Friday, August 29, 2014

Food as a means of social control.

Food is the oldest means employed in civilized societies by the few to ensure control over the many, excepting perhaps main violence, but then without main violence who would allow another to control their food; except maybe modern Americans?

In the early river civilizations we see a small elite of nobles and priest taking control of the storage, planting and distribution of the food wealth that allowed these societies to grow in population and specialization. Money is to a large extent symbolic food. Food the one good and service that must be bought, sold, and made for live to continue: Food must be had! Money on the other hand is an illusion as the picture of the stranded man with gold that he cannot eat so vividly shows those of us that are paying attention. A pocket knife is worth more in a survival situation than all the gold in the world, and food has NO monetary value in a survival situation: NONE!

So here we are in the twenty-first century back to the river civilization, and allowing others to control our food resources. How long before this becomes a millstone, I wonder?  How wise is it to allow those--that is the group of inbreed and intertwined corporations and banks that essentially OWN the USA-- that have already off-shored your jobs, and laiden you with debt, to control your food portions? Am I foolish in thinking that Wal-Mart is not here for the average American in its heart of hearts? I think not.

This being said one form of revolt would be to relearn how to provide for the pot for ourselves. I am thinking that having some potatoes in the window could be not only economic, but political, given that every dollar that corporations do not have is a dollar they cannot use politically against the commonality. It seems so simple: Grow a few pots and containers of food, and save money, and gain some minor amount of food security--this is as far most folks need to take the logic of the matter.

I myself have: Potatoes, tomatoes, pole beans, bush beans, sweet peas, bell peppers, onions, and garlic, all going in pots and getting ready to go out after the 21st of March. Of these the potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, beans, onions, and garlic are their own seed stock, meaning you can use the seeds in them as stock or in the case of the bulbs/tubbers plant them whole as seed. It is very easy to do, all you need is any plastic containers, some sort of soil,and water;fertilizers help. Place pots in southward facing window. That is the basics of getting started. Beans are so easy to grow any idiot can grow enough to feed himself, same with potatoes, and tomatoes. In fact if you have potatoes, tomatoes, onions, and garlic you will not starve and will survive decently; and you can have all of these for little effort and save money to boot.

At any rate, I do hope that some of you decide to take your food seriously, as FOOD is paramount.

You will need it three times every day for the rest of your life.  Thus it follows that Food must be secured so that EVERYTHING else can have any meaning.  Dead folk are not very productive folk; and folks that don't control, nor have the knowledge of how to produce, their own food are dead if they displease the master.

That is why I advocate for groups of men banding together to form the nucleus of a new organic social/economic/political model ( to be worked out AFTER the first things are done )

see Here ... basically groups of men band together, pool resources and save up to form legal entities { XYZ self help association } ( legal shield and vetting mechanism ) which will find men that are open to ideas, in need of help, and willing to pull their weight. This entity will save money in legal entities account, while members as persons will find house(s) in rural area to move into in groups ( think jail, barracks or the like and you have the idea). This will help save money, concentrate manpower, and conditions men to art of working as organic whole. These houses will do good works { like farm and provide 'free meals' that sort of thing } in their area to help attract more recruits and or bring over population to neutrality.
Fraternal Org = Association;  LMC = LLC; FA = Farmers Markets/Cooperatives of Markets; Credit Union = Means to greater things than dirt farming.

In the meantime:  The Association will in time use money in the agreed amount of time to buy rural raw land in name of second entity { 123 Farming LLC limited } that will be 'manned' by some fraction of the first men, who will in time move to rural land and with help of Association build farms/industry from the ground.  Then they will work like slaves to produce the foundation upon which to form up, farms and farmers markets, and industry and industrial associations all on the worker-owner model ideally.

Saved money puts people on land and then they labor very very hard, and that produces, housing, food, fiber ( cloth ) and can produce fuel as well ... these can be either used directly, exchanged, or used as raw materials to artifice further products for use or exchange as the case may be.
This will be repeated in targeted rural areas so that groups of these LLC 'farms' will be able to form Cooperatives that favor each other and local business that favors them. These farm/market/cooperatives they are all three at once but from a different aspect will then do two things: Send money back to the mother association, and form up a local association ( charity) to recruit locally.
Notice that all the parts are interlocked and support each other: The Desired Demo supports the FO and LMC originally, then the farms support the LMC, and FO, which both help the Desired Demo, and eventually all this work culminates in a credit union which helps EVERYONE by breaking the back of the usury and making those productive cooperative persons masters of their own destiny.

 And repeat until you have enough persons and skill and savvy to form a Credit Union such that now the 'Association' will have credit power, with which to fund its locals, the LLC's, help those in the targeted areas, purchase papers and radio, and fund local industry growth.

Other than that I have no real ideas at all. 

News and Views: Aristotle's Political Theory

News and Views: Aristotle's Political Theory: Aristotle (b. 384 – d. 322 BCE), was a Greek philosopher,
logician, and scientist. Along with his teacher Plato, Aristotle is
generally regarded as one of the most influential ancient thinkers
in a number of philosophical fields, including political theory.
Aristotle was born in Stagira in northern Greece, and his father was
a court physician to the king of Macedon. As a young man he studied
in Plato's Academy in Athens. After Plato's death he left Athens to
conduct philosophical and biological research in Asia Minor and
Lesbos, and he was then invited by King Philip II of Macedon to
tutor his young son, Alexander the Great. Soon after Alexander
succeeded his father, consolidated the conquest of the Greek
city-states, and launched the invasion of the Persian Empire.
Aristotle returned as a resident alien to Athens, and was a close
friend of Antipater, the Macedonian viceroy. At this time (335–323
BCE) he wrote, or at least worked on, some of his major treatises,
including the Politics. When Alexander died suddenly,
Aristotle had to flee from Athens because of his Macedonian
connections, and he died soon after. Aristotle's life seems to have
influenced his political thought in various ways: his interest in
biology seems to be expressed in the naturalism of his politics; his
interest in comparative politics and his sympathies for democracy as
well as monarchy may have been encouraged by his travels and
experience of diverse political systems; he criticizes harshly,
while borrowing extensively, from Plato's Republic,
Statesman, and Laws; and his own Politics
is intended to guide rulers and statesmen, reflecting the high
political circles in which he moved.


News and Views: THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH OLIGARCHY.: THE   ORIGIN   AND   GROWTH   OF   THE   ENGLISH   OLIGARCHY. The   British Constitution is commonly described as resulting from t...

News and Views: Historical Interests -- updated and expanded

News and Views: Historical Interests: As promised I am adding information slowly but surely ... eventually these pages may just become their own blog but for now ... here they stay.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Just Price -- the Way it once Was before Liberalism!

Just price:  a price conforming to the doctrine developed in antiquity and elaborated in the medieval period that price should in general correspond to the cost of production

The just price is a theory of ethics in economics that attempts to set standards of fairness in transactions. With intellectual roots in ancient Greek philosophy, it was advanced by Thomas Aquinas based on an argument against usury, which in his time referred to the making of any rate of interest on loans.
St Thomas Aquinas taught that raising prices in response to high demand was a type of theft.

Unjust price: a kind of fraud

The argument against usury was that the lender was receiving income for nothing, since nothing was actually lent, rather the money was exchanged. And, a dollar can only be fairly exchanged for a dollar, so asking for more is unfair. Aquinas later expanded his argument to oppose any unfair earnings made in trade, basing the argument on the Golden Rule. He held that it was immoral to gain financially without actually creating something. The Christian should "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", meaning he should trade value for value. Aquinas believed that it was specifically immoral to raise prices because a particular buyer had an urgent need for what was being sold and could be persuaded to pay a higher price because of local conditions:

    If someone would be greatly helped by something belonging to someone else, and the seller not similarly harmed by losing it, the seller must not sell for a higher price: because the usefulness that goes to the buyer comes not from the seller, but from the buyer's needy condition: no one ought to sell something that doesn't belong to him.[1]

        — Summa Theologiae, 2-2, q. 77, art. 1

Aquinas would therefore condemn practices such as raising the price of building supplies in the wake of a natural disaster. Increased demand caused by the destruction of existing buildings does not add to a seller's costs, so to take advantage of buyers' increased willingness to pay constituted a species of fraud in Aquinas's view.[2]

Aquinas believed all gains made in trade must relate to the labour exerted by the merchant, not to the need of the buyer. Hence, he condoned moderate gain as payment even for unnecessary trade, provided the price were regulated and kept within certain bounds:

...there is no reason why gain [from trading] may not be directed to some necessary or even honourable end; and so trading will be rendered lawful; as when a man uses moderate gains acquired in trade for the support of his household, or even to help the needy...
Later reinterpretations of the doctrine

In Aquinas' time, most products were sold by the immediate producers (i.e. farmers and craftspeople), and wage-labor and banking were still in their infancy. The role of merchants and money-lenders was limited. The later School of Salamanca argued that the just price is determined by common estimation which can be identical with the market price -depending on various circumstances such as relative bargaining power of sellers and buyers- or can be set by public authorities[citation needed]. With the rise of Capitalism, the use of just price theory faded[citation needed]. In modern economics, interest is seen as payment for a valuable service, which is the use of the money, though most banking systems still forbid excessive interest rates[citation needed].

Likewise, during the rapid expansion of capitalism over the past several centuries the theory of the just price was used to justify popular action against merchants who raised their prices in years of dearth. The Marxist historian E. P. Thompson emphasized the continuing force of this tradition in his pioneering article on the "Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century." Other historians and sociologists have uncovered the same phenomenon in variety of other situations including peasants riots in continental Europe during the nineteenth century and in many developing countries in the twentieth. The political scientist James C. Scott, for example, showed how this ideology could be used as a method of resisting authority in "The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Subsistence and Rebellion in Southeast Asia" (1976).
See also

John Cotton on the Just Price, 1639.

[Rev. John Cotton of Boston was the leading Puritan minister in the early decades of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In the document below, Gov. John Winthrop recorded in his Journal what Cotton's conclusions were in a sermon about economic behavior.]

At a general court holden at Boston, great complaint was made of the oppression used in the country in sale of foreign commodities; and Mr. Robert Keaine, who kept a shop in Boston, was notoriously above others observed and complained of, and, being convented, he was charged with many particulars; in some, for taking above six-pence in the shilling profit; in some above eight-pence; and, in some small things, above two for one; and being hereof convict, (as appears by the records,) he was fined £200, which came thus to pass: The deputies considered, apart, of his fine, and set it at £200; the magistrates agreed but to £100. So, the court being divided, at length it was agreed, that his fine should be £200, but he should pay but £100, and the other should be respited to the further consideration of the next general court. By this means the magistrates and deputies were, brought to an accord, which otherwise had not been likely, and so much trouble might have grown, and the offender escaped censure. For the cry of the country was so great against oppression, and some of the elders and magistrates had declared such detestation of the corrupt practice of this man (which was the more observable, because he was wealthy and sold dearer than most other tradesmen, and for that he was of ill report for the like covetous practice in England, that incensed the deputies very much against him). And sure the course was very evil, especial circumstances considered: 1. He being an ancient professor of the gospel: 2. A man of eminent parts: 3. Wealthy, and having but one child: 4. Having come over for conscience' sake, and for the advancement of the gospel here: 5. Having been formerly dealt with and admonished, both by private friends and also by some of the magistrates and elders, and having promised reformation; being a member of a church and commonwealth now in their infancy, and under the curious observation of all churches and civil states in the world. These added much aggravation to his sin in the judgment of all men of understanding. Yet most of the magistrates (though they discerned of the offence clothed with all these circumstances) would have been more moderate in their censure: 1. Because there was no law in force to limit or direct men in point of profit in their trade. 2. Because it is the common practice, in all countries, for men to make use of advantages for raising the prices of their commodities. 3. Because (though he were chiefly aimed at, yet) he was not alone in this fault. 4. Because all men through the country, in sale of cattle, corn, labor, etc., were guilty of the like excess in prices. 5. Because a certain rule could not be found out for an equal rate between buyer and seller, though much labor had been bestowed in it, and divers laws had been made, which, upon experience, were repealed, as being neither safe nor equal. Lastly, and especially, because the law of God appoints no other punishment but double restitution; and, in some cases, as where the offender freely confesseth, and brings his offering, onlv half added to the principal. After the court had censured him, the church of Boston called him also in question, where (as before he had done in the court) he did, with tears, acknowledge and bewail his covetous and corrupt heart, yet making some excuse for many of the particulars, which were charged upon him, as partly by pretence of ignorance of the true price of some wares, and chiefly by being misled by some false principles, as 1. That, if a man lost in one commodity, he might help himself in the price of another. 2. That if, through want of skill or other occasion, his commodity cost him more than the price of the market in England, he might then sell it for more than the price of the market in New England, etc. These things gave occasion to Mr. Cotton, in his public exercise the next lecture day, to lay open the error of such false principles, and to give some rules of direction in the case."

Some false principles were these: --

1. That a man might sell as dear as he can, and buv as cheap as he can.

2. If a man lose by casualty of sea, etc., in some of his commodities, he may raise the price of the rest.

3. That he may sell as he bought, though he paid too dear, etc., and though the commodity be fallen, etc.

4. That, as a man may take the advantage of his own skill or ability, so he may of another's ignorance or necessity.

5. Where one gives time for payment, he is to take like recompense of one as of another.

The rules for trading-, were these:

1. A man may not sell above the current price, i.e., such a price as is usual in the time and place, and as another (who knows the worth of the commodity) would give for it, if he had occasion to use it: as that is called current money, which every man will take, etc.

2. When a man loseth in his commodity for want of skill, etc., he must look at it as his own fault or cross, and therefore must not lay it upon another.

3. Where a man loseth by casualty of sea, or, etc., it is a loss cast upon himself by providence, and he may not ease himself of it by casting it upon another; for so a man should seem to provide against all providences, etc., that he should never lose; but where there is a scarcity of the commodity, there men may raise their price; for now it is a hand of God upon the commodity, and not the person.

4. A man may not ask any more for his commodity than his selling price, as Ephron to Abraham, the land is worth thus much. 14

Foundational Facts

 So to make it plain this follows for EVERY society NO matter the political or economic organization. It is a GENERAL fact that the base holds up the rest. This fact is NOT evadable by nonsense accusations of 'marxism'. Try again: 

No Foundation: No edifice. It is just that simple.

 The fact again is that the nuclear family, division of labor by gender, and hierarchy are the stable basis for society; ANY society. If you destroy these you will destroy society in its total. There is NO other way or truth about it. Nature is NOT a debate club.   Once the Roman Plebes could no longer afford to breed the Roman People were doomed. They were replaced by slaves, dignified with the name 'Roman' but having NOT a drop of the blood or a spark of the genius of the Original Stock ... Don't be a Roman Plebe; Don't become the Proles of History. 

And with that we will leave you with this thought: 

 This pattern was the Roman pattern and it is the one we are repeating as I type. Rage against being a Roman!  There is NO dignity in the grave or the pit or in merely being a memory tossed about two thousand years hence. To stop this you must, band together, end usury, and take control of the political machinery upon which the power of the Oligarachy rests in each of the several nations it has engulfed:

 Basically: If anyone is going to have it over you; why not you? 

Logic is the basis for all sound thinking.

Correct reasoning is the basis for all sound thought! 

There are certain principles known as the Laws of Thought or the Maxims of Consistency. They are variously expressed, variously demonstrated, and variously interpreted, but in one form or another they are often said to be the foundation of all Logic. It is even said that all the doctrines of Deductive or Syllogistic Logic may be educed from them. Let us take the most abstract expression of them, and see how they originated. Three laws are commonly given, named respectively the Law of Identity, the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle.

1. The Law of Identity. A is A. Socrates is Socrates. Guilt is guilt.

2. The Law of Contradiction. A is not not-A. Socrates is not other than Socrates. Guilt is not other than guilt. Or A is not at once b and not-6. Socrates is not at once good and not-good. Guilt is not at once punishable and not-punishable.

3. The Law of Excluded Middle. Everything is either A or not-A; or, A is either b or not-£. A given thing is either Socrates or not-Socrates, either guilty or not-guilty. It must be one or the other: no middle is possible.

The Figures of the Syllogism

As described by Petrus Hispanius.
I Barbara all M is P; all S is M: all S is P
I Celarent no M is P; all S is M: no S is P
I Darii all M is P; some S is M: some S is P
I Ferio no M is P; some S is M: some S is not P

II Cesare no P is M; all S is M: no S is P
II Camestres all P is m; no S is M: no S is P
II Festino no P is M; some S is M: some S is not P
II Baroko
all P is M; some s is not M: some S is not P

III Darapti all M is P; all M is S: some S is P
III Disamis some M is P; all M is S: some S is P
III Datisi all M is P; some M is S: some S is P
III Felapton no M is P; all M is S: some S is not P
III Bocardo
some M is not P; all M is S: some S is not P
III Ferison no M is P: some M is S: some S is not P

IV Bramantip all P is M; all M is S: some S is P
IV Camenes all P is M; no M is S: no S is P
IV Dimaris some P is M; all M is S: some S is P
IV Fesapo no P is M; all M is S: some S is not P
IV Fresison no P is M; some M is S: some S is not P
The vowels indicate the type of statements:
A - Universal affirmative
E - Universal negative
I - Particular affirmative
O - Particular negative

Conversions of II, III, IV to corresponding I:
S - simple
P - per accidens
M - transpose premises
N - reductio ad absurdum
Daniel Seely Gregory's "Practical logic: or, The art of thinking" (1881) says: "The initial consonant, B, C, D or F, in the last three Figures indicates the mood in the first Figure to which the syllogism reduces. Thus, a syllogism in the mood Cesare, reduces to Celarent. The inserted consonants, s, p, k, f, m, indicate the various processes in reduction. S indicates that the proposition symbolized by the vowel preceding it is to be converted simply; p, by limitation or per aociden; k, by contraposition; f, by infinitation or obversion. The letter m (mutari) indicates that the premises of the preceding judgment are to be transposed. The p in Bramantip shows that, after converting simply, the premises warrant a universal conclusion. The other consonants, b, d, l, n, r, t, are not significant, but are inserted for the sake of euphony, or of the metre in the mnemonic hexameters invented, to keep the moods and figures in mind, by Petrus Hispanus, who died in 1277 as Pope John XXII."

The Traditional Square of Opposition

First published Fri Aug 8, 1997; substantive revision Tue Aug 21, 2012
This entry traces the historical development of the Square of Opposition, a collection of logical relationships traditionally embodied in a square diagram. This body of doctrine provided a foundation for work in logic for over two millenia.
The doctrine of the square of opposition originated with Aristotle in the fourth century BC and has occurred in logic texts ever since. Although severely criticized in recent decades, it is still regularly referred to. The point of this entry is to trace its history from the vantage point of the early twenty-first century, along with closely related doctrines bearing on empty terms.
The square of opposition is a group of theses embodied in a diagram. The diagram is not essential to the theses; it is just a useful way to keep them straight. The theses concern logical relations among four logical forms:
A Every S is P Universal Affirmative
E No S is P Universal Negative
I Some S is P Particular Affirmative
O Some S is not P Particular Negative
The diagram for the traditional square of opposition is:
traditional square
The theses embodied in this diagram I call ‘SQUARE’. They are:
  • ‘Every S is P’ and ‘Some S is not P’ are contradictories.
  • ‘No S is P’ and ‘Some S is P’ are contradictories.
  • ‘Every S is P’ and ‘No S is P’ are contraries.
  • ‘Some S is P’ and ‘Some S is not P’ are subcontraries.
  • ‘Some S is P’ is a subaltern of ‘Every S is P’.
  • ‘Some S is not P’ is a subaltern of ‘No S is P’.
These theses were supplemented with the following explanations:
  • Two propositions are contradictory iff they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false.
  • Two propositions are contraries iff they cannot both be true but can both be false.
  • Two propositions are subcontraries iff they cannot both be false but can both be true.
  • A proposition is a subaltern of another iff it must be true if its superaltern is true, and the superaltern must be false if the subaltern is false.
Probably nobody before the twentieth century ever held exactly these views without holding certain closely linked ones as well. The most common closely linked view that is associated with the traditional diagram is that the E and I propositions convert simply; that is, ‘No S is P’ is equivalent in truth value to ‘No P is S’, and ‘Some S is P’ is equivalent in truth value to ‘Some P is S’. The traditional doctrine supplemented with simple conversion is a very natural view to discuss. It is Aristotle's view, and it was widely endorsed (or at least not challenged) before the late 19th century. I call this total body of doctrine ‘[SQUARE]’:
[SQUARE] =df SQUARE + “the E and I forms convert simply”
A proposition converts simply iff it is necessarily equivalent in truth value to the proposition you get by interchanging its terms.
So [SQUARE] includes the relations illustrated in the diagram plus the view that ‘No S is P’ is equivalent to ‘No P is S’, and the view that ‘Some S is P’ is equivalent to ‘Some P is S’.

News and Views: Historical Interests Page

News and Views: Historical Interests: Modern Non-liberal Political Movement: An easy place to find historical programs and documents that I find interesting.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

The periodical recap of things as they stand!

For that periodical recap:

We the Western Peoples live under an oligarchy
This Oligarchy has it over us in all ways:


They control our money, our economy and both our political parties.  And thus they have us enslaved to an internationalist system that is NOT to our long term advantage. I propose that we band together based on an Organic Understanding of Society in which we are bound on to another in a series of interlocking circles something like this:

From this understanding of interconnectedness of one man to his brother I propose that we BUILD farms, factories, and all other things needed for life as a team not as adversaries:

I base all of my thinking on the truth that humans live in groups so that we can eat, be housed and clothed and generally survive:

And the other thing I keep in mind is that the FOUNDATION is the most vital part of any edifice, political or otherwise. And for human society that means stable viable families, on land, laboring to keep the kind strong and virile.

AND TO ENSURE THIS it is my feeling that from this:
And its accomplaning usury, corruption and thefts we need and will go to something more like this:

So that we can keep the Circle going:
We must make the Foundation Stable:
By Outlawing Usury:
But to do so we must band together:

Work really hard to create our own farms, factories, credit and economy generally by our OWN LABORS for our own ends:

Or We shall: Die by the hand of the oligarchy.

Some Links to more of my posts:
To Summarize and attempt to systemize

Just some play lists -- repeat, repeat, repeat and then repeat again.
There are indeed a LOT of digrams, pictures and other visual aids about this blog

10 Points from Oswald Mosley Part One