budget.

This was a much debated system with concerns that the Citizens would find ways to have the federal government find ways to spend money on them, the citizens.  So to counter this tendency the Senate was established (for other reasons as well) and they had to concur with the House on spending bills.

Now the Senate was originally set up to be filled with appointed Senators two from each state.  The logic being that the several states would appoint seasoned and experienced Citizens to these positions.  It was probably assumed back then that these would be wealthy land owners and they would represent the upper class of the country while the House was for the common man.  A check and balance system again.

So with this system both ends of the Citizens were represented the common man and the wealthy man. And they had to work together to get anything done.

But over the last couple of elections cycles this system has been subverted by the Democratic Progressives and the current occupant of the White House Barak Husain Obama the first president that actually instructs the Senate to refuse to bring up House passed Budgets. So instead of doing their job they demand that their spending ideas be taken and no debate is allowed.  The president approves of this process since he does nothing to stop it and instead demands that the House Republicans give him what he wants. This is probably unconstitutional but since the Public education system has produced several generations of students with no real understanding of the process and so the media can blame the House for not giving Obama what he wants. Which is absurd since the House is the peoples House and it is their main responsibility not the Senate nor the Presidents to produce a Federal Budget.

James Madison, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Feb 10 2014

Book Review, Rules for Radicals


A Must read for anyone interested in Politics

This book was first published in 1971 and was written by Saul D. Alinsky a Chicago resident and a “professional” Community Organizer on what he had learned about promoting his views.  Alinsky like many back then was, at heart, if not in practice a Marxist. Meaning that he did not believe in the principles of Adam Smith and instead supported a government much like what the Russians thought they had with their “Central Committee” that would, in theory, take care of all the people of the state; with Karl Marx’s “… from each according to his ability to each according to his need.” This was, after all, a revolution of the Have Not’s against the Haves. Although Alinsky did not actually support the Russian form of Communism as practiced by Joseph Stalin he probably would have been a huge supporter of a pure Marxist system using Max’s views of the Labor Theory of Value and that the masses were held down by the rich and powerful.

Alinsky’s beliefs were very influential on both Hillary Rodham and soon to be Mrs. Clinton and Barack Husein Obama. Hillary who grew up in Chicago would have been 24 when Rules for Radicals was published and though she was in Yale Law school she could very well have meet Alinsky.  Barack Husain Obama would have only been 10 when Rules for Radicals was published and it’s unlikely that he could ever have met Alinsky, however he was a Community Organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree at Harvard. Based on the known views of both Hillary and Barack it’s clear that that they were both influenced very heavily by Alinsky; which makes this book review very important as it gets to the motives of two of our most prominent politicians.

The first paragraph in the first Chapter titled “The Purpose” Begins with “WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Not’s on how to take it away.” Alinsky then tells us that the book is not about “ideology” but about how to take power from the existing system, the Haves, by those that have none the Have-Not’s. This is pure Class Warfare and is based on the premise that the Haves did not acquire their Wealth or Status legitimately but that they acquired it by taking it from those that are now the Have-Not’s leaving some for the middle the Have-Little Want-Mores’. The result of Alinsky’s Change is never discussed in the book it is only about how to make the change.

This logic assumes a Zero Sum game where the “pot’ is fixed and we all fight over who has what percent of it. And further, a just as, legitimate argument can be made that the Have-Not’s are Have-Not’s not because the Haves took what they had but because they are not capable of being anything else but Have-Not’s. Like what happened in the 1917 Russian revolution most revolutions do not turn out well for the Have-Not’s. The American Experience being the one exception, up until now! Since Alinsky read Democracy in America written in 1835 by Alexis de Tocqueville it’s surprising that he had such a jaundiced view of America. But then Karl Marx’s works were very seductive to many intellectuals who did not understand the social dynamics of the period between the American Civil War and WW II. The rebellion of the Boomer generation for which Alinsky supported had little to do with the Have-Not’s and a lot to do with the Bombers’ quest for power and they are also known now as the “me generation.”

In the first few chapters Alinsky goes to great effort to justify what he does and to be honest no one can fault someone for trying to improve the conditions that many live in. Alinsky’s greatest fault was in not recognizing that the differences in American were much less than the rest of the world; so rather than trying to make a reasonable system better he and others like him want to tear it all down and rebuild from scratch.  This process is very risky for just like those that wanted an end to the Russian involvement in WW I and to have a better life, in essence a workers protest that brought down the Czar in 1917 the end was quite different. Instead of freedom they got the Bolsheviks and then Joseph Stalin. Two Chapters stand out in this book “Of Means and Ends” and “Tactics” which need to be understood to appreciate Alinsky.

In the Chapter “Of Means and Ends”, Alinsky justifies the morals of his policies, which is very important to him as he was not an evil man. This is a key Chapter which contains the following eleven justifications which he calls rules pertaining to the ethics of means and ends these are his moral justifications:

One, that one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.

Two, is that the judgment of ethics of means and ends is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

Three, is that in war the end justifies almost any means.

Four, is that judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.

Five, is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

Six, is that the less important the end to be desired, the more one can engage in ethical evaluations of means.

Seven, is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

Eight, is that the morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of immediate defeat or imminent victory.

Nine, is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.

Ten, is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with your moral garments.

Eleven, is that goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” or “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

Alinsky ends this chapter with the following observation which has never really been answered, “Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that true question has never been the proverbial one, “Does the Ends Justify the Means?” but always has been “Does this particular end justify this particular Means?”

Alinsky had more rules and in his Chapter “Tactics” he goes into great detail in explaining the how to achieve the “Ends” which are actually never properly identified other than as a “change,” much like our current president who also promised “Change.” This is a must read chapter if you want to understand Alinsky.

One, power in not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

Two, never go outside the experience of your people.

Three, whenever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.

Four, make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

Five, ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

Six, a good tactic in one your people enjoy.

Seven, a tactic that drags on too long become a drag.

Eight, keep the pressure on.

Nine, the threat us usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

Ten, the major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure on the opposition.

Eleven, if you push a negative hard and deep it will break through into its counter side.

Twelve, the price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

Thirteen, pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Rule “Thirteen” is very important and should probably be number one as it has been used very successfully by the Progressive movement. In Rules for Radicals he also wrote, [t]he job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.'” According to Alinsky, “the hysterical instant reaction of the establishment [will] not only validate [the organizer’s] credentials of competency but also ensure automatic popular invitation.”

There is little doubt that Alinsky’s methods have been hugely influential, since they can be used for any cause; but therein lies the Rub as these methods can be used for Good ends and well as Bad ends. In fact one of the main criticisms for him is that he has no clear Philosophy other than “change” though “conflict” used supposedly to better the lot of Have-Not’s.  In practice this has led to the Have-Not’s being used as pawns in a power struggle between different factions of a society neither of which care a hoot about the Have-Not’s.

Social change can be achieved but only by discussion and debate to achieve a consensus that the change is good and needed. No society in all recorded history has yet found a way to achieve this.

Feb 9 2014

Is a Change in our form of Government Coming?


The Real Reasons for Health Care & Immigration Reform

There are many serious debates going on in the country today, especially as we have an election coming up in November 2014 that could have major implications for the future of the country.  In this off year election, as it’s called, every member of the House of Representatives is up for reelection and 1/3 of the Senate.  The outcome has the potential to change the course of the country for the good or the bad.  There are three possible outcomes: the first is that the House remains under Republican control and the Republicans pick up enough seats that they gain control of the Senate; the second is that there is no major change in the makeup and the House remains under Republican control and the Senate remains under Democratic control; the third is that the Democrats gain control of the House and that they maintain their control of the Senate.

The core issue to be decided is the Obama administration going to be allowed to complete the “Transformation” of the country that he stated after he won the 2008 election and took office. Obama will probably be known, in history, as the least “qualified” person elected to this office out of the 43 that proceeded him, having only the barest minimum specified by the constitution. His reelection in 2012 was more by the incompetent management of the Republican Party than the support for his policies although it must be said that his message of more “free” stuff (Redistribution of Wealth) was very powerful to the underclass which he significantly added to, by the way, during his first four years. The question that begs an answer now is, have the American citizens woken up and are no longer mesmerized by the sweet talking progressive salesperson?

The debate over the unequal end result of life which occurs for many reasons such as heredity, station, motivation and luck has been going on for all of recorded history, some 5,000 years.  The American experience of less than 250 years represents only 5% of that body of political experience.  Many empires and kingdoms have lasted for thousands of years however none of them had a free citizenry.  Only in America had the common man been allowed to do his own bidding not that of some master.  The result was amassing as in less than 200 years we became the preeminent power on the Globe which simultaneously creating a way of life that was the envy of all.  Keep in mind that even considering the programs started in the mid to late ‘30s the Federal government was still restrained by the Constitution and the Bill-of-Rights; so the Federal government cannot claim that all the growth that occurred before that had anything to do with Federal policies.

Not until the late 60’s did foreigners’ began coming here “primarily” for the “benefits” not the “opportunity” that existed here. The massive influx of people from Europe that occurred from after the civil war until the beginning of the Vietnam war came here for the opportunity not the benefits (free stuff) as the benefits did not exist until after President Johnson (LBJ) created them in the form they now are. Unlike previous waves of immigrants today’s immigrants are given special treatment and benefits such as “welfare,” “The anchor baby” and “The dream act” policies that actually give illegal’s more benefits than citizens. Since nothing can ever be totally “free” the existing citizens are paying for this out of their earning (taxes); such that if you can sneak across the border and get here the rest of us will pay you to live here, get health care and get education at no cost to the illegal.  It’s a very good deal for them but not for us.

An argument has been made that we need the workers: but at the same time we are told that the workers we need are technicians, engineers and other professionals that can do the hi-tech jobs of the future. On face there is a very large disconnect here for the majority of those we allow to come here by our policies are uneducated for sure no technical skills and speak no English. In other words there are millions of illegal’s that have no chance of being productive members of our hi-tech society.  Whether their children will be so qualified or not is not the point they are not and for the most part will never be. So on face the propositions before us in Immigration reform are preposterous.

Since we have the Federal Government, which is now controlled by the progressive wing of the Old Democratic Party, telling us that two mutually exclusive ideas must be followed something is amiss.  The need for hi-tech workers does just not jive with bringing in illiterate non-English speaking immigrants. Therefore we can only assume that there are other reasons than those being started. The most likely being that if the existing crop of illegal’s were given any form of amnesty (meaning they could stay here) then it would be a very easy step for a future congress to grant them citizenship.  Since these are predominately uneducated people (no fault of theirs) they will be dependent on the federal Government and vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers.  Even if it would be 60/40 to the Democrats favor it would mean the end of the Republican Party. It would more likely be 75/25 or worse and than the Republican Party would be extinct.

Free health care from the Affordable Health Care act known as Obama Care is now going to add to the draw of third world people to come here one way or another.  No political or economic system can sustain these kinds of policies for long without bringing economic destruction.  By the end of this year the Federal Government will have added $10.0 trillion to the national financial obligations (T-bills are only one form) in only 6 years. Since foreign investors presently pick up 50% of the U.S. debt in the form of T-bills the continuation of this uncontrolled spending trend along with anemic jobs growth will soon make any U.S. investment problematical and some change in our form of government will be required.

When one studies Political Philosophy, especially the classic Greeks i.e. Socrates, Aristotle and Plato one finds that there are only a very few forms of government that are possible. Further there are patterns to transitions between them since no single from lasts for very long.  These “basic” forms are:

A. The people are ruled by one person which can take two forms …

A-1 MONARCHY
One ruler, restrained by law  who tries to serve all the citizens of a state.
Example: Queen Elizabeth the First.

A-2 TYRANNY
One ruler who uses his power for himself or for some special group.
Example: Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

B. The people are ruled by a few people which can also take two forms …

B-1 ARISTOCRACY 
The rule by a small elite of the state’s best people chosen by ability or achievement.
Example: America after the revolution for about 30 years. 

B-2 OLIGARCHY
Self-interested rule by a group chosen for their wealth or social caste.
Example: Post revolutionary France.

C. The people are ruled by themselves which can also take two forms …

C-1 POLITY
The rule by the majority of the citizens but controlled by constitutional law to protect the rights of the minority.
Example: Great Britain or The United States 

C-2 DEMOCRACY
Rule by majority. It uses its power to oppress the minority. Small groups manipulate the masses to get what they want.
Example: Ancient Athens

You can see that the only difference between C-1 and C-2 is a “strong” Constitution” which the founding fathers knew and that was their stated purpose when they created it. Over the past several decades those that desire power but were frustrated by the Constitutional limits decided to get rid of those limits by first instituted a re-education system in the American schools. The tools they used were multiculturalism, political correctness and sustainable energy.  That is now completed and the final transformation is now being instituted with all the talk of the old and obsolete Constitution and according to our current president the need for a “Bill of Positive Rights” meaning what the government can do for you.  The current talk of by-passing Congress with a pen and a phone are also part of this change. The completion of this change in beliefs will move us from C-1 to C-2 which is the opposite of what most would think.

Once this happens, and it is very close right now, according to the Classical Philosophers we move from the “C” class to the “A” class of government. The normal transition would be from C-1 to C-2 to A-2, the transition will be quick and unless the Republican Party will wake up and embrace the “Tea” party the transition to A-2 will be completed by 2020. The reason it will be quick is that it is generally believed that the from C-2 is the most unstable.

There is only one way to stop this transformation and that is for “all” conservatives to band together and keep the House and take the Senate. The goal should be to create a coalition of conservatives in the Senate comprising 60 members. If that could be accomplished than the President could be removed from office by the Impeachment process. Although that would put Joe Biden in office it would be for a very short time and in 2016 a new president could be elected that was not interested in changing our form of government.

However, even if the 60 number could not be reached in the Senate, if the Republicans got the majority, anything over 50, than Obama would have his hands tied to the point that we could at least put changes on hold till 2016 and prevent more damage from being done.

Feb 3 2014

GINI Index Explained


Hard to believe this …

The importance of the GINI index to intellectuals and others of the liberal or progressive persuasion cannot be dismissed. This popular index is used to rank countries as to how good a place to live they are by organizations such as the UN the World Bank and our own CIA. Those of us that believe that the American way of life is the best ever devised by man would place America at the top of any list of countries — American Exceptionalism — is what be believe in. We would however be very, very wrong. The chart below is based on our own CIA’s ratings and it places us way down the list at about 100 out of the 149 rated countries. Places like Cambodia, Uganda, Iran and Macedonia all have better ratings then America. The CIA gives America a GINI of 45.0 and to put that in perspective Kazakhstan has a GINI of 26.7 and that makes them the 9th best place in the world to live (lower is better). How can this be?

gini-coefficient-map1

Most Americans would find this very hard to believe for just using common sense if this GINI index were true why would just about everyone in the world be trying to get into the United States both legally and illegally? For example India with a 36.8 GINI rating is ranked as 59th verses the American ranking of 100th — almost twice as good as America. So based on the GINI rating why would anyone move from a good place to a bad place? If the facts don’t match the theory there is one conclusion that can be made and that is that the theory (rating in this case) is wrong. This should be to no surprise to those of us that have a great distrust of things coming from agencies controlled by those seeking personal power.

One of the core precepts used to make this factious rating redistributing wealth can be understood by looking at what Milton Friedman wrote in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom. The answer can be found in Chapter X The Distribution of Income on page 171 of the fortieth anniversary edition. But first before we get into the explanation we must first understand why the rating exists at all. It’s actually very simple those that desire power need to find ways to justify their desires to the common man. Since America was so far above all the rest of the world they had to find some way to make it seem like it wasn’t as good as “we” thought it was. There was one segment of the Boomer generation that thought they knew a better way to run the country and when their revolutionary ideas failed in the 60’s and the 70’s to take hold in the general population they took a different tack.

The Education System and Politics was their path to the power they desired. Previous generations did not have their beliefs so all they had to do was wait till those that believed in America were retired and/or dead. The strategy was to out live the previous generations and manipulate the younger ones through propagandized education while they moved up in the ranks of the government at all levels. Most of us did not see this shift we were to busy living and raising our families. But we awakened after the election of 2008 put a believer of central planning and socialism in as president of the United States of American. The answer was the Tea Party, which changed the complexion of congress in time to stop further damage but not enough to reverse what was already done. The job needs to be finished this November.

Friedman has written many excellent books on the subject of economics and politics and when you read them you quickly find they are well thought out, the arguments logically developed and the conclusions sound. The issues are discussed putting both sides on the table and then he goes on to prove definitively that the only way to get a truly free and just society is to get government out of the peoples life’s. The key here is the fact that government is run by people and people have personal agendas and those are almost 100% self-serving. The founders understood that and that is why the powers they gave the federal government were so limited.

The opposite of what we have is America is central planning and limited freedom and that is what most of the rest of the world has — but we have seen that it just doesn’t work. Hundreds of million of people were killed in setting up these systems all through Europe and Asia over the last hundred years, and where are they now? These systems all had at their core an economy that was run (directly or indirectly) by their federal government, the names of the systems were different but the practice was the same in each case. We understand that and reject the concept but those that want to rule are clever and they found a way to get what they wanted through the back door while we weren’t paying attention. It started with changing our history and even the definition of words so things seemed to be different than what they really were. Keep in mind George Santayana, who, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Starting in 1913 with the creation of the federal reserve and them in earnest with Social Security and quickly running through The Great Society, Medicare, Medicaid, The Department of Education and many other programs and Departments we now have government (federal state and local) running (directly and indirectly) over 40% of the American economy. When the health care system take over with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010, is completed in a few more years the government will be running almost 2/3 of the economy. When that happens we will no longer be citizens we will be subjects of those that rule us.

Now the explanation of why the GINI index is what it is and how it is used to justify the Federal government taking over more and more segments of our country using every trick in the book and even some new ones as those who desire power transform the country into one that is run out of Washington.

The GINI index has many factors but the one that seems to give many counties a bad rating and others a good rating is the one that measures income disparity between the classes. This factor measures the difference between those at the top, the 1% today, verses those at the bottom, the 99% today. For example lets say the bottom segment of country A earns on average $5,000 per year and the top segment earns $50,000 so there is a difference of 10:1 which is low and that gives country A a high rating. Now we have country B where the bottom segment earns on average $10,000 per year and the top segment earns $250,000 so we have a difference of 25:1 clearly this is a great discrepancy between the top and the bottom and so country B gets a lower rating. Based on those earnings numbers and the resulting GINI rating, policy is developed to reward country A for being good and penalizes country B for being bad. But is this even a valid measure and if it isn’t of what good is it?

Friedman gives an example like this in his book and then explains what if country A has a cast system with no mobility between the classes. This is not speculation many countries have de facto cast systems where if you are born poor you stay poor. These countries are almost all poor economically because of their system of no freedom no private property and a strong central governments run by rulers that have no reason to change anything. He goes on to explain that country B has freedom, private property and limited federal government. This gives the people the incentive to work hard and make something of themselves. Sure some make a lot of money and get to the top and some don’t. But all are better off even with this income spread for the bottom of those of country B have twice the earning power as those in country A. But more importantly those in country B can be born at the bottom and through hard work and effort end up at the top. The upward mobility is the key.

But there is another factor here often over looked. When you graduate from high school or college you enter the work force at the bottom. You maybe making a reasonable amount but you also expect to move up and be earning more later in life. So you are in a lower income group when young and in a higher income group when older. The point is that the people in a free society move up and down the income groupings over time. The top today is not made of the same people from 20 years ago and the bottom is made up of different people as well. Those seeking power and using class warfare try to made us think that people stay in a group all there life — maybe they do in some countries but most do not here.

Clearly we are in country B and most of the rest of the world are in countries like county A; the prove of this is not found in the GINI index but with people that come here because of the opportunity they know is here. They voted with their feet and that is the only vote that counts.

Feb 3 2014

The Dual Nature of Mankind


The Mores of the people and Politics

Something that is both good and bad with humankind is our dual nature; the Asian Yin and Yang so to speak. We on the once side we are ruled by our self-interest doing and acting for our personal betterment to the exclusion of others. A politician passing laws where he can personally gain financial which is morally wrong even if not legal wrong. Then we have the other aspect where we act to help others even when there is no betterment to ourselves. For example we have a soldier falling on a hand grenade to save his comrades knowing he will die. Clearly these are very different aspects of our personalities. Many have studied this dichotomy and written their views on why this is true. The reasons matter not here we accept that they exist and deal with them as our founders did when they wrote our Constitution. So to prevent the former and promote the later we have hard limits placed on the federal government with checks and balances and enumerated powers — negative rights as some like to call them. The former was deemed much more important by our founders than the latter based on fine thousand years of political human history.

The importance of this issue cannot be dismissed and again as our founders understood a system like they created could not work without a moral base in the citizens. They saw religion as the provider of our moral base and they protected that right in the constitution and first amendment by making it impossible for the federal government to establish a state religion as existed in the rest of the world at that time. Contrary to current popular belief the founders made no attempt to take religion out of the government; in fact the opposite was true. This alone proves that the current drive to take religion out of the government is not valid at any level moral or Constitutional. In fact, it could be said that those that seek power are trying to establish a state religion — that religion being secularism — which is a system of beliefs designed to replace other systems of beliefs. To make that change they need to change the mores of the people and that is being done though the education system and the entertainment industry.

Montesquieu in his The Spirit of the Laws written in 1748 discuses the mores of the people extensively but two sections in particular Book 19 page 308 and Book 24 Page 460 in the Cambridge University Press 1989 translation relate to the peoples mores and their government. The issue of the mores of the people is important in politics because as Montesquieu understood the beliefs and customs of the people must be matched by their system of government. If there is a mismatch then there is conflict and if there is a large mismatch there is civil war. For example after the American Revolution the issue of slavery was not settled. The bulk of American people did not like it and wanted it gone as it went against their mores but because America was a republic the states that had slavery wanted to keep it and the issue festered. The Civil War under the first Republican president Abraham Lincoln settled the issue and the government matched the mores of the people for the next 100 years or so.

In the late 19th century in the heat of the transformative industrial revolution Karl Marx changed the mix of beliefs, mores if you will, with his radical theories now called Marxism or Communism. There was much appeal to what was proposed but not for the reasons that were stated by Marx. The intellectuals saw this as a way to reverse the trend to freedom that was transforming Europe at the time; but convincing the people that there was a better way then what existed then was not going to be easy. Further there was a reinforcing belief structure coming from a different direction that gave additional support to this trend on the intellectuals. This support came form the new Existentialism movement; in particular from Nietzsche, in my opinion, who developed his theories shortly after Marx died in 1883. Nietzsche’s writings were in part the concept that there were two kinds of mores — the mores of power and the intellectual aristocrats who had the right of rule and those of the common man, the mores of slaves as he called them who did not have that capacity and were therefore inferior. His writings were very much against religion and also against anything someone tried to claim as a “truth” of any kind even science and engineering. He appeared to be in support of the aristocrats’ as then existed in Europe for they believed only in themselves as the true sovereign man who made his own rules as only he saw fit.

Those seeking power took Marx and Nietzsche’s’ work and merged them into what is now the progressive movement; but they needed more and they got that after John Maynard Keynes gave then the political means they needed in the late 1930s with his theories expounded in his book The General Theory of Employment interest, and Money now known as Keynesian economics. The core of the progressives beliefs are: based on Nietzsche work that there are those that are born better and have the right to rule; then supported on Keynes work that big government was required; and finally on Marx that there was moral justification for doing this. Their only problem was that to get the power they sought they needed to change the mores of the people to accept being ruled. Most of the world agreed with this so that was not their problem. Their problem was America where the beliefs of Marx, Nietzsche and Keynes never took complete hold — the Citizens here were happy not being ruled.

Using the ACLU which was founded in 1920 by those with this belief — that they, the intellectuals, were destined to rule — a campaign was started to separate the Citizens from their government by changing both the government and the mores of the people. The key to achieving this change was to take over the Education system which was accomplished first when they successfully blocked public funding to bus students to public and religious schools in 1947 with the Everson v. Board of Education case and then it was completed when the department of Education was established in 1979. Once they had control of the education system they thought they could shift the mores of the people to accept a larger and larger government. The legislation introduced and passed by both political parties albeit for different reasons over the last ten years in particular has taken the country to the very edge of this transformation.

While religion was being taken out of the schools and the government an attack on the Citizens was also being waged with Political Correctness (PC) and Multiculturalism which were designed to neutralize religion and to show that there was no differences between anyone we are all the same — and for sure, to them, the American system is no better then anyone else’s system. But the sameness they believe in is Nietzsche’s the mores of the slave for the common man; and the no better, to them, is that we should accept being ruled as does everyone else in the world. The moves and the TV shows are full of this message and have been for a long time. Supporting this was a new curriculum in the schools that taught how bad America was so its no wonder that today’s the kids and young adults are confused — for why are people sneaking into America if this place is as bad as they are being told it is?

This manufactured distrust of our free market system gave the progressives the power to say we are trying to change our ways and be more like everyone else and this campaign of misinformation came to fruitions in 2008 with a new kind of president — one that fully indented to transform the country into a form that he believed was better. The one he was taught in the schools of a powerful central government ruling the people — for their own good of course. Unfortunately during the 2008 election no one bothered to ask him what he was going to transform us into and so we now have economic stagnation as we are neither free market nor central planning. And since the move is toward central planning there is no incentive to do anything as it is perceived that the government will be taking over most functions and then even if you did made some money it will be taken away a part of the redistribution of wealth program.

So where are we? Well to use an old cliché we are between the rock and the hard place. The Supreme Court ruling on June 28th tipped the scales of government to central planning; as the ruling affirming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 was constitutional under the power to tax gave gives the legislative branch the power to do most anything they want just as Nancy Pelosi stated during the debate on that legislation. The process of changing the government started in 1913 has now been completed with this ruling. Roberts in making this ruling ignored the constitutional amendment process which was designed to adjust the Constitution when major changes were needed. The American people did not want this legislation and it was done by one political party — clearly this was above and beyond what congress had the power to do, and it was not in the spirit of what the founders intended. Roberts will now be known as the person that ended our republic and turned us into just another European style social welfare democracy ruled by a powerful aristocratic few.

It’s never too late but we are now in the 4th quarter down 14 to 10 on the opponent’s 40 yard line; its 4th down, 9 yards to go and 8 seconds left on the clock. Only a Hail Mary pass to a receiver in the end zone can win the game. Who is going to be our quarterback in 2016? — And who is going to be the receiver? We have many good candidates to make our team; Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio or Alan West whoever it is we need stars that can complete what is needed to save the Republic. To complete that pass and save the Republic we need the Presidency and at minimum 51 Senators as well as maintaining control of the house. Than, that team needs to repeal almost everything that has been enacted since the 70’s; starting on the first full day January 21st 2016 with the repeal of PPACA Obamacare. After that the real work begins — to dismantle all the rest of the progressive transformation.

Feb 3 2014

Homeostasis and Civil Society


The Destruction of the American Family

There is a concept that has been applied to this subject before but in my quick review not in the sense that it could be developed, at least not in my opinion. The concept is Homeostasis which is the property of a living entity to regulate its internal environment such that it tends to maintain a stable, constant condition though a process of negative and positive feedback’s. This allows the entity to survive environmental conditions that are not optimum to that entity. All life as we know it has this property to lesser or greater amounts and those that favor the later expand while those with the former contract. To some degree this has been applied to social systems including humans with terms like social equilibrium but I think that is a limiting term and that applying homeostasis to the human society in its fullest sense would allow us to make some interesting observations. In the distant past that human unit would have been the tribe not the individual; today a small town might be better.

If we apply homeostasis to a human town (also known as a township or county) and use the definition described in the first paragraph of a stable system then we must have these things: first and foremost the ability to reproduce and maintain the system; then we must have the ability to exist in the environment; and lastly we must have a social system that maintains the family unit. The family unit is the key for the individual by him/her self can not fulfill the first requirement and the town can not exist without stable families. All these systems must work together to maintain the town in a form that resolves differences and promotes behavior that is acceptable to the town, the family and the individual. The highest social unit, the town, is maintained by having stable families and the families are maintained by having responsible individuals. Each must understand its purpose in the social structure and work to maintain that structure while adapting to changes in the environment.

To maintain this system in equilibrium there must be a regulating body or bodies and in this case it’s the town’s government. Many terms have been used for the systems used to regulate and resolve issues but we’ll use today’s terms of a Mayor and a Town Council as the most common. Sub systems needed are a means of maintaining order the police; and education system schools; a way to maintain the health of the individuals, medical services; a system of maintaining roads and bridges, public works and lastly a means of providing utilities such as power, water and waste management. Much more is required but the rest can be provided by the members of the town themselves. In the not to distant past small towns could exist almost completely by themselves, obviously today that is not possible but the principle of the town (township back then) as the key human social unit is the justification that was used to form this country and is what resulted in our constitution which limited the federal powers in essence hands off the local communities. These towns, back then, were in a Homeostasis State.

Those born after the late ‘40s and early ‘50s will not remember the “communities” that existed back then — it was a very different world then what came after. The people in those towns took care of themselves with very little help from outside (this discussion is for the social system not the goods and services that are required today and can be provided from outside the social system without destroying the local social system). The schools the police the town council all had one thing in common and that was protecting and nurturing the community — in particular the children. It wasn’t perfect we are human after all but the results were less strife less crime and a moral people. This system worked very well from the time the first settlers got here till say the late 1950’s which would be about 300 years give or take.

However, these towns didn’t exist in a vacuum larger structures were formed first states and then the community of states the country. The establishment of the U.S. Constitution giving preference to local control was the key to the success of this endeavor and that maintained the stable social system that had been developed in the towns. Alexis de Tocqueville understood this when he wrote Democracy in America first published in 1835 after his visit to America. This book is by far the best work ever done on the uniqueness of the American social and political system. Unfortunately, these larger political structures gave a means for those seeking power to game the system using today’s vernacular. These power seekers did not like the true power to reside in the Towns for there were too many for them to control. But there were fewer states and only one federal government so work was begun to move the power from the local communities to the national level. De Tocqueville saw that this could be something that could happen and it did although not for the exact reason he talked about and it took longer then he envisioned.

Because the system of limited federal power the founders established in the Constitution was so strong it was not easy to move the power to Washington. To move that political power would require a change of the people’s mores and that would upset the stable homeostasis social system of the towns. Some would say this was a planned change by those that wanted to rule and to some degree that might be true; however, my opinion like that of Thomas Jefferson is that the concentration of power is a natural thing and will occur on its own without some sinister master plan. This does not mean it is right it just means that the citizens must be educated and vigilant to prevent it. The one thing, in my opinion, that allowed this power shift to happen was a result of the formation of the movie segment of the entertainment industry about 100 years ago in Hollywood. This means of communications was something new to society and therefore no defense to it yet existed, if it were to be used for other than entertainment, which it soon was. Interestingly the possible corruption of the citizens morals by the arts was a serious concern for Plato and Socrates as discuses in “The Republic” in classical Athens almost 2400 years ago.

The key to rising children is a stable family preferable with a mother that stayed at home at least until the children were out of high school. Obviously that can not be done in all cases and many times the husband could not earn enough to support the family to the level the family wanted and the town expected. So many women did have to work but most took part time jobs that allowed them to be at home when the children were home from school. In this system the Children were under supervision almost all the time either at school or at home with their parent or with other relatives. This method of rising children was not perfect but it was better then any before and certainly much better then what we have now with growing government interference at all levels.

Feminism changed all this in the 70’s and much for the worse as women were convinced they should not have children and they should be in the work place just like the men and what children they did have could be placed in day care. This did two things number one it put more people in the work force so that put downward pressure on the pay rates. Number two it implied that rising children was demeaning work not worthy of a progressive woman. But worse the federal government got involved with equal rights laws that dictated that women and other defined minorities be fairly represent in all jobs. Companies had to report to the federal government how many females and other “official” minorities they had employed.

This was a drastic change in the mores of the people and the entertainment industry went into full support of this mores change. Within a few decades there wasn’t a movie being made that didn’t directly or indirectly have this message embedded in it. Worse these changes helped to break up the family structure since women were now independent of men and no longer needed their support (in the movies). And again the federal government stepped in with programs to support single mothers, Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was started in 1935 within the Social Security system but it exploded under President Johnson and was soon under fire for promoting women to not get married and have lots of Children. Many poor families split up with the man becoming a “live in” boyfriend and to maintain the scam he would work in the underground economy for cash and often turned to crime. Within a short period of time the entrainment industry picks this up and now it would be very unusual to see a movie with a traditional family structure. Most show single profession (college educated) women living alone with one child from a failed relationship and their working as managers or executives, often in the government. If a man is even shown it’s in many cases in a derogatory role.

We could go on with the current change to define what a marriage is but that is more discussion then we need. The bottom line is that the traditional family structure that has existed for thousands of years in now in danger of disappearing. If that happens then the mores of the people will have been destroyed and replaced with a belief that only the federal government can properly raise children. We are very close to that now and, in fact, the change has gone far enough that homeostasis of the town is no longer stable we have exceeded the feed back mechanisms that allowed a community to exist. What will replace the family is unknown but if these changes aren’t reversed soon there will be no way to go back to what worked so well in the past.

Today many cities have central cores comprised only of poor single mothers as the head of the home. The live in boy friends are gone leaving the children in such horrible living conditions such that few can even get through high school. Most of the boys turn to crime such that it would be hard to find a young man in a central city that did not have a criminal record. Today there is talk of passing laws that would, in effect, hide past criminal records so these neglected children now young adults could find jobs.

This is a sorry state of affairs for a country like America and I place 100% of the blame for this in the elitism of the intellectuals that wanted power so badly that they were willing to kill the American family so all would be dependent on the federal government. And we are almost there right now.

Feb 1 2014

A Constitutional Republic


Our Form of Government

When the American Revolution started there had been a 500 year debate going on within political theorists that was having the effect of undermining the prevailing validity of the heredity based monarchies’ that predominated Europe and most of the rest of the world at that time.  Therefore western civilization was ripe for a change and that change came from the British colonies in America. Residing there was a group of very special men: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, and Hamilton to name but a few of those that created this new system.

An interesting fact is that if we look at science and engineering for the period 50 years before and 50 years after 1776 we find that is the heart of the industrial revolution.  Mostly in England but also in the Americans we have the perfection of the steam engine, the flying shuttle loom, the crucible process for making steel, the small pox vaccine, the first machine tools, interchangeable parts, the battery and photography all being invented. From there things moved faster and faster resulting in the standard of living that we have today.

Since this was also the period of political economic and legal writing that included the likes of Adam Smith, William Blackstone, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Paine it is safe to say that we are today the result of these men and what they did during that period.

But back to politics and government to find out what was created after the end of the American Revolution with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783.  A few years before that on March 1, 1781 the newly freed colonies begin operating under a loose form of government called the Articles of Confederation described in the first section of this book.

But there were problems with that form of government and so a few years later in 1786 a conventional was called to make changes as was allowed by the Articles of Confederation.  That quickly lead to the writing of the United States Constitution that we now have and that was ratified and put into effect on September 13, 1788.  By April of 1789 the elections had been held the 1st congress convened and Washington sown in as the first President.  The rest is history in the making.

We know most of that and most of us know a little about the form of government that we have but few know why we have what we have.  That is sad for the why is the important part, especially today when some wish to make changes to the form of government that we have that will basically make the Constitution we have an obsolete document.

We know from historical records that there was a significant debate between those wanting a relatively strong central government (Federalist) and a weak central government (Anti-Federalist).  The compromise that allowed for the ratification was the Bill of Rights which was the name given to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  The purpose of these amendments was to ensure that the power (for the serious readers the Sovereignty) stayed as much as possible with the people and the states.

Most of the first eight years of the new government were taken up in forming the government and forming the operating procedures for how it would actually function.  There was little historical help to those that wrote the constitution and those that were elected to run it.  And since the system was specifically set up to be cumbersome in operation with all kinds of checks and balances this was not an easy task.  So why was our government set up to be hard to get things done?

To get that answer we need to look at the forms of government and what you know about them is not necessarily what the first impression is.  If we go back to Locke and Rousseau we see that the power resides in the people and that they, through the ‘social’ contract give some of that power to the government.  The purpose of this ‘social’ contract is primarily for the protection of the people.  But it’s also to set up a system of governance that gives the people the rules (statutory and common laws) that determine the legal basis of how society operates day to day and year to year.

We can see that if there is no government and therefore no law that all the power resides in the people and they are free to do anything that they want.  This is called anarchy.  If we move to the other end as in a monarchy we have the opposite with all the power resting in the Monarch (king, emperor etc).  The people here are subjects with no rights except those that the Monarch grants them.  Today we hear about the right and the left or communism or fascism as forms of government but they are all really the same thing.  Oh there are differences but the important thing is that they all have as their base a strong central government. Which makes them little different than the heretical monarchies that ruled the world for so long.  Different titles and different procedures with or without voting but they all had at their core a ‘ruling class’ that governed the country some with almost absolute power.

Historically most countries ended up with a group that supported the monarch since it would be impractical for one person to run an entire country.  These people ended up being the royalty with a whole range of titles to establish a pecking order.  But even that wasn’t enough to affectively rule as the size of the countries increased and so councils were formed mostly of educated but not always aristocrats mostly with blood lines to the crown, so to speak.  There were various names for these councils such as the parliament in England generally the rule makers served at the Monarchs’ pleasure and were called magistrates.

When the United States Constitution was being written the founders did not want to establish a system like existed elsewhere for they had just finished fighting a long war to get rid of that kind of system.  But what else was there?  Well that is why the work of Locke and Rousseau were so important.  This is not to say that many others didn’t contribute to the thinking of that time but only that these two gave a theoretical basis for a different form of government.

So the task that those attending the constitutional convention in 1787 faced was to come up with something that was not a monarchy and not anarchy.  Something in-between the two that would give the people soon to be called citizens their freedom but yet allow for the protection of the people through a federal government. To get a better understanding of this process one of the best books written is The Five Thousand Year Leapwritten by W. Cleon Skousen.  First published in 1981 and then again in 2009 by American Documents Publishing.

The system that was set up here was deigned to fall between anarchy and a monarchy and be anchored there with strong controls and limits on what power the various governments’ power centers had.  There were Local, County, State and Federal systems each with a defined and limited ability to make laws.  Further, since their biggest concern was the Federal system it was broken up into many sections to defuse the power for they knew that the tendency would be for power to concentrate and once that accrued the form of government they had set up would be lost.

The purpose for all the checks and balances and splits in power and states rights and individual rights and the electoral system of determining the president was to prevent the concentration of power in the federal government which would inevitably lead to the Citizens be turned once more into subjects.

John Adams, “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have … a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the character and conduct of their rulers.”

Feb 1 2014

Book Review, Fourth Turning an American Prophecy


This is a must read book

There was a book written and then published by Broadway Books in 1997 titled The Fourth Turning an American Prophecy that was written by William Strauss and Neil Howe. There is also a web site available today for those that want the details of the book, just Google The Fourth Turning.  This section on social behavior is taken from the information contained in that excellent book.  These are not my ideas but after reading their book some thirteen years ago it is my belief that Strauss and Howe were 100% correct in their analysis.

This book is about people and how they collectively interact and respond to current events. This is not about “economics” nor is it about “government” and “politics” but it is how the people see and respond to those three always hot subjects. The key premise in the book is that “social” time is not linear.  So if “social” time is not linear then it must be cyclical and if it is cyclical then there must be a pattern to the cycles. Or another way of looking at this is that there are observed patterns of social behavior that seem to repeat themselves. Many philosophers have seen these cycles or patterns and many have written about them from various aspects.

Many of those that study these subjects have seen that large groups of people raised in a society seem to follow a common thread through life.  They are identified by words like a generation or a cohort and despite all the differences that exist between the individuals within a generation there do appear to be a common mood among them. The authors gave names to these generations, some of which we are familiar with. Currently we have the Boomers and the 13er’s and a few GI’s still around. My generation the old Silent generation lives up to its name as hardily anybody today knows that they fall between the GI’s and the Boomers. The authors of the Fourth Turning have done an excellent job of summing all the previous work on this subject going back thousands of years and giving the patterns logical sense.

The authors have found that all the previous work could all be summarized and brought together into one common line of thought or theory which they call the Four Turnings.  The Four Turnings, called a Saeculum by the Romans relate, according to the authors, to four repeating patterns that occur as a result of the four repeating generational “moods.” These social “moods” are based on how a generation or cohort was raised and is given an archetype name by the authors.  These archetypes follow one another in an almost unbroken chain going back well over 576 years now (from 2011) to the period of the English retreat from France in 1435 – 1459 which was a ‘crisis’ and both the end of the previous Saeculum and the beginning of the new one for them.

Since a generation is normally between ~20 and ~25 years long, four generations in a cycle make for a repeating pattern of between ~80 and ~100 years. However since the American civil war the pattern seems to be shortening.  That does coincide with advances in technology which maybe the reason. The Saeculum, and the archetypes (identified by Strauss and Howe) match well with what we can see looking back in time by studying the writings of the various periods. These behavior patterns or social patterns are historically well documented in the writing of the various periods. By the way the Saeculum is also the length of a long human life.  What this means is that there are few people alive at the end of a Saeculum that have first hand knowledge of the Last crisis.  Just like today where those GI’s still alive and who fought WW II as the privates and junior officers are now all well over 85 and all the leaders of that period are long gone.

We have now identified several elements that will need to be explained, however it should be noted that they are all interrelated and exist as a unit.  They can not be looked at individually outside the context of the “pattern.”  Keeping that in mind the Saeculum is the pattern. The Saeculum is made of the four possible combinations of Archetypes that can occur.  The Archetype is the reoccurring “mood” that results from the existence of the pattern contained in the Saeculum.  So the very existence of the current Saeculum is a result of the ‘crises from the previous Saeculum.

As defined in the previous paragraph a Saeculum contains four reoccurring patterns that start with the resolution of some Crisis. The authors have identified these four reoccurring patterns as a High, an Awakening, an Unraveling and a Crisis.  When the Crisis ends it is normally the culmination of some major defining war.  The last defining war was WW II which ended the Great Power Saeculum in 1945.

The change from one stage, or pattern, to the next the authors call a Turning hence the use of Turning in the name of their Book.  The other word used in the title Fourth comes from their prediction that in the early ‘00s we would enter into the Fourth Turning of the current Saeculum, which they call the Millennial Saeculum.  These are the four periods identified by the authors and the change from one to the next is the Turning they talk about.

The First Turning results in a High, an upbeat ear of strengthening institutions and weakening individualism, when a new civic order implants and the previous old values regime then in decay.

The Second Turning results in an Awakening, a passionate era of spiritual upheaval, when the new civic order comes under attack from a new values regime.

The Third Turing results in an Unraveling, a downcast era of strengthening individualism and weakening institutions, when the new old civic order decays and the new values regime takes hold.

The Forth Turning results in a Crisis, a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the new values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one creating conflict.

These periods or moods create in society a particular way that the children of that society in that period of time are raised; the critical period for those children is the first 5 years of life.  That in turns creates, in those Children, a way that they look at things. Each of the generations born in the past 576 years has been born into one of these four identified periods, which were just explained.  Depending which one they are born in they become one of the four possible archetypes identified by the authors.  This pattern of beliefs that they have for life is based almost solely on the “social” events in play when they are born, they are:

A Prophet generation is born during a High, grows up as increasingly indulged post-crises children, comes of age as the narcissistic young crusaders of an Awakening, cultivates principle as moralistic mid-life’s, and emerges as wise elders guiding the next Crisis. Today these are the infamous Boomers who are now in control of all aspects of America from government through Industry the very institutions that many of them tried to destroy in the ‘60’s and early ‘70’s. Profits bring change. Since Teddy Roosevelt there have been 7 Profit Presidents.

A Nomad generation is born during an Awakening, grows up as under protected children during an Awakening, comes to age as the alienated young adults of a post-Awakening world, and mellows into pragmatic mid life leaders. These are the Generation X or the 13th Generation (13er’s) that are now taking over mid level positions in Government and Industry.  Nomads make pragmatic leaders. Since Teddy Roosevelt there have been 2 Nomad Presidents.

A Hero generation is born during an Unraveling, grows up as increasingly protected post-Awakening children, comes of age as the heroic young team workers of a Crisis, demonstrates hubris as energetic mid-life’s, and emerges as powerful elders attacked by the next Awakening.  These are the born but yet to be named cohort, maybe the Millennial’s, that are the new Hero’s that like their older counter parts the GI’s, are going to be the ones that straighten out the mess that is coming. Hero’s bring stability. Since Teddy Roosevelt there have been 7 Hero Presidents.

An Artist generation is born during a Crisis, grows up as overprotected children during that Crisis, comes of age as the sensitive young adults of a post-crisis world, breaks free as indecisive mid-life leaders during an Awakening, and ages into empathic post-Awakening elders. Artists make for compromisers. Since Teddy Roosevelt there have been 3 Artist Presidents. These children have yet to be named as they are only now being born.

The four generations making up the Saeculum, as listed above, are also derived from the four cycles of life as the people grow from childhood into Elderhood. However, since the time of the Romans when four periods of life was considered the normal advances in medicine and public health have allowed more people to survive beyond Elder hood and so the authors added a fifth category which they call Late Elder hood.

We are seeing some of the issues with that, “extra life,” now with things like the rising costs of medical treatments and the costs of retirement; Social Security and Medicare. Although specific ages have been given here they are not fixed by any means and there is a fair amount of variability to them which gives the 80 to 100 years length to the Saeculum. Although identified the Late Elder hood grouping is not shown in their analysis but if advances continue especially those that keep an Individual mentally alert longer this four period Saeculum of the authors will no longer be valid.  That may actually be good for the remembrance of past crises may help to prevent or at least mitigate future ones.

Childhood (pueritia, ages 0 – 20); social role: growth (receiving nurture, acquiring vales)

Young Adulthood (iuventus, ages 21 – 41): social role: vitality (serving institutions, testing values)

Mid life (virilitas, ages 42 – 62); social role: power (managing institutions, applying values)

Elder hood (senectus, ages 63-83); social role leadership (leading institutions, transferring values)

Late Elder hood (ages 84 plus); social role: dependence (receiving comfort from institutions, remembering values)

The current split, or polarization, in the country is a result of the Boomer generation (The Prophets) moving as they grow older into all the key power positions in the government and the private sector.  They are both the liberals and progressives and they are also the conservatives and the Tea Party and since they are all Prophets they will feel very strongly about their beliefs and much like what happened during the American Civil War it is very, very likely that this split will result in a second American Civil War.

The Profits are very prone to become involved in causes and in many cases they do not see the ramifications of what they do.  For this reason the following thought was developed

David Pristash, “Passion of purpose does not constitute correctness of thought.”

Another civil war would be bad enough but throw in the Muslim issue with the War On Terror (WOT) that is now the “Overseas Contingency Operation” and the growing presence of Chinese influence and there is no telling how bad things could get if America turns to internal fighting.  Given that it’s American military power that keeps many of the word rouge states in line, taking that deterrent away spells big trouble for many parts of the world.

One last comment here that is my idea not found in the book, at least as I remember it. A strong case can be made that there are two primary drivers at work here.  The Hero archetype that builds a new social structure and then Prophet Archetype that tears it down.  In-between we have two secondary archetypes the Nomads and the Artists whose purpose it would seem is to mitigate the effects of the other two since they fall in-between them on both sides.