Consider this excerpt from Bush's laudatory speech (even a whore needs to have their ass kissed once in a while):
Today, on Labor Day, we honor those who work, and we honor those who work because, in so doing, we recognize that one of the reasons why we're the economic leader in the world is because of our work force. And the fundamental question facing the country is, how do we continue to be the economic leader in the world? What do we do to make sure that, when people look around the world next year, and 10 years from now, they say, the United States is still the most powerful economy in the world? I think that's an important goal to have, because when we're the most powerful economy in the world, it means our people benefit. It means there's job opportunities. That's what we want. We want people working. We want people to realize their dreams.
Bush wants to keep the "people working" so he and "his base" can continue to "realize their dreams". Wage slaves in the United States who still believe they can achieve the American Dream are chasing a one in a million shot. Not unlike a gambling casino, the odds they face are tremendous and the house almost always wins. Almost no one successfully scales the craggy peaks separating the poor fro the rich in the United States. Yet like those who run the gaming industry, the aristocrats atop the economic order need that occasional "big winner" to "prove" that the system is still a meritocracy.
"One of the reasons why we're the economic leader in the world is because of our work force."
In an exceedingly rare moment, truth actually slipped out when George Bush opened his mouth. As he stated, our work force in the United States is indeed one of the principal reasons that this nation is the economic leader in the world. Bush and his people know that if the work force acted in unison and ceased performing for its paymasters, the merciless machinery of corporatism and predatory capitalism would quickly grind to a halt. And the parasitic three to four million who comprise the "uber-class" would realize their worst fear. Stripped of their tools of domination, they would experience the quiet desperation members of the working class perpetually endure as they scramble to satisfy their families' basic needs.
If the man had an ounce of integrity, instead of delivering his disingenuous monologue trumpeting opportunities that barely exist and dreams principally reserved for "his base", George Bush would have been begging forgiveness for his numerous serious transgressions against We the People and laying out a plan for wholesale changes in domestic economic policies. Our socioeconomic and political systems are almost hopelessly awash in corruption. If the United States has a prayer of avoiding a cataclysmic upheaval, the powers that be need to make significant changes in their exploitative and rapacious laws, policies, and behaviors. In other words, major corporations, wealthy elitists, and their proxies in DC need to start giving the Proletariat healthy doses of Aretha's R-E-S-P-E-C-T and economic justice.
What are some of the specific factors driving the need for significant changes in the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the United States?
Let's dissect and analyze:
http://www.rense.com/general73/whoredom.htm
Note: http://www.rense.com/ge...
Loving Labor's Losses
Posted on Friday, September 15 at 09:28 by DiogenesContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
Now that my submission has bee accepted and posted I can comment.
As I was reading Jason Miller’s words I was struck by the similarity to the Canadian situation and that is my purpose in offering Miller’s thoughts.
There are some posters who when reading these submission go off on all angles, to borrow dc’s phrase, “play the …card”
In this case the missing word is “anti-American”
Those fools rarely cotton on to the fact the over whelming majority of so call aint –Americanisms are criticisms penned BY Americans writers.
The condition describe by the writer of the piece are relevant to Canada as well.
---
We have met the enemy and he is us
Pogo
A mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.
Plutarch
Few politicans in any country is likely to support the common man. The few that do have been blacklisted and their own country in peril because of it. Cuba & Venezuala have been ostracised by the Americans (Canada et al) for thinking the average citizen should benefit by the country. Harper will soon be telling us "it is what we can DO for the country" that will make Canada a capitalist success. It'll be called our patriotic duty.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
People who try to create workers' paradises tend to end up with infernos instead.
The irony in all this is that the behaviour you do despise in corporates occurs precisely because a corporation is a type of collective. Like in an angry mob on the street, individuals in a corporate boardroom will do things that they would not dream of doing individually, because of the lack of individual accountability.
I reject this notion that people need to be bound closer together. People get stupid in groups. They get vicious in groups. They lose their senses in groups. They become obsessed with group exclusivity. Cliques form. Groups splinter into subgroups, and authoritarians always emerge to take control.
No, to hell with John Lennon and his "brotherhood of man". Better a "loose affiliation of man", with each individual as an independent agent, at arms length from his "brothers", the boundaries between them formed and given shape by individual rights, competitive economics and exchanges of value for value. If people start thinking themselves as individuals, as not as blacks or whites, Canadians or Americans, workers or owners, or even as men or women, the better society will be.
Each of us is his own country.
to take control."
Nothing lasts forever, not even cohesive well run groups.
However, the nature of groups is frequently determined at the time of their formation by what their basic operating philosophy is.
if the group in question prizes reason and indiviual responsibilty as well as corporate responsibility in balance, then in theory that group should do better than either a single man, or a group of backstabbing cutthroats.
You put a group of sociopaths together, and you wind up with the cadres who are currently in control.
You put a group of mother theresas together, and you have a totally different world.
No group can be better than the people who form it in the first place.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
<br />
This famous meditation of Donne's puts forth two essential ideas which are representative of the Renaissance era in which it was written: <br />
The idea that people are not isolated from one another, but that mankind is interconnected; and The vivid awareness of mortality that seems a natural outgrowth of a time when death was the constant companion of life. <br />
Donne brings these two themes together to affirm that any one man's death diminishes all of mankind, since all mankind is connected; yet that death itself is not so much to be feared as it at first seems. Join us in exploring these two main themes, which we have associated with the two controlling images of the meditation...the island and the bell.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://isu.indstate.edu/ilnprof/ENG451/ISLAND/">http://isu.indstate.edu/ilnprof/ENG451/ISLAND/</a> <br />
<br />
The sad part of all this is that in to-day’s world we don’t have many thinkers the calibre of John Dunne Instead we are subjected to the disjointed ramblings of ‘individualist’ or perhaps worse yet ‘Diogenes’ <br />
The ability to think and write as Renaissance Man have been deliberately schooled out of the common man by the wealth of the elites (well documented) that bullying class who control wealth, education, medicine, law and all else once in the public domain.<br />
The ‘individualist’s’ of the world are merely frustrated ‘little men’ as per Reich’s observation.<br />
Real individuals recognise and are a part the common-wealth, that is they bring to the common a wealth to be shared not horded of in isolation of self.<br />
My visualisation of our “individualist” is that of Golem from Tolkien’s trilogy: living in the dank dark underground while hording. <br />
<br />
<p>---<br>We have met the enemy and he is us<br />
Pogo<br />
A mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.<br />
Plutarch
No, that's where you're wrong. Put a group of anyone together, and give them too much power, and they'll act like sociopaths.
"You put a group of mother theresas together, and you have a totally different world."
Yes, one in which abortion and birth control is outlawed, and sex education focuses exclusively on abstinance.
In fact, one of the reasons I distrust "do-gooders" so much is that in many cases they're simply after another kind of power fix. That's the draw of noblesse oblige, both in its traditional form and in its modern Bill Gates variety.
It's about exerting power over the lives of others. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in that it generates good results (which are ultimately what matter). But at the core of the do-gooder mentality is always ego gratification and the need to make one feel superior to others through exerting of power over their lives.
So while I'm glad there are people who go around helping others, I don't romanticize their motives the way some do. And I'm very suspicious when such people get into positions of real power (ie government) and start trying to reshape the country (and the people in it) in their own image of social perfection. People aren't clay.
"No group can be better than the people who form it in the first place."
No, but the group can be a hell of a lot worse that those who form it. Groupthink is the real "race to the bottom".
You don't really."
Yes I %#*@^ do!!! I mean exactly what I say.
"Man wasn't created to exist in a vacuum."
You didn't create man, nor were you on hand for his creation, so you'll pardon me if I take your declarations on this as less than authoritative.
You're entitled to believe that mankind was created to be a herd animal. The intellect that mankind developed allowed him to conceive of the individual human as something separate from and worthy of protection from the rest of humanity.
Part of our social and intellectual maturity as a species was the development of a concept of the individual, distinct from his fellow humans and possessing rights than cannot be arbitrarily taken away. The problem is that we have often failed to honour those rights.
"Man is a cooperative beast, adhering to the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts."
The cooperation works best when free agents consent to work together for a purpose to which all have agreed. This becomes a transaction of mutual benefit. And the whole is not always greater than the sum of the parts. It all depends on the parts. Sometimes, an incompetent or lazy individual can drag the whole team down.
"Capitalism demands that people 'be bound closer together', to the point of enforced association."
How is this so? Capitalism is based on exchanges, which ideally are mutually beneficial. If someone doesn't like being an employee, he can leave. If someone doesn't like being a shareholder, he can sell his shares. If someone doesn't like being a vendor, he can (once his contractual obligations have been fulfilled) move on. If someone doesn't like buying from a vendor, he can similarly change his mind. These are loose, dynamic affiliations.
"But capitalism rejects the co-op, and the other side of that coin, socialism, is the ultimate of enforced association."
Co-ops and capitalism already work side by side. But you're right about socialism.
"And neither works very well because neither of them can offer a raison d'ętre. And both believe in Hobbes'authoritarian rule."
Governments should be non-authoritarian, but businesses require centralized authority to operate effectively. The check on power for a given business is not internal democracy (other than shareholders, of course), but rather external competition.
I am more than just a cell in a larger body. So are you. This should be something to celebrate, not to deny or ridicule. Why do you find assertion and celebration of one's individuality so threatening?
"Real individuals recognise and are a part the common-wealth, that is they bring to the common a wealth to be shared not horded of in isolation of self."
Translation: "Real individuals" allow themselves to be beasts of burden for the less capable or less motivated.
"My visualisation of our 'individualist' is that of Golem from Tolkien's trilogy: living in the dank dark underground while hording."
Actually, the character you're referring to is named "Gollum".
A Golem, on the other hand, is a creature from Jewish mythology, essentially an earthen statue animated through inscription of a magic word. The Golem was a servent, whose master held it's entire existence in his hands. A simple erasure of the magic word would deactivate (kill) the creature. It is a golem that collective-worshippers like you would have us all become.
What difference does it make if I'm a slave to one person or to a whole bunch of people?
"No, that's where you're wrong. Put a group of anyone together, and give them too much power, and they'll act like sociopaths."
That's why the founding principles on which the group is based on are so important, you need the checks and balances of a core philosophy to ensure that what what you describe does not become the case.
"You put a group of mother theresas together, and you have a totally different world."
"Yes, one in which abortion and birth control is outlawed, and sex education focuses exclusively on abstinance."
And I thought I was cynical. On the positive side, assuming what you say is the case you would also have : no afghan war, no iraq war, no 911, no cold war, no arsenals of nuclear weapons, no rampant criminal behavior by either governments or the people in them, no mindless depletion of the world's resources so that only the privilidged few benefit from it, and a world based on principles of equality of human worth as opposed to the one we have now which is based on how fat one's wallet is.
"In fact, one of the reasons I distrust "do-gooders" so much is that in many cases they're simply after another kind of power fix. That's the draw of noblesse oblige, both in its traditional form and in its modern Bill Gates variety."
No argument there. I agree with you.
"It's about exerting power over the lives of others. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in that it generates good results (which are ultimately what matter). But at the core of the do-gooder mentality is always ego gratification and the need to make one feel superior to others through exerting of power over their lives."
Once again, I agree with you.
"So while I'm glad there are people who go around helping others, I don't romanticize their motives the way some do. And I'm very suspicious when such people get into positions of real power (ie government) and start trying to reshape the country (and the people in it) in their own image of social perfection. People aren't clay."
Once more, we are in agreement.
"No group can be better than the people who form it in the first place."
"No, but the group can be a hell of a lot worse that those who form it. Groupthink is the real "race to the bottom"."
Once more I agree with you, and once again I will bring up the fact that the founding principles on which ANY group is based will go a long way towards either accelerating that process or retarding it.
As I said earlier, nothing lasts forever. As far as I can tell, the average life of a well run organization is between 20 and 60 years, depending on how closely they stick to their core principles.
All too often, "new ideas" are just the attempts of self-important weasels trying to gain influence and the means of remaking whatever organization they're in over in their own image.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
I see your brain droppings as the thought of someone who doesn’t know WHO he is but has latched onto something that sets him apart from what he is stuck in.
Go be a mountain-man, they were true individualist, or a hermit, stick to your own counsel or investigate what it is to be sovereign and I will start to respect you.
As it now stand you come across like an angry little boy with dreams of standing on a hill, your own flag planted in the ground while looking down at the herd.
You jumped a writer here for what you thought was assumptive remarks and now you use assumption and presupposition in a vain attempts to pigeons-hole me and how you guess I think.
Have you ever needed help?
Do you walk your talk?
Have you ever attended school or a party, or gone to a cultural event?
Ya see Bro, your anger at those who join forces for mutual benefit betrays you and all you can see, judging by your writing, is negativity.
The very fact you find it necessary to present your thoughts here also belies your desire to be a part of.
See ya in the funny papers, or is that funny farm
---
We have met the enemy and he is us
Pogo
A mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.
Plutarch