Archive for Tea Party

6 Aug 2013

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , on August 6, 2013 by spinoza1111

The bully claims bullying when he seeks the “right” to bully as part of free speech: this is the essence of this comment at this page, reproduced below in the event it’s not posted, which now is likely. I have for some time engaged this Tea Party site’s members, especially its moderator Carnow32 (? may have screwed up his id, so check it) in civil debate but it’s becoming uncivil, and increasingly, my contributions are not accepted.

Basically, it’s becoming unreasonable to pose as the bully to obtain the bully’s pulpit. It’s only reasonable to ask for civil entry into a civil debate.

I do not pretend to be always civil. I respond at times with incivility and uncivility too, and by putting the boot in as needed. This is because the Internet has been long infested (to my considerable surprise) with little lower middle class people and Scuzz McNastees of the clerical type who use their anonymity to evade their personal issues and I can’t stand them…they remind me of myself had I taken the road not taken.

That’s the position I try to make and to defend here.

Response to Tea Party Site Missouri Tenth re: “Rights” and Bullying

If your desire is to enact novel laws that punish homosexual conduct and abortion, or to re-enact laws that in the view of many punish homosexual conduct and abortion in extravagant ways, then you’re not being “persecuted”: the bully being restrained from punching someone by bystanders is not being bullied or persecuted. The Salem witch-burner isn’t being persecuted by someone who seeks his restraint in order to save women’s lives. The women are being persecuted.

In many jurisdictions, the laws against homosexual conduct and abortion are extravagant, novel and extreme: in Indiana and Texas, especially, absurd legislation has been passed by Republicans in state legislatures in order to win votes, legislation that shows a disturbing ignorance of the Constitution, especially its “Reconstruction” amendments numbered 13 through 15 which ban slavery (including unpaid labor, of the sort that is increasingly fostered in high tech by way of underpayment for actual hours worked), and which specify equal protection of the laws.

I conclude that you seek the position of persecutor and burner of witches, the Malleus Maleficarum or “Hammer of Witches”. The burning of witches (and the genocidal King Phillip’s War against Native Americans) was a feature of what scholars are calling America’s Dark Age, and I accuse you, oh I do accuse you, of seeking its return to get your rocks off in dominating women and persecuting “gay” males who turn you on, and with whom you cannot deal for that reason.

Women won’t sleep with you and gay males turn you on when they wear Eighties length shorts. Therefore you seek to return to the 1950s: back alley abortions and murder of gay men, and simillar praxis. You just FEEL persecuted. The women are persecuted.

Change Record

7 Aug 2013 Missing essay restored, my apology
7 AUG 2013 Lede paragraph changed

Advertisements

Capitalism is the problem: further notes to my Nullifying friends

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on January 7, 2012 by spinoza1111

Edward G. Nilges, “Handbill on the Release of Aung San Syu Kyi”, pencil, pen, wash, computer modifications, 2011

“Almost extinct today is the personality that seizes and holds, far more prevalent is the whiner who demands.”

You don’t have a realistic idea of what people really are. Although civilization is much more than a “veneer”, underneath it we’re monkeys and we smash and grab. And politicians like Santorum who do it in the name of religion are the worst.

That’s why the Founders designed the balance of powers. Congress SHOULD pass all sorts of silly laws if that’s what the majority wants. The Executive can indeed choose to not carry them out, or add “signing statements” as has Obama to NDAA, declaring that it does NOT override Constitutional protections (its wording was obfuscated by the mess made in its drafting of a divided Congress and does NOT clearly override the Constitution).

The SCOTUS can and in Marbury has long taken power to be the final arbiter of what is Constututional.

Nobody gives you sovereignty. As people, you must seize it, preferably by use of the political process but also on the job.

Mitt Romney, starting with the incredible advantage represented by being the Fortunate Son of a powerful father, has become a wealthy man by buying healthy companies, using their health to max out their credit, and then driving them into bankruptcy while retaining the profits made during the credit expansion through a separate holding company.

You say “capitalism isn’t the problem” but this is what it has become. To make a profitable product you must today drive down costs by hiring rural Chinese to do the work. Therefore, members of the elite have long sought instead the almost metaphysical ability to divide corporate realities into parts…the part making the product and dealing with the real world, and a separate part to siphon off the money.

Brood on this, mah brother. Ponder on how often you see Get The Money, Inc., in a partnership with Make The Stuff.

Government isn’t responsible for this EXCEPT for the fact that it fails to REGULATE this. But (cf. Chomsky’s book Manufacturing Consent) the discontent at the failure of the United States Government to meet its Constitutional obligation to Provide for the General Welfare can be morphed into “throw the bums out” in a sequence of public relations steps.

I taught at Princeton. My Mom was over the Moon about that. But these weren’t the college credit classes that I was also taking. No, I simply taught the nuts and bolts of the C programming language because unlike lesser institutions, Princeton would not teach baby classes (the most basic class in Math was Calculus) and at the time required prospective majors in Computer Science to know C.

Many of the majors in CS sought jobs just outside full banking regulation in financial speculation because only a sucker thinks he can get superrich, either by making things, designing things, or even responsibly selling real equities and real bonds. Instead, since the 1980s, high tech has been used to circumvent regulation. For example, flash trades can be made in nanoseconds by extremely efficient C code which will undercut your competitors whose software people use Java.

“Dark pools” can be formed of insider investors outside the oversight of the SEC. And the key to getting in on this action? Having a Dad who sent you to Princeton, playing sports with other Fortunate Sons.

It is true that the best of the Princetonian CS majors I knew stayed out of this game. One became an executive at Microsoft which insists not only on producing real stuff but also on paying its people, which is why its software is proprietary. But the guys who didn’t like me (and tried to hack my accounts and were caught by the Microsoft paladin), they believed in dog eat dog.

Capitalism is the problem dude. It is tyrannizing our minds more efficiently than any military government such as the one in Burma because in our more complex society, people need to self-regulate, in a good or a bad sense. The good sense is called “civilization”, and the bad sense is commodified anhedonia.

Two Tests: a Response to the Nullifyin’ Varmints

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on December 18, 2011 by spinoza1111

This is a response to an absurdity from my friends at the Nullifyin’ site Missouri Tenth. They are good people. Some of them descendants of the Germans, the “48ers” who came to America after the failure of the Europe-wide revolution of 1848 and who were Union men. But owing to mass media and, I will say, the damned 1960s teachers, these boys can be DUMBER THAN A BOX OF ROCKS. They have been deprived of all culture and history.

A Test in American History

Take this American History test

If you do not get a passing grade (60%) do not post on politics or American history on the Web until you have taken a class in American history, and passed it, or read at least TWO good general histories of the USA such as Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States (on the left), Charles Johnson’s A History of the American People or A Patriot’s History of the United States (on the right), or some or all of the volumes of The Oxford History of the United States (in the center).

I took the Harrisonburg test. My score was 97% although I’ve been out of school for years. I’m a bit weak on African-American history since it wasn’t taught when I was in school, although I’ve read some general African-American histories available at the Chicago Public Library and an African American bookstore near that library.

No whining. No claim that the test is “biased”. Prior to the Civil Rights movement, tests WERE biased: we’ll see that in the next section of this post. You punks don’t know bias.

In fact, the very idea that knowledge itself is flawed and used against one, the general form of the conspiracy theory, is the delusion of the world-historical loser, including Adolf Hitler after he hosed his examination for art school and Hong Xiuguan who in China flunked his examinations for the Imperial civil service. Hitler we know: Hong Xiuguan decided that he was Christ’s younger brother, and ignited a civil war.

It is a typically, modally, wearily male reaction to loss that is preferable, if you’re a loser, to facing, in Karl Marx’s words, the real conditions of your life and your relations with your fellow men, with sober senses. That’s preferable to the alcoholic’s moment of truth…Missouri Tenth is an exception, but many of the sites it links to are so absurdly freighted with advertisements for scams and bunkum, of the sort that appeal to losers, from “buy gold” (at its peak) to “get rich through foreclosure” (on misery in other words) that they run too slow.

By making absurd proclamations founded on ignorance of American history, stealing the Black man’s truth, that there WAS a real conspiracy against him, you have attacked the very foundations of knowledge, because today, anyone thinks their fantasy is as good as another’s.

The Fourteenth Amendment was NOT based on Christianity, for Christians ranged themselves on both sides of the slave question, and Judaeo-Christianity of the Bible speaks on both sides of the question of the equality of man.

The Old Testament advances a tribalism and the insane notion of a Chosen People which many Americans use to fantasize that THEY are really “chosen”. Jesus Christ on the other hand told his Apostles to “go and teach all nations” and St Paul concluded that in Christ, there is neither slave nor free. In Judaeo-Christianity, the locus of “tolerance” is spotty: it appears in some of the prophetic books of the Old Testament, in the Gospels to some extent, and in some of the Epistles.

It appears not at all in the insane ravings of the final book. It appears not at all in the text “slaves obey your masters”.

You’re destroying knowledge, people. In the 1960s, Irving Stone, in writing a historical novel about Michelangelo, thought it necessary to travel to Rome, read Michelangelo’s letters and consult historians. The novel and film “The Agony and the Ecstasy” was squarely based on solid, time-consuming, and costly research.

In the 1990s, Sylvia Nasar of the New York Times contacted me and many of my Princeton co-workers to learn the truth about John “A Beautiful Mind” Nash and her book of that name was based solidly on this research. The film took only minimal liberties about which its directors were very clear; it omitted the role of Nash’s access to the Internet through Information Centers in which I worked and made his aural delusions visual.

But, the book and film Da Vinci code were a cheap and rotten little fantasy which mostly aided the world-wide American and Protestant attack on Catholicism. Dan Brown’s “research”? Oh, just because St John has long hair he was a woman…in da Vinci’s era when most Italian youths sported long hair!

The destructive film director Ronald Emmerich, who in Independence Day satisfied the secret American lust for destruction by showing the destruction of the Capitol, is releasing a film based on the ABSURD proposition that Shakespeare didn’t write the plays collected in the First Folio, and the few other plays published in quarto form under his name.

And here you clowns FANTASIZE about American history and politics while not being able, I am certain, to pass the Harrisonburg or any other American history test.

Mike Godwin, with whom I debated online at a 2000 colloquium sponsored by Princeton University Press, is deluded. The probability of comparison to Hitler, or Hong Xiuguan, converges on the Internet to unity because Hitler’s pre-WWI personality has been generalized, and the personality of the Chinese boy who thinks he’s a Little Emperor.

Hitler was like the modern twenty-something who’s flunked his examinations and whose mother encourages him to believe this was someone else’s fault…a conspiracy. Hitler and the Starbucks raver both fail to look at themselves and rave on about conspiracies. They reject knowledge because they can always claim, of an Inconvenient Truth, that it’s the product of some academic “liberals” or other slicksters.

That’s why the “Hitler videos” on YouTube are the truth. By failing to face the truth of the Holocaust, there’s a danger, that Auden saw on Sep 1 1939, that we’re becoming him.

Harvard’s 1869 Admissions Test

Now, let us take a look at this test.

It is Harvard’s admission test from 1869. I took two years of Latin and no Greek, and can answer one or two Latin questions. I can guess a few things about the history part, which is focused completely on Greece and Rome: the “Ten Thousand” seem to me to be the army in Xenophon’s Anabasis, and if Leonidas was a Spartan, then perhaps Pausanius and Lysander were as well.

I can grind through the very difficult math…but the babyish SAT procedure which I was forced to teach by The Princeton Review (that of plugging in constants) is no help. You have to use, as I discovered in university math, not only math but also logic, and “logic” is no longer taught, as it was when I taught it in 1973. A professor at Hong Kong Poly told me last year that “logic” is a forbidden word at her institution.

No woman could pass this test in 1869 since pre-university education for ladies excluded most Latin and any Greek. Abraham Lincoln would do well at the history and math but did not have enough Latin or Greek. US Grant (who was in the bottom of his class at West Point) would be too hung-over.

Custer would probably have done poorly at the math (I base this, admittedly, only on his failure to assess his numerical inferiority at Greasy Grass: “gen’ril, there’s a power of Indians behind that Coulee”).

Robert E Lee would have done well. The test is of course designed for men of the upper classes whose parents had the money to educate them. It was expensive to even create: note that the Greek questions were carefully written out in longhand by a person known, in 1869, as a “scrivener” (portrayed in Melville’s short novel Bartelby the Scrivener), since printers did not, it appears, have the technology to print classical Greek in the USA.

Even in 1987, Princeton’s classics department informed us in Information Centers that the costly IBM font for “Greek” was the “Greek” character set for engineering, not classics. This may have led to Apple’s creation of a usable character set for classical Greek.

Missouri Tenthers should note one interesting thing about the Harvard test.

“And no religion too.” – John Lennon, Imagine

There’s no religion on the test. Many Missouri Tenthers believe the utterly false proposition that before the 1960s, Americans were all “religious” and then ripped off their clothes and became a horde of Satan, saved by the election of Reagan.

In fact, starting long before 1776, men stopped running their mouths about religion in Europe and the USA, and educated men replaced the religious discourse of the 16th century with the discourse of Greece and Rome. Latter-day fools who call themselves “historians” can indeed root about amongst the minor characters of the American Revolution to find subaltern figures who didn’t wear wigs, and dressed homespun, and these characters did indeed use religious discourse.

This was because, as we see in the Harvard examination, that the educated, whose fathers had the money to send them to Harvard and Princeton, read the classics. It was also because, commencing in England around Shakespeare’s time, men who wished to write found that they were well advised to stay away from religion: after Calvinism, doctrinal precision became so important that any error could get you burned at the stake.

This is why no play of Shakespeare is about a religious topic, despite the fact that Shakespeare saw the old English “mystery” plays performed in his boyhood. Religion of course appears: but religious zealots (such as Shakespeare’s Joan of Arc as portrayed in Henry VI part 1) are villains: Richard III pretends to be pious: and the late romances take place in pre-Christian Greece, Rome and Britain.

This was part of a great and very good EVOLUTION. The United States is the most religious country in the world, and its many different churches, temples and MOSQUES (suck on it) do great good, because the elite learned to zip it about religion…in part by getting a CLASSICAL education which taught virtue and courage as part of the natural law.

And I tremble for my country when I realize that the absolutely last United States political family to get anything like a classical education were the Kennedys.

John F Kennedy presaged Reagan’s “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech of 1985 in 1961, when Kennedy said “the proudest boast of a Roman was ‘civis Romanus sum’: today, the proudest boast of a free man is ‘ich bin fine Berliner'”. JFK pronounced “civis” correctly because his father’s millions sent him to Andover, Princeton for a year, and Harvard.

In the last month of his life, in 1968, his brother had to announce, to an African American crowd, the news of Dr. King’s death. Robert Kennedy quoted Aeschylus, pronouncing Aeschylus’ name correctly: “peace comes through the awful grace of God”. Reagan would have found a way to blame Dr King for getting his fool ass killed because classical models gave educated Americans a way to talk about suffering without blaming the victim in some sort of Old Testament way!

Robert Kennedy had read Aeschylus’ Prometheus about the necessary wrong of revolution: but for idiots like Reagan, Christian America was the only game in town: therefore to call it to account, as did King, was to have a secret character flaw.

Today, politicians live in a world of garbage as seen in the Mike Judge film Idiocracy: Gingrich raves and gibbers about science fiction and Romney promises “economic growth” failing to see that he and his useless family are associated with the destruction of Michigan’s industrial base. Mike Judge was not far wrong, except for the fact that the Dark Ages have already commenced. Historians may date them to March 2003 and the American invasion of Iraq. The Sack of Baghdad may be their Sack of Rome for describing the start of The Thousand Years of Darkness.

Two tests. I only got 97% on the modern American history test and if I tried the Harvard test I would not pass. My father would do better on the Harvard test but might have hosed the African American questions on the modern test. I am confident based on the posts in Missouri Tenth that you punks would get close to zero on both. And your failure on the Harrisonburg test means you should not post about American history or politics.

A lot of over-mothered punks whine, stealing the discourse of the 1960s, about bias. So make a Hitler Video instead of writing about politics.

I’m 62. Sure, a lot of old codgers have always raved about degringolade. My great-grandfather spoke like Teddy Roosevelt of the coming war of color at one end of the Thanksgiving table.

The problem is twofold. Sometimes, those old codgers are RIGHT, such as some old codger at the end of the fifth century AD. And sometimes they speak within a long decline, like Spengler or my Pop, and they are RIGHT.

On the Founding Fathers and “Religion”: a Response to the Tea Partying Nullifiers

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on November 26, 2011 by spinoza1111

This response is under moderation at the Missouri Tenth site: it answers a post that tries to maintain that the Founders were Bible folk.

The good people at this site (and they are good if at times those boys can be dumber than a box of rocks) continue to permit me to have my say and continue to be more tolerant than Chomsky. But I sense some movement. I think Occupy Wall Street is what they really want but were diverted and deluded by the well-funded Tea Party movement.

Well, I do agree that “end times” thinking prevents Christians from taking care of the future. For example, why pay taxes for public schools OR tuition at charter schools if you believe we live in “end times”? Why make provision for public goods or private goods? So we agree on something.

However, your myriad quotes, which try to show the Founders as Fundamentalist Christians, are copied and pasted without historical insight from Web sites which advance the false idea that we are or should be a Christian and Protestant country.

Note what Adams is really saying, first of all. He is saying that Christianity is essential to the survival of the new Republic: “Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free governments, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society. Science, liberty, and religion are the choicest blessings of humanity: without their joint influence no society can be great, flourishing, or happy.”

This view was derived from Hobbes, who was not an orthodox Christian although a preacher. It is the “utilitarian” view of religion that is espoused today by upper class Anglican believers in Britain. Hobbes believed that the common folk needed religion so they would obey the secular power, and Adams, in the Congregationalist branch of the same tradition, believes the same, with the addition that religion would cause Americans to obey the only political party of the late 18th century in America.

This was the pro-British and anti-French Federalist party, to which opposition formed only after 1795, when President Adams overreached himself. Adams was horrified by events in France.

An understanding of these events is something you need, badly. In France, there were no Protestants to speak of, since at the end of the 17th century, King Louis XIV had “revoked the Edict of Nantes” which had about a hundred years before allowed French “Huguenot” Protestants to practice their faith. As a result, in 1789, France had (like Russia today) a national church: everyone had to belong to it, nominally, and (somewhat like Russia today) actual religious feeling was somewhat spotty and restricted to old women and rural people…when you force people into a religion (perhaps something even so broad as a “Christianity”, advocated by some Tea Party members, that excludes Catholics) many “believers” believe for cynical and secular reasons…to get those well-paid jobs, for example, in those charter schools.

As a result of the identification of religion and nation under France’s *ancien regime* in 1789, the revolutionaries mostly rejected all religion. This (and many other factors include severe shortages of both bread and information, as rural peasants refused to feed revolutionary Paris, and newspapers made up news to support the beliefs of their owners) caused people to feel that there was no foundation for anything, and to act out of fear.

The monarchists triggered a war by other European powers on their own country which enraged the anti-monarchists. Louis XVI was caught in the middle and, as I hope you know, executed in a measure which shocked John Adams.

In Paris, drunkenness, sexual license and violence prevailed during the Terror. Because the Paris mob rejected the only “religion” they knew, Adams decided that events in France proved Hobbes right. While the upper classes could be permissive and “latitudinarian” in their Episcopal or Congregational or Unitarian churches, questioning the Trinity and allowing divorce, the 99% needed a firm and strict form of religion.

For Adams, the *monstrum horrendum* was Tom Paine, who was not religious and went to France (where in fact Robespierre and Ste.-Juste, the Revolution’s most extreme figures, found him too moderate in his views). Although Washington had used Paine, and thrown him away, by disseminating Paine’s writings during the Revolution, Paine, like an Occupy Wall Street happy camper, was a radical democrat who did not believe in one set of rules for the 1% and another for the 99%. And, Paine rejected religion.

It was commonly thought in that time, as it is by some today that IF you rejected religion or even just orthodox religion, THEN you would be a libertine on the order of Casanova and the Marquis de Sade (or some other *monstrum horrendum* who simultaneously shocked and titillated the readers of trashy books).

For example, in the 17th century, Baruch Spinoza, who in fact lived a quiet and decent life as a lens-grinder and philosopher, was thought to be a monster. Today, Princeton philosopher Peter Singer (who does believe that abortion is licit in some cases but also believes that Westerners should more than “tithe” a good part of their income, not to some church in some mall, but to the wretched of the earth) suffers the same fate, with the sort of people whose reading is restricted to Web sites and trashy novels about “monstra horrenda” such as Hannibal Lecter.

But here’s the bottom line. It is not a “religious” view to justify religion, as Adams seems to be doing, and as Hobbes did, by saying that it’s a terrific foundation for a well-ordered secular society.

From the Biblical standpoint, and from the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church in which I was raised, and in the view of many Protestants, that gets it backwards because it makes religion serve secular ends!

Isaiah 40:

“Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.”

“And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering.”

“All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.”

That is: religion is about eternal salvation and not the survival of society. I realize that this may be close to “end times thinking” but it isn’t quite the same thing. It’s really the answer to why one is religious.

Gibbon accused Christianity itself of destroying Rome: Gibbon was probably wrong, since Rome by the 2nd century AD needed a national religion to survive, and Christianity arguably gave Rome a few extra centuries.

But St Augustine thought man was made for eternal salvation, not to be a good citizen.

As I have said before (and I will repeat myself because that’s what a good teacher does), people are religious or spiritual because they are good, not the other way around. Religion has destroyed societies as well as preserved them.

As I have said before (and I will repeat myself because that’s what a good teacher does), the most fervidly religious areas of the USA today are also the regions with the largest amount of family violence and divorce.

Houston, you have a problem. Dallas, you too. And tremble, Little Rock, for thou talk’st a good game on Sunday but forgettest what it was you did in the parkin’ lot on Saturday night.

In the short term, the Founders wanted Americans to be pious, and, they counted themselves fortunate that purely as a statistical accident, we were a Protestant society.

But in the long term they counted on public education. As I have said before, and I will repeat myself, George Washington wanted to use part of his fortune to fund a national university. And private, but NOT for profit schools flourished in America outside the slave states starting in Adams’ time. These schools paid unmarried women a tiny wage and were supported by the community (that is, by taxes). They were nothing like for-profit schools which in my direct experience as a professor at DeVry do a good job, but only because they are constantly audited by the state; to properly justify grades in my classes I had to develop a data base and work 24/7.

Go and open up the complete Gutenberg text of the Federalist Papers and search case-independent for the word “god”.

It occurs exactly three times.

Two are references to the gods of antiquity because the Founders took the Roman Republic and the Greek city-states as models…despite the fact that none of these societies were Christian.

One is to “nature’s god” which in the 18th century referred either to the god of the Deists or a conception of God shared, along with the natural law, by all good men.

Clearly, then, Adams was talking, in the passage you quote, about a utilitarian religion, a tool, and, from the standpoint of religion, a blasphemy. The nations of the earth are as dust, and nothing, and this includes America. It’s a great place but only because it allows us to have our own religion, or no religion, or the Church of the Subgenius “Bob” if we so choose.

Note that after posting at Missouri Tenth I searched the Gutenberg text of the Federalist papers for “christian” and “religion”, and added this comment:

The only reference to Christianity: “In the early ages of Christianity, Germany was occupied by seven distinct nations, who had no common chief.” Zzzz…

There are seven references to “religion”:

“The controversies on the subject of religion, which in three instances have kindled violent and bloody contests, may be said, in fact, to have severed the league.” Oops…religion can be trouble at times.

“The INFINITE DIVISIBILITY of matter, or, in other words, the INFINITE divisibility of a FINITE thing, extending even to the minutest atom, is a point agreed among geometricians, though not less incomprehensible to common-sense than any of those mysteries in religion, against which the batteries of infidelity have been so industriously leveled.”

WTF?

“For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword.”

Hmm…maybe this implies that it’s not a good idea to force us all to be Christians, for example by laying off teachers who must apply to charter schools in which their “Christianity” is a qualification for employment.

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

Lucky us, in other words. We’re all bozos on this bus. Not exactly a ringing defense of religion.

“To the People of the State of New York: QUEEN ANNE, in her letter of the 1st July, 1706, to the Scotch Parliament, makes some observations on the importance of the UNION then forming between England and Scotland, which merit our attention. I shall present the public with one or two extracts from it: “An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches, and trade; and by this union the whole island, being joined in affection and free from all apprehensions of different interest, will be ENABLED TO RESIST ALL ITS ENEMIES.”

Oops, a quote from a fat dyke who happened to be a rather forgettable Queen about the Act of Union of 1707, and in it, the well-ordered state supports religion and not the other way around.

“A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”

Dang. Is religion good or bad?

“The Amphictyons were the guardians of religion, and of the immense riches belonging to the temple of Delphos, where they had the right of jurisdiction in controversies between the inhabitants and those who came to consult the oracle.”

WTF… hmm, perhaps a classical education in the ways of them non-Christian Romans might be necessary to understand the Federalist papers.

OK, enough is enough. Some of the signers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were Bible folk. But while none of the leading figures were libertines like Danton or the Marquis de Sade, they all were as well-read in classical authors who weren’t Christian as they were in the Bible.

In the Bible alone, they probably could beat some megachurch preacher hands down: many Americans who profess to be Fundamentalist and Christian cannot name the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

And it’s game, set and match as regards Cicero and Marcus Aurelius. These guys believed, more or less, in the Roman gods in some incomprehensible way, and, like Adams and the rest of the Founders, believed strongly that the common folk should believe in Jove and their household lares and penates so as to keep the 99% in line.

But the mere fact that they used pre-Christian models MEANS that nobody can seriously maintain that the Founders wanted to found America on Christian principles.

Cain’s Accusers Threatened by the Flea Monsters

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on November 10, 2011 by spinoza1111

Herman Cain’s absurd campaign for the Presidency has brought forth women who believably charge him with sexual harassment. If you ever wonder how it is such intellectually and spiritually dead men advance especially in the moral black holes created by merchant associations such as Cain’s National Restaurant Association, associations, the answer is their use of sex for power in an absence of real market discipline or a sense of public service.

These shadowy manufacturers’ and merchants’ associations are labor unions for capitalists and they manipulate media in the interests of private wealth. Their executives are generally incompetents attracted by cushy jobs in which they can throw their weight and penis around. Adam Smith condemned them in In the Wealth of Nations; yet while labor unions are under constant attack, employers form these associations all the time.

Thirty years ago I was asked after being terminated by a Chicago consulting firm (which sought business without accountability from a variety of merchant associations on the Near North Side) why I didn’t make a play for a managerial woman who, my cynical mentor informed me too late, was hot for my body, and thereby in the real economy of that firm save my job and even advance. My only answer was that I was married although that same termination terminated my marriage. Live and learn? No, slide over the sill and escape, gnawing off your leg like an animal in a trap as needed.

Anyway, this New York Times article is sickening. What was unleashed on Anita Hill in 1992, when Hill so rightly challenged the credentials of a clown who’s now one of the worst justices in the history of the SCOTUS, has only been refined. It includes childish rhymes from Rush Limbaugh which would shame a fourteen year old. One can only hope that we are now at the point of “conservative” overreach, a point Joe McCarthy reached when McCarthy charged an associate of Joseph Welch with Communism after promising he would not do so, ruining that young man’s life in a heartbeat.

The personal backgrounds of each one of Cain’s accusers will be viciously exposed in a way unique to rape and sexual harassment charges. Bankruptcies will be mentioned and other sexual harassment charges, which could mean that the woman in question doesn’t take shit lying down, will be used to tell a story of a witch who uses the law to destroy men.

The indications from recent elections in which voters rejected union busting, “the unborn child is a person but the mother is not” and other Tea Bag initiatives indicate that this point of surfeit may have been reached. William Blake, thou should’st be alive at this hour, but since you’re not, here goes:

Anyone who could mock Sharon Bialek
By pronouncing her name as “buy a lick”
May be said to have no dick
And he makes me to my stomach rather sick.

‘Twas in an earlier and far happier time
When a man could say to Joe McCarthy, you are slime
And ask him man to man, sir, say unto me
Have you no shame, no sense of decency?

But as you know, this was a long time ago
And what we’ve become, well we don’t really wish to know.
We’ve become the guy down at the ass end of the bar
Raving and sniggering by turns, the soul of the flea, beholds itself in the glass.
Bankrupt she? Bankrupt you, by far.

Edward G. Nilges 10 Nov 2011. Moral rights have been asserted, chumps.


William Blake: The Ghost of a Flea

Doing the math on coverage of the Tea Party versus coverage of OccupyWallStreet

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on October 29, 2011 by spinoza1111

It’s becoming obvious to many that the media ignored the #OccupyWallStreet protests at first and is still somewhat reluctant to cover events nation-wide.

This fascinating graph shows the coverage of the Tea Party in 2009 versus that of OWS in 2010.

What is most striking is that the red line (the coverage of Tea Party events in 2009) is an almost perfect “logarithmic” curve…a curve generated by the equation y=log(x)+K where K is usually zero and always constant. Whereas the blue line (the coverage of Occupy Wall Street in 2011) is close to zero until late September 2011 and then becomes a linear increase (y=x).

A logarithmic curve starts out promisingly if you’re interested in increasing the value of y: almost exponentially (y=x**2). But then it flattens out to y=K where K is a constant. For example, there are a lot of primes close to zero (2, 3, 5, 7, 11…) but later on, as Gauss proved, they converge to a roughly constant rate.

But the coverage of the Tea Party events doesn’t have to increase and can stay at a constant level, or it may collapse at some future date.

The interesting fact is that the Tea Party coverage so neatly conforms to y=log(x) whereas the OWS coverage is ragged and more natural-looking.

We can hypothesize: the TP coverage is push coverage, where editors decide to cover, whereas OWS is pull and driven by events (such as police rioting and attacks on innocent people) and reporters who’ve been themselves on the scene and beaten by police.

“Push” coverage can be expected to manifest a more mathematical pattern because editors form a small set of like-minded people.

In prestige newspapers, the readership of which is declining but older and wealthier, the TP rallies reinforce the rather low haute bourgeois opinion of the petit bourgeois: that such clerks and jerks are useful idiots at best and guaranteed to raise a laugh what with their highly symbolic guns, misspelled signs, and crazed expressions. Editors at the Times and other media have probably assigned increasing numbers of reporters and authorized an initially increasing number of stories on the Tea Party hoping to divert their readers.

Whereas OWS was just another boring left-wing demonstration and precoded as some sort of hangover from the Sixties, an era that the truly au fait claim as theirs, when they showed their virtue, but which they’ve outgrown in a gesture like that of Sergei Prokofiev’s rejection of high Modernism or TS Eliot’s conversion. Therefore the coverage bumped along the bottom until around Sep 25 when rioting policemen maced innocent women.

Editors are still loth to cover OWS and still need coverage that meets the criteria “if it bleeds it leads”. But not only are beat reporters pushing coverage. “Talkback” and “comment” sections of modern Web based editions are also creating pressure. On the New York Times they are running about 99% in favor of the representatives of the 99%.

Here, a ranking of online comments (by number of approvals) attached to Gina Bellafanti’s disgusting 23 Sep article patronizing the protesters, most of which were posted after the women were Maced, shows again 99% in favor of the spokespeople for the 99%.

The “Sixties” are used by people not even there as a point of reference and in a way that displays ignorance and intellectual flaccidity. Gina Bellafanti was born in 1965 yet feels like a real journalist when she writes that a female protester looks like Joni Mitchell.

The message, from people not born early enough to actually experience the 1960s, is that “we”, the au fait, the gratin, the nomenklatura, got over “all that” and that “they” are merely copying “Joni Mitchell” like deluded fools. But in actuality, the au fait, the gratin, the nomenklatura were not part of the movements of the 1960s and instead more or less cowered at Princeton delaying coeducation until 1972 whilst students at state colleges put their bodies on the line.

Actual information, knowledge and I daresay wisdom is receding from the au fait, the gratin, the nomenklatura at the speed of light and their focus on a particular protest or critique is becoming inverse to its worth as they are sucked into the black hole of what George Soros called (in 2005) the “bubble” of American supremacy.

Any Questions?

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on October 25, 2011 by spinoza1111