Remembering George ?

On this date—December 14—215 years ago, General George Washington died under the watchful eye of three physicians. They were using the then standard-of-practice of bloodletting,¹ but after four bouts of it, Washington’s fate was assured. Perhaps we could say, he was bled to death.

And perhaps we are in the midst of a latter déjà vu at this very hour as Uncle Sam bleeds toward the same fate—except there are no attendees allowed about the bed. Those trying to enter and save the patient are mocked and defamed while most everyone else is:

▪  at the stock exchange,
▪  “treasure hunting” with their devices,
▪  too busy trying to staunch their own bleeding, or
▪  crying against the offenses of socialism and communism.

However, despite the real offenses of communism / socialism, the more vital, critical health question is: What is the difference between excessive bloodletting and corporate capitalism? No, that’s not quite right. It’s not the difference that concerns us—‘tis the similarity!

See, whichever you choose, the patient dies.

Too bad, we’ve forgotten, not just George, but Thomas:

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.  (Thomas Jefferson ~ 1816²)

---------------------------/
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting
2. This is a verifiable quote. See the transcribed copy of Jefferson’s letter to George Logan, Nov. 12, 1816 (p. 68-69) at Hathi Trust Digital Library: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t3pv6bn68;view=1up;seq=92 .
The original letter is at The Library of Congress, The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, and their digital copy of the original is at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page049.db&recNum=641 (Digital Images 641 and 642: see the second page—image 642—for the quote.)

Whitewash?

This year marks the 65th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four,¹ which, in the contortions and déjà vus of history, may bring us to Henry Kissinger and his latest book, published September 2014. Kissinger’s name, presiding over the bold and simple title, World Order, presents upon a pristine, white cover.

This year also marks the 225th year since the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation (1789; first session, First Congress).

So what, you may ask, is the connection between these facts?

It’s hard to know for sure, but let’s consider:  “We the People” and World Order.

Millions believe that the United States Constitution was and (still) is the best hope and promise of preserving freedom and opportunity in the world.² If they are right, (and even if they’re not), the U.S. has always advertized itself as the beacon of democratic values; so perhaps we should carefully read Mr. Kissinger’s World Order and ask at every page: What does this book mean for the hope and promise of the U.S. Constitution?

But first, let us acknowledge that Mr. Kissinger undoubtedly reveals some insightful and important things in his World Order for there are huge global problems that only seem to be getting worse. However, in reading World Order, let us also be aware of the grand illusion / delusion that manifests in the very first pages of his book.

Without any apparent cognitive dissonance, he writes:

“… an American consensus—an inexorably expanding cooperative order of states observing common rules and norms, embracing liberal economic systems, forswearing territorial conquest, respecting national sovereignty, and adopting participatory and democratic systems of governance. American presidents of both parties have continued to urge other governments, often with great vehemence and eloquence, to embrace the preservation and enhancement of human rights.” (pp. 1-2)

“In the American view of world order, peace and balance would occur naturally, and ancient enmities would be set aside—once other nations were given the same principled say in their own governance that Americans had in theirs. The task of foreign policy was thus not so much the pursuit of a specifically American interest as the cultivation of shared principles. In time, the United States would become the indispensable defender of the order Europe designed. Yet even as the United States lent its weight to the effort, an ambivalence endured—for the American vision rested not on an embrace of the European balance-of-power system but on the achievement of peace through the spread of democratic principles.” (p. 6)

“The United States has alternated between defending the Westphalian system and castigating its premises of balance of power and noninterference in domestic affairs as immoral and outmoded, and sometimes both at once. It continues to assert the universal relevance of its values in building a peaceful world order and reserves the right to support them globally.” (p. 8)

These head-spinning words are so un-tethered to the real (forgotten / ignored / hidden) history of U.S. involvement in other nations, it staggers credulity. Not to mention what the U.S. government, its corporate bosses and banks, and other hidden handlers are presently foisting upon U.S. citizens. When one reads the many voices of warning and exposés, it becomes apparent that Kissinger’s book may just be the latest whitewash in a long laundry list of offenses against the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights.

When one considers:

▪ his words: “Our age is insistently, at times almost desperately, in pursuit of a concept of world order.” (p. 2)

▪ his awareness that “The modern era announced itself when enterprising societies sought glory and wealth by exploring the oceans and whatever lay beyond them.” (pp. 17-18)

▪ his observation that “A man of the cloth steeped in court intrigue, Richelieu was well adapted to a period of religious upheaval and crumbling established structures.” (p. 21)

▪ his view that Machiavelli’s, The Prince is “a work on statesmanship” and that it “systematically analyzed the requirements of power and survival”³;

shouldn’t these give us pause—if not paranoia?

Is this book just one more trial balloon to further normalize the “idea” of (One) World Order? Though perhaps, it will never get below two or even three because, as we all know from experience and history—war and the threat of war can go a long way to achieving ways, ends, and mean$.

What would George Orwell say about this latest World Order? Perhaps he would lament: “Lucky—but unlucky you. My timing was only slightly off.”

---------------------/
1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
2. Many believe it; particularly those of faith, and especially Mormons, referencing their scripture: Doctrine and Covenants | Section 101:77-80 ~ According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. Doctrine and Covenants | Section 98:4-10 ~ And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
3. http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Ideas/ID/2416333338/ (being the words of Mr. Kissinger at min. 1:10-1:27 of the CBC “Ideas” (Paul Kennedy) program entitled, “Machiavelli: The Prince of Paradox,” broadcast 6 November 2013 in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the writing of The Prince. See also: http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2014/02/niccolo-mockiavelli.html

Blinding Paradigms?

At some future day, say even 100 years hence, will observers look back upon the age of baby-boomers and their offspring as a bizarre time of dizzying technology AND stupefying intransigence? Will someone begin to quote Charles Dickens,¹ lamenting:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of [staggering stupidity hubris]”?

And will someone observe that great crimes were orchestrated by “tight-lipped authorities” who believed that their “superlative truisms” governed the cosmos and all therein and thereout?

▪ Will we even be here in 100 years (yea, even 50) if geoengineering² and HAARP³ (et ilk) continue their secret combinations (chemical and otherwise)?

▪ Will corporate capitalism⁴ have lost its gloss in the wake of cause, effect, consequence and destruction; and will it finally be observed that the “capital system” damned more creativity and innovation than it ever encouraged?

▪ Will the nuclear energy industry have finally drowned in its own indestructible, toxic waste?

▪ Will militant scientists atheists finally be recognized for what they are: dogma-driven tyrants—as déjà vu the Inquisition as every other militant bully of past and present?

▪ Will the lies of GMO and industry-sponsored “studies” finally be acknowledged as profit-driven frauds?⁵

▪ Will the Big Business of fast-food & health chronic sickness finally admit that what is ingested makes a difference?

▪ Will the medical and psychiatric professions have finally accepted evidence-based  (i.e., mostly non-profit and non-pharmaceutical) solutions to the recurring / enduring pain epidemics?⁶

▪ Will the Electric Universe⁷ (and other theories that challenge the standard model) have been given a fair and open hearing?

▪ Will “cultural superiority” have given way to the observation that ancient civilizations knew and achieved things we haven’t begun to match?⁸ that progress has not been linear and gradual? that civilizations, equal or superior, have fallen into dust in obsessive pursuit of excess, disparity, power, and gain? (Oh, déjà vu—again!)

▪ Will the predilection to conspiracy by those pursuing power and gain (and their desperation to deny it) finally be openly acknowledged as a ubiquitous, historical déjà vu?

▪ Will citizens of the “great superpower” ever admit the pivotal role their nation played in the destruction of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, worldwide?⁹

▪ Will the CAO’s of geoengineering and HAARP be tried and condemned for acts of supreme conceit and criminality (before it’s too late)?

The list could go on and on.

And for those who think that God (plus all the above) is just another blinding paradigm, I suppose we shall all know, sooner or later.

-----------------/
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Tale_of_Two_Cities
2. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ ; See also YouTube on geoengineering: e.g., David Lim, March 2013.at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h57c3WtSiM8 (1:23:55 min.) ; Dane Wigington at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ-tph5s_GM (48:05 min.), etc.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program ; see also http://www.earthpulse.com/src/category.asp?catid=1 ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b-gA9qq3o ; Book: Angels Don't Play This HAARP by Nick Begich and Jeane Manning; Word-Picture; http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2011/09/p-con-002-not-to-worry.html
4. http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/search/label/Corporatism
5. GMO, etc.: http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/2012/10/some-choice.html
6. The Mindbody Prescription: Healing the Body, Healing the Pain by John E. Sarno, M.D.; Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker; podcast: Robert Whitaker on Psychiatric Drugs at http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/features/2014/06/08/robert-whitaker-on-psychiatric-drugs/
7. Electric Universe: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ ; http://www.holoscience.com/wp/
8. This is not to say that modern scientific and mechanistic man has not achieved incredible things (a current example being the Rosetta mission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)), but it is to say: It is highly unlikely that our mechanical and energy systems are the only or even most efficient systems possible in making great discoveries or advancements. Much has been lost from the past, even as our advancements will be lost in time if we do not learn the philosophic and moral lessons of history.
9. Whether one agrees with their politics or not, there is much to learn from the facts and warning voices of Chris Hedges, Chalmers Johnson, Jeremy Scahill, Naomi Klein, Stephen Kinzer, Noam Chomsky, etc., etc., etc. Take time to read their books or "YouTube" them. It’s time! Perhaps past time.

“Public Enemy #1”?

Quotes from the BBC documentary, Psychopath¹:

▪ “There are few more emotive words in the English language than psychopath—a clinical word for a condition that has only recently begun to be properly defined.”
▪ “[There are] tens of thousands of other people out there who are psychopaths but are not serial killers.”
▪ “And by far the vast majority are neither criminal nor in prison. But the kind of harm that psychopaths can cause at home and in the workplace is deeply damaging and costly in every sense.”
▪ “There is something missing. [The psychopath] has no compunctions.”
▪ “They are dangerous, without a conscience, and all around us.”
▪ “In the workplace, they often disrupt and destroy the good working of the business or an operation …”
▪  “[They are] “Public Enemy #1.”

So:
If one in every one-hundred people² manifests psychopathy in our present world;

If this one percent causes highly disproportionate injury relative to their numbers;

If most of us equate psychopaths with acts of violence, horror, and criminality;

If, in fact, most psychopaths inflict their harm and chaos in more inconspicuous, subtle ways³ through:

◦ pathological lying;
◦ cunning, conning, and manipulation;
◦ charm, sincerity, earnestness (when it suits their purpose);
◦ remorseless, callous behaviors;
◦ seeding contention and confusion;
◦ denial, maligning, blaming others, refusing responsibility;
◦ living without conscience; without empathy.

If such behaviors are becoming more of an issue in communities, business, and government;

If we are reluctant to name “mid-grade” psychopaths for what they are because they don’t manifest in shocking headlines, and because the term “psychopath” is such an emotionally-charged word;

THEN maybe we should affix some prefix to the term “psychopath” to get past our hesitation to name what has become a devastating problem with increasing numbers of victims.

Of course, there is concern about labeling people,⁴ but how many family members, employers / employees, and others endure endless confusion and mental / spiritual abuse because they do not know how to recognize or name behavior patterns that are “mid-grade” psychopathic?

So, what should we call a person who will not maim or kill the body, but who is obsessed with maiming and destroying the psyche (and often, the reputation) of others through remorseless, pathological lying, conning, manipulation, etc.?

What should we call people (including corporate faux-persons) who twist everything into a self-serving, destructive distortion?

----------------/
1.BBC documentary, Psychopath:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LE-UlvzmoM
2. In Britain, the ratio is estimated to be one in every two-hundred, while one in one-hundred is an American statistic; see the BBC documentary at the beginning and at 16:15 min.
3. Some of this list comes from Prof. Robert Hare’s Checklist and some from other observations. Hare’s Checklist for the full psychopathy spectrum can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_Checklist . See also a prior Déjà Vu post concerning this subject at http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2014/05/a-plague-of-psychopaths.html
4. TEDx talk: “How to Spot a Psychopath” by Jon Ronson (14:24 min.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaBTbMW3vbc . Anyone who has suffered at the hands of a psychopath (mid-grade or otherwise), may find JR’s presentation quite flippant. His concern about labeling however is worthy of consideration, but without Prof. Hare’s work, we might still be in the state of confusion and turmoil that allows psychopaths to wreak their havoc without being counted or accountable. Nonetheless, we should proceed with caution, taking Prof. Hare’s advice that a few checklist characteristics do not make a psychopath: “What you have got to do is have a cluster or combination of characteristics that hangs together.”

Free for All Some

If you were a writer and wanted to hype your income (and had the means), a sure-fire way to do it would be to buy tons of your own books and store them in some warehouse. Then after a short period of time, you could put them back on the market—with a price increase, of course, because sales had been so phenomenal. (Supply! Interest! Demand! you know!) Then after a time, you could buy your unsold books back again. The cycle could repeat itself several times before things began to wear thin (like the cover perhaps; or the disparity between income and cost).

So far, this buyback strategy seems to be working for many of our HyPEs (Highly Paid Employees) in the corporate world. For them, it works to have the corp buy back its shares. The share price goes up; the bright HyPE looks great; s/he collects the contracted "performance" bonus; and thereafter spends more time at work trying to figure out how to make it happen again; and where to spend or invest the income bump.

 Buyback is becoming a super duper¹ profitable strategy (at least for some).

Here is the take by financial writer Don Pittis²:

If someone handed you a bundle of free cash, would you stop working?

Perhaps that's what has happened to our economy. As governments create more and more free money ^[3]— in the form of no-interest loans — and inject it into the financial system, companies have stopped investing in the future.

Instead, as Edward Luce noted the other day in the Financial Times, companies are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into share buybacks that produce nothing. Except higher share prices, and therefore higher executive bonuses.

"If you need an explanation for why the top 0.1 per cent is doing so well," says Luce,^[4] that is where to look. Luce's solution is to change the rules so that executive earnings are based on something other than short-term share prices.

The proposed solutions may need a second look, but here again, we see (déjà vu!) one more case of the “Growth Fund” syndrome.⁵

How long do we keep duping ourselves?

-----------------------------/
1. http://dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2011/11/confession-of-dupe-dealer.html or http://dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/search/label/Dupers
2. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/free-money-for-all-could-jumpstart-the-economy-don-pittis-1.2775647?cmp=rss  (cbcnews Business: Don Pittis, Sep 24, 2014)
3. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/desperately-seeking-economic-health-in-the-era-of-free-money-don-pittis-1.2756004 (cbcnews Business: Don Pittis, Sep 05, 2014)
4. The article in the Financial Times, dated September 21, 2014, and written by Edward Luce is titled: “The short-sighted US buyback boom.” It can be found, if you have an FT subscription, at: http://www.ft.com/home/us
5. http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2011/04/growth-funds.html ; http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2011/03/vast-fund-of-stupidity-recycling.html

TransAlta Culpa (Again) ?

A bottomless pit of contrivance?
(from office.microsoft.com)

A few days ago in Alberta, a heat spike was forecast. The power-generating giant TransAlta seems to have anticipated its own spike as two of its large coal-fired electricity generating plants were shut down for “unscheduled maintenance” creating a classic supply and demand divergence—huge demand with limited supply, with the resultant classic free-market spike.

Are we surprised? Why shouldn’t this be the rational, transnational strategy for all corporations that “live and breathe” the bottom line? Makes perfect cents (by the trillions).

Oh, and yes! We have seen this before. As recently as February of this year at:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/transalta-accused-of-manipulating-energy-prices-in-alberta-1.2554508?cmp=rss (*) Quote:

“Alberta's power-generating giant TransAlta has been accused of market manipulation again.
“The power company is in trouble with the province's electricity watchdog — the Market Surveillance Administrator (MSA).
“It says the company shut down some of its power plants on four occasions during peak periods in 2010 and 2011, driving up prices.
“TransAlta rejects the allegations, but the case is already prompting calls for tougher regulation of the electricity market. …
“… this isn't the first time TransAlta has faced allegations like this.
“The company was fined $370,000 in 2012 for market manipulation.”

So what does free market really mean? Free to manipulate supply and demand for profit? Free to get off almost scot-free when caught? Free to repeat in endless déjà vu?

And what power-generating corporation has not clued into this “spike and spin-dry” strategy? When weighing gains and losses, who can resist?

So, in years to come, will our current free-marketeer defenders be judged as blind and deaf to “realities” (as passionately unobserving) as those we have judged from the so-called “dark ages”?

Is dummkoph-ish the word that springs to mind for our day (and for all of us who sit back and let this happen time and again)?

-----------------------------/
* See also: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/transalta-admits-to-manipulating-electricity-prices-1.976969

High-Frequency Déjà Vu

If you are a believer in “free-markets” and laissez-faire, perhaps an excursion beyond Milton Friedman (& company) might prove useful.

Here is one suggestion:

Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt by Michael Lewis © 2014

In trying to unravel a Wall Street mystery, several people, hired and headed by Brad Katsuyama of RBC (Royal Bank of Canada), pursued the threads of evidence and history. One of those pursuers was John Schwall who went “digging around the Staten Island library” looking at other Wall Street scandals. Here is how Lewis describes it:

Several days later [John Schwall had] worked his way back to the late 1800s. The entire history of Wall Street was the story of scandals, it now seemed to him, linked together tail to trunk like circus elephants. Every systemic market injustice arose from some loophole in a regulation created to correct some prior injustice. “No matter what the regulators did, some other intermediary found a way to react, so there would be another form of front-running,”^[1] he said. … He’d learned several important things, he told his colleagues. First, there was nothing new about the behavior they were at war with. The U.S. financial markets had always been either corrupt or about to be corrupted. Second, there was zero chance that the problem would be solved by financial regulators; or, rather, the regulators might solve the narrow problem of front-running in the stock market by high-frequency traders, but whatever they did to solve the problem would create yet another opportunity for financial intermediaries to make money at the expense of investors. ... (p. 103)

So, here is a suggestion for those who “worship at the altar of the free-market”² (like conservative Gerry Nicholls²). Please: open your eyes and ears to the high-frequency déjà vu of the faux-free, faux-efficiency, faux-self-correction, faux-hype, etc., etc., surrounding corporate capitalism.

from office.microsoft.com

------------/
1. “Front running is the illegal practice of a stockbroker [or high-frequency trader, et al.] executing orders on a security [or buying/selling] for its own account while taking advantage of advance knowledge of pending orders from its customers [or other investors, buyers, sellers, or brokers.]. …” quoted from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_running
2. Quote from conservative Gerry Nicholls at minute 9:50 on CBC “The Current”: episode titled, “What is the Future of Public Broadcasting in Canada?” broadcast May 14, 2014.) http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/current_20140514_13102.mp3

Mor[t]al Hazard ?

If a family member or friend who had psychopathic tendencies took out an insurance policy on your life, would you be concerned?

What if a group of strangers engaged in a betting pool concerning your mortality?

What if your corporate employer secretly or deceptively (or even openly) planned to profit from your insured death, or the death of your loved ones?

Well, it’s all part of a growth industry in free-market capitalism as described in chapter 4, “Markets in Life and Death” of Michael J. Sandel’s book, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves these questions:

▪ What happens when a company’s investment strategy includes profiting from the death of their employees? Or clients? Or consumers?
▪ What happens when the death of someone will prove more gainful than their life?
▪ What happens to shareholders when they invest in “death futures”?
▪ What happens to our moral compass when we begin to link another’s death with investment and windfall profit?

http://office.microsoft.com ~ MC900448659

▪ What can the profit motive not justify over time?
▪ Should we be concerned?
▪ Are we being individually sucked and suckered into the vortex of psychopathic behaviors?
▪ Are we déjà vu the Roman Coliseum yet?

Perhaps to get a better handle on this free-market trend, we should extend the sunshine law to require an obit list of corporate and unrelated beneficiaries of deceased persons?

A Plague of Psychopaths ?

In the 1970s, Robert D. Hare developed a Psychopathy Checklist-Revised [1985 / 2003] (PCL-R),¹ setting out the following character traits and behaviors:

glib and superficial charm	denial
grandiosity	parasitic lifestyle
need for stimulation	sexual promiscuity
pathological lying	early behavior problems
cunning and manipulating	lack of realistic long-term goals
lack of remorse	failure to accept responsibility for own actions
callousness	many short-term marital relationships
poor behavioral controls	juvenile delinquency
impulsiveness	revocation of conditional release
irresponsibility	criminal versatility

In the first century A.D., the Apostle Paul wrote: “THIS know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be

lovers of their own selves	false accusers
covetous	incontinent
boasters	fierce
proud	despisers of those that are good
blasphemers	traitors
disobedient to parents	heady
unthankful	highminded
unholy	lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God
without natural affection	having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof
trucebreakers

from such turn away.” (New Testament 2 Timothy 3:1-5)

Do we see the commonalities? Not only are we encountering more and more of these personality disorders in real persons, but within the business world, we seem to have created a surfeit of psychopathic faux-persons, as well:

The Pathology of Commerce

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hEiANG4Uk&list=PLFA50FBC214A6CE87

For the full documentary, entitled “The Corporation,” see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw OR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6zQO7JytzQ

Not every person (or faux-person) manifests all behaviors, but maybe it is time we began to see and name such behaviors for what they are. And to remember that psychopaths also manifest strongly as bullies and narcissists, (though not all bullies and narcissists are psychopaths).

The latter-day proliferation of psychopathic behaviors is causing incredible pain, suffering, loss, and waste, exacerbated by uninformed (and often overworked) court officials and church pastors. When will our courts and churches become venues for relief from the glib, superficial charm, grandiosity, pathological lying, cunning, and manipulation (etc., etc., etc.) of psychopathic bullies?

----------------------/
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist

Bawdy Politics ?

(OR, Alas! Alas! Wo is US!)

In remembrance of the 120th year of the death of

Joseph Ferdinand Keppler (1 February 1838 Vienna – 19 February 1894 New York) … an Austrian-born American cartoonist and caricaturist, who greatly influenced the growth of satirical cartooning in the United States;^[*]

and the 125th year of the publication of his The Bosses of the Senate^[†], I repost his sadly enduring look at puppetry, power, and “bawdy politics”:

The Bosses of the Senate by
Joseph Keppler [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
First published in Puck 1889.
page URL: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AThe_Bosses_of_the_Senate_by_Joseph_Keppler.jpg
file URL: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/The_Bosses_of_the_Senate_by_Joseph_Keppler.jpg

How many déjà vus before we actually VU? and then DO something about this?! And that includes especially you: SCOTUS, POTUS, SOTUS, and HOROTUS!

PS: If “bawdy politics” can describe the (past and current) Senate, what might we call the House^‡?!

------------------------------/
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ferdinand_Keppler
† http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Bosses_of_the_Senate_by_Joseph_Keppler.jpg
‡ (being the House of Representatives, which, in this age of abbreviation and economy, may be shortened to HOR, which surprisingly!! may be a synonym!)

Has Anyone Noticed ?

AWAKE !!
to the price-tag of
delusion.

Once upon a time, Adam Smith said:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 148—I.X.I)

Once upon a (more recent) time, foreigners (in this instance, meaning non-residents of the USA) could surf the commercial web for best price and most current product and actually order it from a US company without having a US billing address for their credit card.

Now, one is beginning to encounter online merchants, even ones as big as HomeDepot and Walmart, who refuse to sell online, if the purchaser cannot provide a US billing address. As recent as ten months ago, this was not so. So what is the deal?

Are these companies colluding with their international sister companies to protect turf and prices? Just try to checkout online without a US billing and shipping address if your preferred seller is a US company. Let’s take Walmart.com and Walmart.ca for example:

▪ Check out the 13 bath toys available online at Walmart.ca
http://www.walmart.ca/en/baby/bath-supplies-toys/bath-toys/N-2437
against the 130 available online at Walmart.com
http://www.walmart.com/browse/baby-toddler-toys/bath-toys/5427_491351_976819?tab_value=all&catNavId=%3Cc%3aout+value%3d%27491351%27%2f%3E&ss=false&ic=32_32&
(If these web addresses change or become defunct, just try your own product comparison.)

▪ Check out the $13.87 CDN and $9.68 USD price differential for the very same “Summer Infant Tub Time Tea Party Set.”*

▪ Check out the increasing inability to purchase what you want from the online store you prefer if you are deemed "foreign."

Sometimes, it may be the reverse when savvy US shoppers encounter a unique product and price in another country and are locked out by drop-down-box address exclusions. Is it because companies are “sacrificing” sales to non-competition covenants with sister companies? Just try to buy a great online deal from HomeDepot.ca if you live in the US.

Some seem to be using “fraud management filters” (such as that offered by PayPal) to exclude orders from foreign-based IP addresses—not for the sake of fraud protection, but solely to justify refusal to sell. For example:

“PayPal gateway has rejected request. The transaction was refused because the country was prohibited as a result of your Country Monitor Risk Control Setting.”

Yes, fraud can be an issue, but when the billing and shipping addresses have been in PayPal’s database for years and have been used innumerable times without problem or complaint, surely fraud technology is smart enough to know that!? So, can there be some other reason to exclude willing buyers from certain markets?!

Thus, if one is travelling or temporarily outside the US, their US PayPal account with its US-issued credit card and its US verified billing and shipping addresses can be rejected because the online purchase was attempted from a foreign IP address.

So much for free trade with certain merchants, unless you are free to travel to the US (or other country of choice) and present your credit card in person and carry the item away. And so much for being able to buy certain US items and have them shipped to family or friends in the US (or elsewhere).

A work-around suggested by a customer service rep at HomeDepot.com was to travel to our local (foreign) HomeDepot (3-hr round trip) and purchase a gift card in order to complete our desired transaction online with HomeDepot.com.

So, how do these definitions jive with current and evolving realities?

A free-trade area is a trade bloc whose member countries have signed a free-trade agreement (FTA), which eliminates tariffs, import quotas, and preferences on most (if not all) goods and services traded between them. If people are also free to move between the countries, in addition to FTA, it would also be considered an open border.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_agreements#Lists_of_free_trade_areas

United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. The main statutes are the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Competition law is law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies.
Competition law is known as antitrust law in the United States and anti-monopoly law in China and Russia. In previous years it has been known as trade practices law in the United Kingdom and Australia.
The history of competition law reaches back to the Roman Empire. The business practices of market traders, guilds and governments have always been subject to scrutiny, and sometimes severe sanctions. Since the 20th century, competition law has become global. The two largest and most influential systems of competition regulation are United States antitrust law and European Union competition law. National and regional competition authorities across the world have formed international support and enforcement networks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

Isn’t it time we consumers and citizens awoke to the fraud of “free markets”? ’Tis a complaint as old as capital itself!

--------------------------/
* http://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/summer-infant-tub-time-tea-party-set/6000039572745
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Summer-Infant-Tub-Time-Tea-Party-Set-4pc/20525944

A Mathematical Ceiling ?

A [mathematical] ceiling is a [philosophic] term used to describe "the unseen, [unacknowledged, peer-enforced] barrier that keeps [many modern scientists] from rising to the upper rungs of [knowledge and truth], regardless of their qualifications or achievements." (Adapted by this blogger from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling )

IF Plato (/ Socrates) is right:

▪ that “The Divided Line”¹ as found in Plato’s Republic (Book VI: 509d-513e) describes two ruling powers and four levels of reality;
▪ that the ruling powers are set over two worlds: the visible and the intellectual [/ invisible];
▪ that each level of reality [from Images (A) to Sensible Things (B) to Mathematical Objects (C) to Form (D)] depends on the next higher level to make sense of itself;
▪ that each section has “different degrees of truth and that the copy is to the original as the sphere of opinion to the sphere of knowledge” (Plato);
▪ that each lower level collapses into image as we move to the next higher level, (i.e., “everything is but an image of a higher reality”);
▪ that we have potential to progress through levels of increasing intelligibility and “into a world that is above hypotheses” (Plato);
▪ that mathematics (C) exerts a powerful downward force—a type of “intellectual gravity”² pulling back toward sensible things (B) (i.e., things of the senses), and thus, into a downward turning away from Form (D)—being the “world that is above hypotheses”;

THEN, has modern science fallen victim to the weight of this intellectual gravity, such that it will never be able to discover the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, unless it turns around?

--------------------------/
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_Divided_Line
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/divided_line.html
2. See The Great Courses/The Teaching Company, Plato’s Republic, Prof. David Roochnik, Lecture 13.

Truly Afflicted (With Riches) !!

Back in October 2009, I wrote the following:^*

“Despite the “neon” warning that:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God^[1]

most of us, in our fondest dreams, wish we were smitten with riches and that we should never recover—in likeness of Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof.

“The strange thing is—if we go by scripture—there is probably no greater risk to man’s eternal prospects than to have riches. The failure rate is nigh 100%! And we should wish such a test upon our self?!

“Strange too, when we consider the story of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man^[2] At their sequential deaths, the beggar finds himself carried into the bosom of Abraham and the rich man finds himself raising pleas from hell. Where are the justice, merit, and conservative thinking in that scenario? From a trans-world perspective, it would almost seem safer to be a beggar than a rich man! Is that a contradiction or what, to our current capitalistic, individualistic, blessed-driven paradigm?!

“What is it about riches that so afflicts mankind with failure? Is it the sense of merit? Of entitlement? Of ownership? Of self-sufficiency? Of freedom and power? Of basking in glory and honor taken unto oneself?”

Then, 4½ years later, I encounter this revealing video^† that is both a déjà vu and cautionary reminder to those afflicted with riches (or the sensation thereof).

“Money on the Mind”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuqGrz-Y_Lc&sns=em

Dove-tails with last week’s post, ME, ME, MINE^‡ !! and seems another nail in the coffin of (scientifically-challenged) Objectivism.

-----------/
*    http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/2009/10/to-those-afflicted-with-riches.html
[1] New Testament Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:24-25
[2] Luke 16:19-31
† Thanks to the blogger at http://barerecord.blogspot.ca/2014/03/247-what-influence-are-we-under.html and his side notes section part-way down his #247 post of 17 March 2014 where I first saw this video.
‡ http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2014/03/me-me-mine.html

ME, ME, MINE

(OR Déjà Vu of “The Terrible Twos”?)

This post is in commemoration of the 107th Anniversary year of the founding (1907) of Ayn Rand’s (1905-1982) philosophy of “Objectivism.”¹

Before you swear in outrage at this ridiculous accusation against a two-year-old Ayn Rand, let me swear:

“This commemoration arises out of Ayn’s very own words.”

Check it out yourself: “I was two and a half,” she says, when Objectivism became her philosophy. She says it three times between 8:06-8:38 minutes/seconds.


)

"Ayn Rand Interview with Tom Snyder (1 of 3)" at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc

This video has become very hard to find, but was captured 163 times by the WayBackMachine between Sept. 7, 2009 and March 19, 2023, but even there some postings have been deleted. However, as of today, 11 June 2023, it can be accessed at https://web.archive.org/web/20120617024334/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc . The remarks concerning age of two and a half can still be found after minute 8. If this link fails, try other posting dates for this link at the WayBackMachine: https://web.archive.org/web/20120501000000*/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc.

If “Me, Me, Mine” isn't allowed to describe Objectivism, then Ayn's “truth” has been compromised and her beloved John Galt has failed to get his message across.

----------------/
  1. On deeper Ayn-alysis, the more correct term may be Faux-Objectivism, or in the alternative, Subjectivism. For more Ayn-alysis by this blogger, see:
http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/search/label/AynRand
http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/search/label/AynRand

Niccolò [Mock]iavelli ?

(These thoughts were sparked while listening to CBC Radio, “Ideas” (Paul Kennedy) “Machiavelli: The Prince of Paradox,” broadcast 6 November 2013 in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the writing of The Prince.¹

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Satire: “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.”

So, was Niccolò Machiavelli² being satirical (or not) when he wrote The Prince?

Perhaps context and history can give us some clues.

1. Machiavelli chose not to publish The Prince during his life; and there is no evidence that it was ever given to its addressee: the “Magnificent Lorenzo, son of Piero de’ Medici.”

2. This Magnificent Lorenzo was the son of a usurping family that presided over Machiavelli’s torture before his time of exile in which he wrote The Prince.

3. Machiavelli lived in a time of vanity and violence, pride and paranoia. Come to think of it—which Machiavelli probably did in the many hours of his self-described communion with history—this Medici period of vanity and violence, pride and paranoia was just another long stretch of never-ending, historical déjà vu.

4. A review of the “long-term security” and “survival” of so-called “statesmen.”

5. Reading Jonathan Swift’s, A Modest Proposal (1729)³ in the same sitting as The Prince (1513).  

So, for the sake of those who believe The Prince is “a work on statesmanship” and that it “systematically analyze[s] the requirements of power and survival” (being the words of Mr. Henry Kissinger at min. 1:10-1:27 of the “Ideas” broadcast ), let’s look at an abbreviated sample of power and survival:⁴

Assassinated	Executed	Other Ends
Sennacherib (681 BCE)	King Saul (while fleeing, circa 1007 BCE)	Cyrus the Great (slain in battle, 528 BCE)
Xerxes I (465 BCE)	Robespierre (1794 CE)	Alexander the Great (poisoned? at age 33, 323 BCE)
Pompey the Great (48 BCE)	Mussolini (1945)	Nero (suicide, 68 CE)
Julius Caesar (44 BCE)	Vidkun Quisling (1945)	Napoleon (dies in exile, 1821)
Caligula (41 CE)	Hideki Tojo (1948)	Hitler (suicide, 1945)
Emperor Dominian (96 CE)	Ceausescu (1989)	Pol Pot (dies while under house arrest, 1998)
Kaiser Wilhelm II (1914)	Saddam Hussein (2006)	Idi Amin (dies in exile, 2003)
Nicholas II of Russia (1918)	Gadhafi (2011)	Pinochet (last years under house arrest, 2006)

Created with the HTML Table Generator

So, perhaps the “requirements of power and survival” need a little less delusion (by Kissinger and friends) and a little more systematic analysis.

Of course, some “Princes” do manage to survive their tenure of (tyrannical) power by the practice of so-called “judicious” excesses, yet how often are they plagued with continual paranoia, if not outright madness? Thus, in the light of history (which often unfolds in the dark), is it not stupefying to view The Prince as some formula for secure statesmanship?

But, even if Machiavelli were not mocking the Magnificent Lorenzo (et ilk), I submit that the facts of history do. Tyrannical rulers seem more susceptible to being deposed than “democratic” ones, and manifest as much, if not greater, paranoia.

So, let’s line-up the dead “statesmen / Princes” of history and ask:

Are we naive, delusional, and / or fools-worthy-of-mockery to believe there is power and security in the prescriptions of The Prince?

-----------
1. http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Ideas/ID/2416333338/
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations ; http://list25.com/25-of-historys-deadliest-dictators/ ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinations

A Plea to the Bully Pulpit

Would the powers that be please schedule an open, global convention to discuss the despicability of bullying? Of course, we are beginning to name (and condemn) it for what it is, though we have a long way to go, particularly when it happens in families, or when the bully is especially powerful, wealthy, or famous.

SO, if you are part of a family, or if you are especially powerful, wealthy, or famous—or want, or plan to be—you might be well-advised to watch a re-run of Touched by an Angel, Season 7, CD-1, Episode 2, entitled “Legacy.” There you can observe in brutal detail the way of the bully—a powerful, wealthy father.

Considering the past and present ubiquity of bullying (from the micro- to the macrocosm), we suggest an international screening of “Legacy” (with requisite permissions) for all elected and non-elected government officials, all employees of governments, all CEOs and other HyPEs* of big business, all lawyers and lobbyists, all so-called conservatives and liberals, all fathers and mothers, all gang members, and all other persons and faux-persons (as in Goldman Sachs, et al.) who may or may not fit into one of the above categories.

After the global screening, here is the plea:

▪ If you are the bully: Admit it! STOP IT! (That means even, and especially, you, Uncle Sam! And you, too, IMF.)
▪ If you are the bullied, STOP IT! Get help. NAME IT for what it is—ten thousand times ten thousand, if necessary. Don’t give loyalty to anything that violates integrity. Stand for truth and justice.

-----------------------/
* (being Highly Paid Employees)