Have you had enough?
Why Democracies Fail!
At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new Constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." ˜ Benjamin Franklin
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The internal collapse of all nations require the concurrence of a nation's judiciary, and without such concurrence, there can be no police state established. Through the passage of more and more laws, with its attendant finger-pointing of blame, People begin to discover hypocrisy, and thus they will learn from government to disrespect law and authority until there is a complete collapse into anarchy and bondage. This is why all nations shall either be governed by spiritual faith, or by tyrants!
TWW BIO - LAW ENFORCEMENT
At the end of WW II he was involved with the US Army Counter Intelligence Corps and after moving to Houston, in 1960 he served on a Harris County Grand Jury and became one of the founders of the Harris County Grand Jury Association. He served as Chairman of the Law Enforcement Committee for 5 years. In 1973 he was trained in San Jose by the FBI and IBM in the newly established NCIC system on the new IBM 360 mainframe computer. Subsequently he became a speaker and trainer in the Harris County area on the subject of CRIME AND THE COMPUTER. He was founder of the nation’s first Crime Stop program first established in Houston 10 years before it became Crime Stoppers.
Last year’s Houston Police Forensic Lab scandal prompted him to call for the reestablishment of the Grand Jury Association and he has been Chairman of the Association which is assisting in clearing up problems of the Criminal Justice System and is attempting to restore the Grand Jury to its powers and responsibilities provided by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
SPEECH TO THINK TANK ON THE ECONOMY.
January 2004
The past can not be changed. Yet nothing changes more constantly than our understanding of the past. “The past cannot be changed. Yet nothing changes more constantly than our understanding of the past. For the past, that influences our lives, does not consist of what actually happened, but how we now perceive what has happened. ..
How far can you look into the future? Not too far. Perhaps days, months or rarely years. Our view of the past, however, is unlimited. While we cannot change the past, we can better understand it; so that we can better understand the future and change it.” (THE DUAL PALINDROME)
When we talk about the economy we can only judge it by comparing it to the past. We discover that the past is not as germain as we thought because 2+2 is no longer 4. Let me give you the example of transformation of telecommunications from national network monopolies to a new system, the network of networks, and the glue that holds it together, interconnection. By their very nature, monopoly-owned networks provided a small number of standardized, nation-wide services. Over the past two decades, however, new forces in the world economy began to unravel this traditional system. The driving force behind the change was the shift toward an information-based economy. Especially for large organizations, the price, control, security, and reliability of telecommunications became variables requiring organized attention. Thus, monopoly began to give way to the `network of networks,' the foundation of today's telecommunications and Internet infrastructure.
Whether they bind computers, economies, or terrorist organizations, networks are everywhere in the real world, yet only recently have scientists attempted to explain their mysterious workings.
How do networks matter? Simply put, local actions can have global consequences, and the relationship between local and global dynamics depends critically on the network's structure.
We must now replace `cause and effect' approaches to decision making in favor of an approach that thrives on ambiguity and unpredictability.
We must now start using the principles of complexity theory to transform any business, large or small, into one that can consistently redefine itself to keep pace with today's ever-changing marketplace.
Emerging control and order as opposed to predetermined
order is dominates today’s economy. We must understand that history is irreversible, and the future is often unpredictable. (Soros, Popper) The late 1990s appear to have been a golden age produced in part by the favorable convergence of unsustainable factors such as the stock-market boom, the post-Cold War "peace dividend," and a consumer borrowing binge of historic proportions. (Today, three years after the stock-market bubble burst, we are still suffering something of a hangover from the excesses of that giddy era.) But as accidental as that brief golden age may in some ways have been, and as irrational as the exuberance that propelled it was, the underlying forces at work in the late 1990s were real, and they began to reshape the economy in fundamental ways. We can now begin to see the enduring effect of those forces.
In the short term—let's say the next couple of years—the majority of Americans can expect to keep improving their economic lot; however, a significant minority—mainly the newly jobless in certain old-line industries—will watch their already dim prospects darken even further. And over the longer term—let's say ten years or more—a much broader swath of the American population will have reason to be very concerned about the economic future.
The "jobless recovery" has hardly been jobless: the unemployment rate—which stood at 5.9 percent in November—is lower than the average for the past thirty years, and is right at the threshold that most economists as recently as the mid-1990s believed was the lowest it could go without triggering inflation. In fact, there is a wide gap between how most people feel the economy in general is faring (poorly) and how they feel they themselves are doing (quite well). (CLINTON The economy stupid)
What is overlooked when we discuss unemployment is that when workers who lost their jobs finally found new ones, the gap between their new wages and the wages they would have earned (had they been able to stay in their old jobs) was nearly triple what it would have been almost a decade ago. The gap is greatest for highly educated workers.
The share of jobs lost owing to the abolition of positions rather than to lack of work, plant closings, or other reasons has doubled since the early 1980s. The main reason higher unemployment has lingered so long into the current recovery is that most lost jobs have been restructured out of existence. Workers whose jobs have been eliminated outright often cannot find anything directly comparable, either because the work they do has become obsolete or because their skills are company- or industry-specific, and not easily transferable elsewhere. These displacements are still not exceedingly common, but they are quite damaging to individuals when they occur.
In short, we have entered what might be called a "reverse-lottery economy." The broad majority of American workers continue to do well; yet in any given year—even in boom times—a few workers hit the negative jackpot and must accept lengthy or even permanent reductions in living standards.
Among these are jobs in financial analysis, research, accounting, and graphic design are among those expected to be moved offshore.
Productivity growth is the bedrock of a healthy economy over time. In fact, continued rapid growth in productivity is certainly the best—and arguably the most important—feature of the U.S. economy today.
In 2002, the most recent year for which complete data are available, productivity grew by 4.8 percent—the highest annual increase since 1950. The advances in information technology—particularly in computer processing power—that helped launch the boom have not slowed. Meanwhile, productivity growth in nontechnological industries, which remained low through much of the mid-1990s, has accelerated, as managers begin to integrate cheaper, more powerful information technology into their businesses. (Indeed, the real example is Wal-Mart, the ubiquitous discount chain that has pioneered ways of using information-technology advances to cut costs.) High productivity growth in recent years has also allowed most Americans to enjoy wage growth even as unemployment has risen. And relatively high employment levels and continued wage growth most likely contributed to relatively strong consumer demand throughout the recession, mitigating its effects.
Over the longer term broad-based productivity gains should mean not only higher incomes for most Americans but also cheaper products and more-competitive U.S. industries. The widespread diffusion of new technology will probably continue to give rise to products and services that would have been neither technologically feasible nor widely affordable just a few years ago. (Recent examples of such products include cell phones and iPods.) The combination of higher incomes and new products should spur both demand and production—and over the long run these will produce new jobs.
There is, however an erosion of bargaining power among low-income and middle-income workers. Better information technology and more-sophisticated robotics have significantly reduced job opportunities for many types of "routine" laborers, such as factory workers and middle managers, especially as globalized production has allowed U.S. companies to move many jobs—particularly low- and middle-skilled jobs—to countries where wages are lower. Increased immigration of low-skilled workers since 1970 has disproportionately increased the labor supply at the lower end of the economy, probably depressing wages for less skilled workers.
This story—told repeatedly in recent years—is clearly reflected in the numbers. Between 1973 and 1995, while real wages for the top five percent of Americans rose (and while total income for the top five percent of American households increased by about 30 percent), the bottom half of the American work force experienced an outright decline in real wages. Median hourly wages declined from $12.54 to $10.44 per hour. The poor have done well, relatively speaking, in this economic environment. Jobs in such sectors as retail sales, hotel services, and basic health-care provision have proved tough to automate, and so haven't been substituted out of existence. Moreover, because jobs in the service sector—where the most low-skilled jobs have been created in recent years—are less affected by recession than are jobs in manufacturing, employment has been remarkably stable for the poor. And real wages for "McJobs," though still low in absolute terms, rose during the late 1990s as rapid economic growth tightened the labor market. Job growth and wage growth at the lower end of the economy—along with welfare reform—helped lift millions of people out of poverty since the mid-1990s; and a large portion of them have stayed out, even through the recent recession.
As a result the rich are likely to continue to pull away economically (and perhaps culturally and socially, as well) from the rest of society. While productivity growth has helped keep wages rising for the employed, immigration and the continued movement of jobs to offshore locations weakens the labor market and depresses wages. "Wage insurance" would make up a portion of the difference between old and new incomes for up to two years, so that the transition to a lower-income lifestyle would be more gradual. (A pilot program already exists for workers displaced by the movement of jobs overseas.) But wage insurance has potential as more than just a safety net; if unemployed workers knew they could more easily afford to take lower-paying jobs, they might feel freer to jump into whole new industries or career tracks; this would help the economy grow faster (by increasing the speed at which new industries grow) and might also ultimately increase the long-term income prospects of individual workers.
In 2000, though expectations of what the stock market and the economy in general could produce were wildly unrealistic, there was genuine cause for optimism. Ideas and innovations were proliferating. Investment in these ideas and the technologies they created was considerable. And a flexible, highly educated work force stood ready to adopt new technologies quickly, and to generate still more innovations for the future.
The long-term picture, however, may be bleaker. Two key factors that have historically given the U.S. economy a competitive advantage—a superior education system and an attractive investment climate—now appear to be eroding.
In most other economically advanced countries the average number of years people stay in school is now growing faster than it is in the United States—and young adults in a handful of those countries are now more highly educated, on average, than their U.S. counterparts. Ever since the launch of Sputnik, in the late 1950s, Americans have been concerned—perhaps excessively so—with the quality of the education that U.S. citizens receive. But only more recently has the United States seen its relative advantage in quantity of education begin to decline.
The long-term fiscal crisis facing the United States comes primarily from a growing imbalance between what the government spends—primarily on Medicare and Social Security—and what it reaps in taxes, which were not high enough to sustain current entitlements even before the series of sharp tax cuts enacted since 2000. Today we're simply foisting the many costs of this imbalance—rising debt, slower growth, and ultimately either higher taxes or broken promises—onto future generations.
A reasonable observer might conclude that all these problems are the ingredients for national economic decline. Historically, America has been an adaptable, resilient nation; decline is not inevitable. But unless we devote more attention to education and fiscal balance, two issues that are absolutely central to long-term prosperity, the conditions that have produced widespread growth will dissipate. As weak as today's economy may look relative to that of 1999, at the rate we're going we may look back on 2003-2004 in ten or twenty years with wistful longing.
The growing trade deficit threatens U.S. living standards and makes the country dangerously vulnerable to economic extortion. The way out is to make foreigners act more like us.
Despite its unchallenged military might, the United States has an Achilles' heel: its economy depends on foreign capital. Though hardly anyone acknowledges this publicly, China and Japan already hold so much American debt that, theoretically, each could exert enormous leverage on American foreign policy. So far, the economic dependence of these countries on American consumers has kept them from exercising such power. But what would happen if, for instance, Washington changed its one-China policy and officially recognized Taiwan? Or if the Bush Administration threatened to invade North Korea? Simply by dumping U.S. Treasury bills and other dollar-denominated assets, China—which holds more federal U.S. debt than any other country—could cause the value of the dollar to plummet, leading to a major crisis for the U.S. economy.
China and Japan wouldn't have to be consciously hostile to wreak havoc; they could create a currency crisis by accident, through either bad policy decisions or instability in their own economies. Both countries have weak banking systems that are burdened by bad loans that will never be repaid. Economists have long warned that the collapse of Japan's banking system could devastate the United States. A Chinese banking crisis could cause equally severe problems.
America is like no other dominant great power in modern history—because it depends on other countries for capital to sustain its military and economic dominance. In comparison, consider the British Empire. At the height of its imperial reign, in 1913, Britain was a net exporter, or investor, of capital; it invested the equivalent of nine percent of its gross domestic product in foreign countries that year, helping to finance the infrastructures of the United States, Canada, Australia, and Argentina. Even long afterward Britain was able to retain a prominent international role in large part because it earned interest and dividends on the enormous investments it had made during its heyday. In contrast, the United States today is a net importer, or borrower, of capital—not only from China and Japan but also from Europe and emerging economies, at a rate of more than $500 billion a year, or approximately five percent of our GDP.
The British Empire eventually declined, of course, and in 1956 it endured the humiliating demise of its great-power status in a clash over the Suez Canal. U.S. policymakers should take note: Britain was brought to its knees not by a military defeat but by an economic one—specifically, America's refusal to support the British pound, which created a monetary crisis for the British government, forcing it to call off its ill-advised campaign with France and Israel to recapture the Suez Canal after nationalization by Egypt. As its international debt grows, the United States becomes ever more vulnerable to its own Suez moment. Americans save too little and consume too much. But it is exacerbated by the behavior of our closest trading partners in Asia and (to a lesser degree) Europe, who are our fiscal mirror opposites: they save too much and consume too little. America and its trading partners are locked in co-dependency. In the short term this co-dependency has actually worked reasonably well: our principal trading partners lend us money to buy their cheaper goods with a strong dollar. In return they have access to a stable market for their products, enabling their economies to grow at an impressive rate.
if the dollar declines, we will have to pay other countries more for their goods. This will lead to declining standards of living for most Americans. The growing trade deficit threatens U.S. living standards and makes the country dangerously vulnerable to economic extortion. The way out is to make foreigners act more like us.
The rest of the spech was based on this outline:
2+2=?
EMERGING VS. PREDETERMINED
`cause and effect' VS ambiguity and unpredictability.
POPPER- SOROS
CLINTON 16B 1.2 T
TODAY 2.T
NETWORK OR NETWORKS
SUEZ
CHINA-JAPAN TRADE BALANCE ECONOMIC EXTORTION
US EDUCATION + INV CLIMATE QUALITY-QUANTITY
SWISS FRANK
GOLD
GROWING TO MAKING TO MANAGEMENT – INFORMATION
JOB RESTRUCTURING
INTEREST RATES WILL RISE
LOW INTEREST=HOME SALES-APARTMENT-MOBILE HOMES
SEX AND THE AUTOMOBILE
Sex drive and automobile drive are closely related. The only difference is that in a normal automobile drive there is usually one driver at the wheel while in a sex drive should have two drivers. It is true that sometimes a backseat driver has influence over the automobile drive and also that in many sex drives there is only one driver with a sometimes reluctant passenger taken for the ride.
Let us look at the similarities between the drives.
Some drives are simply to get from point A to point B.
Some drives are fast and some are slow.
Some people hate to drive.
Some people just don’t want to leave the safety of their cubicle and travel.
Some are afraid to drive because they fear accidents, injuries, pain.
Some had bad experience driving and are afraid it will repeat.
Some drivers are good, some are bad,.
Some are inexperienced, some are reckless, irresponsible.
Some drivers change personalities behind the wheel.
To enjoy the scenery and the pleasure of the drive one must drive slow .
There are drives to new and beautiful sceneries not seen before.
There are trips one never wants to take again.
You can drive through storms and bad weather yet feel safe in your car.
You may start a trip even when you know bad weather, snow or ice may endanger you.
After driving for a while it is good to stop and refuel.
Some drives are uphill, difficult but reaching the top there is a new horizon.
New cars are alluring and expensive.
Some drivers rather rent a car for a trip than use the old family sedan.
Some trips never end, others don’t last.
All trips have ups and downs due to conditions beyond control of drivers.
The success of the trip depends on the driver.
Some take pride in their car, some don’t care.
A bigger, more expensive car does not necessarily make the ride better.
A well preserved old car gives as much pleasure as a newest model.
IN MY OPINION.
You are lucky if you hear these words. Most people simply state their opinion as fact and dare you to challenge it. The fact, however, is that everybody has opinions, is entitled to them, is free to express them and even act on them. Forming opinions is a natural process. We are constantly doing it from the moment we wake up throughout the day.
The problem is that there is a difference between an informed and uninformed opinion. Since the truth is so difficult to determine, I would rather say there is a difference between a less informed and a more informed opinion.
Some people form opinions about everything including those things they know nothing about. Then they proceed and treat their own opinions as facts. Some of these people tend to become controlled by their own opinions rather than by the facts.
In order to from an informed opinion one must search for the facts. Unfortunately you can not depend on the news media for facts. With the attention of the public limited, the media has engaged in two distortions. Oversimplification and entertainment value. Due to time constraints they oversimplify complex issues and to attract attention they will promote opinions either 1 or 9 on the scale of 10, rather than the 4-6-range middle, better balanced but less controversial position the population has.
In my opinion these are times when we should try to form sound opinions. Periodically we should look at our old opinions in light of new facts and if they are no longer reasonable, do not be afraid to replace them. This is the only way you can control your opinions instead of letting your opinions control you. This is the only way you can adapt to circumstances as water conforms to the vessel it is poured in. This is how you survive.
Tibby Weston
November 2001
HOW MUCH MORE CAN WE TAKE?
The Senate
The Senate wants to approve every special ops action by our military services. Say if our special ops men spot Osama Bin Laden moving between caves we could no longer attack him with on the scene commandos. They would need to contact the Pentagon, which would need to obtain a Presidential directive. The President would have to contact the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and have their Chairmen approve the action. Luckily in this world of fast communication this could be accomplished in several days and we can always hope that Osama will wait long enough between caves to accommodate the power hungry idiots in the US Senate. This provision is part of the 2004 intelligence authorization bill. Have you had enough yet?
The Environmental Nuts
Our military is unable to train under real battle conditions because the Environmental Nuts are in courts prohibiting them from disturbing the one-inch long Pacific pocket mouse or disturbing resting sea lions. We cannot deploy an up to date sonar system to detect enemy submarines because the sonar may bother one of over 100,000 sea mammals. They would prefer that we lose our submarines and get our seamen killed by an undetected enemy rather than wake up a snoozing seal. These people are not of good will but enemies of this nation. Environmental Laws shall be suspended during a war for our military. What court do the Environmentalist nuts go to sue terrorists when they pollute the globe? Have you had enough yet?
The Charities
The American people are suckers for a good cause. Our consciences are satisfied when we give money to a charity. Congress has mandated that a charitable organization must give at least 5 cents of every dollar of their assets to a real charitable cause. What they have done is to call salaries and goodies given to their executives as a charitable donation to qualify for the 5 cents mandated by an incredibly naïve Congress. Can you believe this racket? Have you had enough yet?
Tort Reform
Insurance premiums are rising, doctors are closing down, trial lawyers collecting billions, the economy struggles, business is leaving for places without trial lawyers and lower costs and jobs go overseas, politicians and judges get corrupted by large campaign donations, legislatures are dominated by lawyers, class action becomes a tolerated fraud enriching all lawyers, greed rules unchecked. Have you had enough?
Drug War
The world largest business draining US money and morals. It destroys the poor, corrupts the rich and famous, enriches the law enforcement establishment, the intelligence services, all governments and national leaders. At the same time our elderly suffer horrible pain at the end of their lives in nursing homes, hospitals and on their death beds because the sanctimonious establishment does not allow them to go out of this life painlessly by using legal drugs. Their meager allotted painkillers are stolen by addicts in the lowly paid medical service industry and by addicted medical personnel or they are denied for fear of making them addicted for the remaining few weeks or months of their lives. Have you had enough?
Criminal Justice
The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” no longer exists. It is “guilty until funded innocent” with the State having unlimited and unchecked power to indict and incarcerate anyone of their choosing while covering up wrong doings of the prosecutors. The grand jury is no longer able to protect the innocent from being railroaded because it is no longer the shield to protect the innocent, but solely the sword of the prosecution. The rich can get away with murder or any crime as long as they can afford expensive lawyers who understand how corrupt the system is. The poor is condemned by incompetent charlatan lawyers working hand in hand with the prosecution and judges to keep the assembly line moving into the corrupt penal system. Trial lawyers collect billions from incompetent doctors but nothing from incompetent lawyers whose clients helplessly occupy the bulk of the cell space.
Holocaust
Holocaust survivors are to receive $2,500 for their labor and suffering from a group of German Industrialists. Lawyers and Jewish Charitable organizations are deliberately delaying payments from this multibillion fund because every day more and more of the survivors pass away and are no longer entitled to the money. It goes to the charities who will spend it on remembering their memory and to the law firms who coerced the Germans to pay them hundreds of millions in fees. Here is part of an actual letter sent to the fund manager:
“This is the most preposterous and arrogant behavior of Jewish leaders towards Holocaust survivors almost matching the callous plunders by the Nazis. The World Jewish Congress intends to delay distribution of funds until we are all dead and they will be able to use the moneys for their pet projects. Instead of helping us survivors they want to build memorials to us after we are dead.
My family was condemned to die in Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen and I was condemned to live and watch the betrayal of their memory by profiteers, heartless leaders and most shameful, Jewish lawyers eager to profit by our suffering.
…
Rabbi Miller, you and your claims conference have betrayed the dead. My wife worked her lungs out in the underground ammunition factories in Salzwedel and her health finally gave out and she died at an early age. I will not betray her memory and my family's memory by participating in this allotment scam where survivors are deprived of participating in the decision making process and "leaders" ignore our needs.
I'd rather live on Social Security and depend on Medicaid for my illnesses than give you and the World Jewish Congress an excuse to extort more money in my name.”
FREEDOM – EQUALITY – HATE
By T.W. Tibby Weston
© WESTON RESEARCH LLC 7/2004
We live in freedom and we believe that it is an ideal environment for the human spirit and that freedom is the ultimate expression of human desire. Living in freedom, however, is not an effortless life. It places the responsibility for success in life on the individual. Obviously some will succeed and some will not, depending on their talent. The successful will reap the reward of prosperity while those who consider themselves left behind, or “have-nots”, soon desire equality. Not equality of opportunity but equality of results, which spells doom for nations. The origin of Marxism is based on the demand for equality of results, or “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Once a large segment of population considers itself “have-nots”, they will first demand equality of results through entitlements, later by more drastic measures of punitive taxation, nationalization and confiscation that destroy the very concept of freedom for all. Often the “have-nots” do not realize how well they are doing because of the envy and class hatred stirred up by demagogues. This is the reason why democracies have never lasted more than two centuries. As Marx put it: “Democracy is the road to socialism.” As soon as voters in a democracy discover that they can strive for equity of results by voting for the politicians promising a larger distribution of the public treasury, the slide to socialism accelerates. Fortunately the United States of America was not created as a democracy but as a republic and thus was able to survive more than 200 years.
The word democracy first came to prominence during World War I which Woodrow Wilson coined “ the war to protect democracy”. By the time of World War II the “great democracies” fought a war against the totalitarian dictatorship of Germany and the Holy Empire of Japan. Nobody seemed to care that the “great democracies” were the Monarchy of Great Britain, the Republics of the USA, the USSR and France. None of them were a democracy. Little notice was given also to the fact that both Germany and the USSR were socialists; one a national socialist, the other an international socialist.
We can therefore easily conclude that names of political systems can be misleading and should be disregarded. We must look at how the people live within those systems. If people live in equality it is usually enforced at the point of a bayonet by a dictator or by totalitarian oppression. Equality is not natural. It is the Communist concept as stated by Marx: “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. “
As an inevitable consequence, people who live in equality eventually will desire freedom to break out of their hopeless lives and seek opportunities for individual achievement.
When we look at Iraq and what the future holds for them we must consider that they had lived in the equality of oppression and misery for more than 30 years. Hitler’s Nazi empire only lasted 12 years and it took decades before Germany would recover sufficiently to provide de-Nazified reliable leadership for its people. How could we expect a faster and more thorough change to occur in a country recovering from 30 years of oppression? The change from oppressed equality of life to freedom of choice is difficult and often devastating.
The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 broke the communist rule of equality and more than a 100,000 Hungarians escaped when the Revolution failed. Many came to live in Houston and I had the opportunity to observe first hand how people who have lived their lives in equality of misery react to freedom suddenly bestowed upon them.
The first years of these refugees was marred by multiple tragedies because we, who lived our lives in freedom, did not understand that some of these people could not handle freedom. Although surrounded by a free society and people of good will trying to help, these refugees needed leadership, direction, guidelines, and boundaries and constrains. What we gave them was freedom without a sense of responsibility. We told them they can use credit to buy things, but we failed to tell them the consequences of not being able to pay their bills and losing their credit. We told them how to find a job, but we did not tell them about employee loyalty and that they should not change jobs every few months just to make 25¢ an hour more. Soon they had ruined lives, divorces, suicides and some returned to the equality life of oppression in Hungary. Just as a newly freed parolee has difficulty in adjusting to free life and must be controlled by a parole officer, so some of these refugees drowned in the pool of freedom because we did not teach them how to swim.
An observer from an other planet would find it quite amusing to watch how the United States liberated the oppressed people of Iraq to give them freedom, which they do not understand, thus do not desire and can not handle. We are demanding results from the Iraqis generated by their “long awaited” freedom, while attempting to hold ourselves out as a desirable example to the Iraqis. Unaccustomed to freedom, the Iraqis are seeking the strong hand of leadership to keep them under control instead of imitating the confusing moral and political anarchy, called democracy, engulfing the USA.
We ask the Iraqis to combat and die fighting the hatred and venom of Islamist fanatics while they watch in astonishment the common hatred against the President of the United States that unites Islamist fanatics, American fanatics, French fanatics and enemies of the United States. They ask rightfully: Is this what freedom and democracy is about?
Iraqis need an explanation. They understand Islamist hate and venom since they had to live with it all their lives. This hate only recently turned specifically against the President of the United States, because of his forceful efforts to stop the fanatics. Fundamental Islamist hate is more general against the decadent West, led by the Great Satan.
The hatred of Americans against the President has to be explained to them. This hatred has not been an accidental development. It is a deliberate effort to return the opposition political party into power by mobilizing several segments of the population against the Republicans now controlling Congress and the White House. Who are the haters and what is their motivation and what is the MO of hate movements?
UNITED WE HATE
When politicians promote equality the most common and most accessible unifying force is hate. You do not need any positive motivation as long as you have a target for your hate. During the last century Germans, Russians, Chinese and Arabs were united by hate promoted by totalitarian and fanatical leaderships. Political leaders employ similar tactics to gain power.
It is a strange human phenomenon that more unreasonable the hatred, the more hating it generates. When people realize that their hate is not justified, it causes them to recruit others to their movement. Hate has such unifying effect because by expanding and involving others it suppresses the feeling of the guilty conscience of the hater as he seeks to transform his unreasonable hate to reasonable. Unjustified hatred fuels itself by the realization that it is unjustified.
Bush is hated because of his good qualities. If he would be a man of bad moral character, or corrupt, he would be despised. You seldom hate a person you despise. This is perhaps the reason why President Clinton was not hated and it explains the hatred against President Bush.
The current propaganda efforts are primarily directed to those who already believe in it and who need to justify their believes and thus feel less guilty. The more people feel guilty, the more the propaganda must increase. The more people feel that they have been deprived of free choice and independent judgment, the more they need propaganda to remain a loyal hater.
Propaganda is created by people who create words and images. Priests, writers, artists, professors, journalists, filmmakers, TV anchors and intellectuals in general. In order to establish equality their goals are to undermine the present order and institutions; destroy authority and prevailing morals; disillusion the people and create a void and hunger for a new world order under a Utopian scheme. George Soros expresses it best when he proposes a new world order with all nations submit to the same rules and laws. ”We could then rely on international public opinion to determine and protect the common interest to a greater extent than today.”
I have quoted Karl Marx, the father of the Communist ideology, several times because I believe that the United States is attacked by a neo-communist movement that considers the failure of Communism in the Soviet Union a local blunder caused by improper leadership. Institutions of higher learning make no attempt to hide their communist indoctrination and their attempt to create a new generation of neo-communist followers. Politicians are running for office mouthing Communist slogans, advocating class hatred and the destruction of authority in the hope that a new world order will arise ultimately creating equality among nations by bursting “The Bubble of American Supremacy” (George Soros ©2004). Little do they understand that their allies in hatred, the Islamist fundamentalists, are not just attempting to reduce the economic and military power of the United States, but to destroy Western civilization and to restore the Ottoman Empire.
My book,” The Dual Palindrome” published in 2002 stated:
“It is also predicted that the continued confrontation between
the Muslim World and the West may escalate into a major war
starting in 2002 with consequences dominating the next millennium.
An attempt will be made, by declaring a “Jihad”, to recreate the
Ottoman Empire and to unite Muslims against the infidel. The
conflict between “modernization” and “westernization” of Islam
will be eventually resolved by reformation of the Muslim religion,
similar to the Reformation of Christianity. The age of the Muslim
religion and it’s intolerance of other religions reflects the
conditions of the Christian religion of the Dark Ages. This is the
Dark Age period of the Muslim religion. Reformation will eventually
lead to liberation of women and peace between the religions.”
It will be ironic to watch Islam gradually reform due to the projection of American power and the expansion of the information age, while the United States self-destructs for the same reasons. Looking at the results of the last presidential election I see some interesting numbers:
Population of counties won by:
Gore 127 million
Bush 143 million
Square miles of land won by:
Gore 580,000
Bush 2,427,000
States won by:
Gore 19
Bush 29
I can reach but one conclusion: Unless the majority shown by the numbers above wakes up from their apathy, the United States will self-destruct while the Ottoman Empire will be restored.
WHY HATE BUSH?
Why do so many liberals have this hatred for Bush? The question must be asked because there are so few obvious reasons for such hatred. Please consider a basic element of hatred evidenced by centuries of hate against Jews, blacks, Christians and many other groups and individuals.
It is a strange human phenomenon that the more unreasonable the hatred, the more hating it generates. When people realize that their hate is not justified, it causes them to recruit others to their movement. Hate has such unifying effect because by expanding and involving others it suppresses the feeling of the guilty conscience of the hater as he seeks to transform his unreasonable hate to reasonable. Unjustified hatred fuels itself by the realization that it is unjustified.
Bush is hated because of his good qualities. If he would be a man of bad moral character, or corrupt, he would be despised. You seldom hate a person you despise. This is perhaps the reason why former president Clinton was not hated and it explains the hatred against President Bush.
HOW TO STOP BIN LADIN
Crime and its consequences – punishment - has been the fountainhead of the social contract, of all laws and religions. Punishment is preventative because it is guided by the idea of deterrence.
Specific deterrence punishes the offenders to prevent them from repeating the crime.
General deterrence is achieved by punishing the criminal as an example to other potential perpetrators and to society as a whole.
To act as a deterrent both the public and the potential criminals must have clear and certain knowledge of the punishment associated with the crime. Most importantly, punishment must fit the crime so that potential criminals can evaluate the potential rewards of the crime with the retribution of punishment.
Without punishment as deterrence, law enforcement could not function.
When a fanatic believes that death, while committing a crime, is not a punishment but a heavenly reward, our entire concept of crime and consequences disappears.
It is an open secret that Houston is a prime target for attack by religious terrorists. A nuclear bomb hidden in a container aboard a vessel entering the Ship Channel is a high probability. The death of hundreds of thousands, the destruction of our chemical and refinery industry, the radiation poisoning of a million people are waiting to happen.
Is there a deterrent that we have announced that would stop these horrendous events? Is there a consequence to such an attack on the perpetrators or their backers?
My personal history may provide an answer this question. Sixty years ago I was a guerilla fighting in the streets of Budapest. On December 24, 1944 the Russian Army surrounded the city. While German and Hungarian soldiers were fighting a hopeless battle, Hungarian fanatical Arrow Cross fascist groups were roaming the streets torturing and killing Jews. Their single goal was killing as many Jews as they could before the city fell.
As the Russian lines neared the ghetto, where more than sixty thousand people were jammed into a small area, the Arrow Cross planned a final massacre with the help of German Waffen SS troops. They believed that Stalin would hold the troops back, as he did in Warsaw, Poland, to allow the destruction of the ghetto and its inhabitants.
Five hundred Arrow Cross thugs assembled for the final assault waiting for the German SS to join them. A horrendous final act of the Holocaust was about to occur. Resistance was not possible, and we watched helplessly as the SS conducted a mass search throughout the city to find Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat. We found out that Wallenberg threatened the commanding SS general, August Schmidthuber, and his general staff, stating that if the massacre took place, the general and his staff would be held responsible personally as war criminals and would be executed by the Russians. The Swede was the only remaining foreign diplomat in the surrounded city and his testimony would have been decisive in finding the SS general guilty if the massacre took place. The threat worked. The general cancelled the assault just as the Russians arrived at the edge of the ghetto. Wallenberg’s threat saved the ghetto and its 69,000 potential victims.
Threatening the Arrow Cross with death would have not worked because they were ready to die for the crimes and atrocities they have committed killing more than 100,000 during their 90-day regime from Oct. 15 1944 until the liberation in mid January 1945. It was the threat to the enablers, the SS general and his staff, that prevented the crime. The lesson of 60 years ago can be applied today.
Nearly all international terrorism today is basically religious violence by Islamic radicals. The cause of the terrorism is not poverty or politics, but the paranoia of Islamic clerics unable to deal with increasing social change. Islam is now in its Middle Ages as reflected not only by their calendar but by their behavior, which is similar to the actions of the Church of the Middle Ages. It is the Islamic clerics who are preaching and supporting the terrorists because they fear the inevitable coming reformation of Islam.
Threatening fanatic Islamic terrorists with death is not a deterrent to their planned action. We must find a punishment for their backers and enablers that will force them to stop the terrorists. According to CIA reports, many leading Muslim clergymen have issued a fatwa that authorizes and endorses the usage of nuclear weapons against the United States.
Ever since 9/11 the Internet and its thousands of blogs openly discusses the probability that if the Islamist terrorists attack the United States with nuclear or biological weapons we will eventually retaliate by destroying Mecca and Medina. Just like the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War II, they predict that similar twin bombs would end the threat of the religious fanatics.
Others predict that it would inflame all of Islam into a confrontation with the rest of the world that would last a millennium.
We do not know how many millions of Americans would have to die before such retaliatory action would be taken, if ever, but the possibility of such action may be a deterrent if it is disclosed in advance. It won’t deter the fanatics but perhaps it would encourage the large silent majority of Muslims to come out of hiding and expose the fanatics hiding amongst them. Perhaps it would speed up the reformation of Islam by changing the goal from killing the infidel, to co-existence with other religions.
If the destruction of Mecca and Medina as retaliation for nuclear attacks by Islamic terrorists is ever considered, then the announcement of it in advance should be used as a deterrent to prevent the attacks from happening. Then it will be up to the Muslim community and its clergy to make sure it never happens.
T.W.WESTON
©WESTON RESEARCH 2005
