The Country of Coconut Island.

Once there was an island nation. Coconut island. On Coconut Island there were 100 citizens, 100 acres of land, 100 coconut trees, and 100 wells worth of housing, clothing food and water. ( 1 citizen requires about ½ a share of each to live at all. )

It was a virgin and empty land. But then the 1^st citizen sprang from the very earth, and claimed 32 of all the acres, coconuts and wells. The next few arrived and claimed some more, until the 10^th when 80 of all the acres, trees and wells were claimed. Them came the next 70 citizens who shared 20 acres, trees and wells between them. These last few found that they lacked the water and coconuts needed to eat and be hydrated so they were pressed into service by the 10 at the top, who paid them about 15 coconut trees worth of food and about the same of water, so that they had just enough to keep on working the land of the 10, and particularly the 1^st who again had about a third of the acres, trees and water to himself. Now to compound all this 20 more citizens arrived and having NO share of the land, trees, or water, sold themselves for 10 coconut trees and wells worth of resources, which only ensured that the 70 above them had even less coconuts, water and resources ( say their 20 in wealth and now 15 in 'wages); while those 10 at the top could skim a bit more since the bottom 20 had no leverage upon which to bargain, lacking ANY land that was their own and needing to beg even this from some portion of the 80% of citizens above them, such that if they do not work on the terms presented they do not eat, are not housed, and don't even have access to water.

So to recap we have 100 acres of land; 100 coconut trees ; 100 wells; and 100 citizens total that are distributed such that:

1 citizen has 32 acres, trees and wells

the next 9 have 48 acres, trees and wells between them

Then there are a further 70 that have about 20 to share, and who must therefore labor for the other 15 to just survive …. 

and  finally, the last 20 citizens that have NO 'rightful' shares in any trees, water or resources at all, and who must labor for the entire 10 required for bare subsistence. And who therefore put downward, pressure on the wages of of the next 70 and their own ranks.

Therefore the top 10% have about 80 minus 25 equals 55 or about 5.5 a piece while the bottom 90% have 45 divided by 90 or on average about .5 of a share ( with the poorest 20% or so being at minimum intake levels and living exposed to the elements more often than not. )

Thus the poorest have about 11 times less what the richest have even though they are 9 times their number. And this is said by ALL, the top 10, to be the way Heaven itself favors things, and at any rate it is only the result of inevitable natural forces, so all is well – for them.

That is the material. 

The mentality is that if the top 10 need or want a thing, that is good, just, right and should be made to come about, but if the bottom 90, and particularly the lowest bottom 20 want a single thing that is 'entitlement' and in fact a sign of them having life entirely too easy or that they have the wrong ideas! Those lazy people that live outdoors, they get their .5 share needed to live, thinking is not their lot! What else could they ever hope to have? The nerve to ask for More! Why it defies My Best Interests! Dirty bottom 90% of parasites! How do we bring more to drive their wages down even more and to dilute their unity? Don't they know what they owe us upper 10? Don't they know that we create wealth by hording it among ourselves and paying them sustenance level wages?

To which assertions of monetary sway the cowed and ignorant bottom 90 just sort of bleat: As you wish, and try even harder to live on less and die off to make room for the greater greed … as they have been told since birth that when they make less everybody has more! And this is considered normal and good.

There are those that will say such a place cannot exist and surely does not exist; however, This Island exists. Oh but it does. It is called America. The Good Ole USA.

 

We have basically the same wealth and income distribution in the imperial homeland as described above and the media and elite have the same attitude toward the 'lower classes'.

If the numbers were put on Coconut Island:

1 citizen would have ~35% of everything.

The Next 9 would have ~38.5%

( Top Ten = 73.5% of total wealth. )

Then the next 50 have 26.5%

And finally we have the NOW bottom 40 rather than 20 who have nothing at all. So the top have gained, the next nine lost a bit, and we have 50 rather than 70 for the next class who gained a bit ( but still just above the. 5 necessity level you will notice! ) and then a doubly large under class of 40 citizens.

So America is actually worse off than the Plutocratic Coconut Island I sought to make, when the numbers are lined up side by side. Verily I actually tried to make Coconut Island as 'not first world like' as possible but America still had DOUBLE the poor and not very many less 'just making it' citizens. And if that is Okay to you, then you are coconuts.

The World Wide Oligarchy for Dummies; or what the Blight wing is willfully ignoring

The Right Wing is always on and on about the left, the liberals and the multicult; however you would be hard pressed to find a single one of them that rejects the Neo-liberal 'Free Market' rhetoric of the GOP or Torries. Why is it that they reject one arm of the Oligarchy and cling so desperately to the other? Lack of clear understanding as to the powers and forces that shape our world is the answer.

The diagram at the left is how I conceptualize the modern 'world order' at least in how it appears to operate from the outside and from under its yoke. I make these charts/diagrams and others to make it easier for myself to digest, and more readily be able to analyze complex systems in motion, by seeing the parts first, then understanding their interconnection and then drawing what conclusions I may or can from that data. I find that strengths and weaknesses of systems can be brought to the fore in this way more easily than merely diving into disparate data as a whole set and trying to make order. It is not a perfect method, true, but it is what I have and therefore without further ado. 

In the diagram to the above we have the American ( imperial ) 'grand alliance' of the Feminists, Fags, Minorities, Big-Money internationalists controlling both the nominal right and left in domestic politics. The left uses this control primarily to demand 'humanitarian' utopian missions, the right to demand access to the resources of just those places that need more humanitarian missions, both agree that force is needed, both do all of this based upon a usurious system that ensures the Common ( non-female, non-colored, non-homosexual )Man at home is left as both tax slave to and first victim of the alliance. They are the source of human capital that keep the machine both maintained and feed. In time since more is going out than coming in, they must be expended and like Great Britain before us the 'Grand Alliance' folks will leave us high and dry and seek greener pastures. This 'shift' in power centers will be facilitated by the fact that World Imperium is based upon cookie cutter identical oligarchies among its client states. Such that it could be thought of like this relative to any one nation: 

Notice that Oligarchy forms a coil about the nations, which coil is in effect a debt and credit based economic, social and political prison. Oh a golden barred one to be sure but never the less a prison it remains! Destroy the need for its credit and you destroy its power at a stroke! The Elite Rest upon their Credit Power. Repeat until you grasp this basic fact! The Elite rest upon power over Credit and debt!

Now that we have touched upon some of the basics. We shall deconstruct the above to attempt to have a better look at its workings.

The modern Murri-Qwa is an oligarchy. It is based upon the 1% Elite's ( domestically and world wide ) credit dominance from which they control the PC radical left, and the 'country club' end of the GOP. Hence we have an alliance of the Feminists, Homosexuals, minorities, egalitarians and other anti-Western forces with the Big Money Business over all things interests, who have long been rootless cosmopolitans inside our gates.

The power of this alliance is used domestically to ensure dominance over the academia,economy,education, energy, manufacturing, media, and politics. Their dominance is almost complete. 

In the diagram to the left, we more clearly can see that the Common Man is the foundation upon which the PC-Big-Money alliance operates. They are supported by and support fully the credit oligarchy both domestically and internationally to a man. Both ( all major ) parties are fully on board with the Imperial mission from their own end, and use the Common Man as their servant and oxen in the achievement of those ends with zero regard for the nation. Any complaints or serious attempts to stop the gravy train are denounced by BOTH sides as Racist, Xenophobic, extreme, outside the pale, not part of the mainstream and nationalistic/fascist, and the rest of the world wide interlocking series of oligarchies will do their best to ensure that if the 'national' oligarchy cannot keep order that the 'world' will punish the upstarts economically and invade them if need be to keep them on the 'world' plantation. 

 It should be noted that to save space I left out those groups that might form outside the triangle of the elite to the left and above, those would be labeled communists, anarchists, or socialists and be denounced, and to the right those are populist, levelers, or 'Luddites' and are equally denounced. 

What they have in common is a disgust for the operation of the 'free market' and its steady impoverishment of real life people – the Nationalist cares about his organic kind, the Populist about his Country/Fellow-Citizens – and the fact that they will act against the interests of the Oligarchy. 

The oligarchy is glad to play them off against each other, as and how it can. The oligarchy thrives on ignorance to the point that it calls itself 'democracy'.

Now that we have some idea of HOW this works out in real life domestically. 

Let us look at the modern American Empire. First it must be noted that the oligarchy that has control of the American system is NOT new and was old when America was young. In modern times it can be traced from the Italian Banking Republics, to the Dutch Republic, the England under Cromwell until about WWI, then it shifted to the USA which currently holds its mantle and is the nominal imperial suzerain. What almost all of them have in common is that they are:

1.) They are Usury Based – Debt and bankruptcy are their lives blood.

2.) They are Free Marketers – they demand access to others markets and resources.

3.)They are Militaristic – they will go to war to get that access, or to collect debts as needed.

4.) They are oligarchies – everything in the state tends to reinforce the power of the few over the many.

5.) They are plutocracies – wealth is seen to be the measure of all in all, and comes in time to be the SOLE virtue.

6.) They are Republics – since a strong market requires a weak government to act as its doorman and enforcer upon the commons.

7.)They are legalistic – the letter of the law is used as a shield to protect the oligarchy and as a weapon to punish the commons.

9.) They are Anti-nationalistic – as they evolve they always either bring in more citizens or servants/slaves that displace the citizens.

10.) They always implode into Bankruptcy – and then the oligarchs head for new plantations and begin a new leaving the wreckage as the responsibility of the nation they just milked dry!

The diagram to the above right, shows this pretty well. You have the oligarchy. They dominate all that really matters, using the government to act upon the common little people, who are left without recourse to justice from the rapacious appetites of said oligarchy for profits based on usury and chaos.
The one to the left the effects of Usury upon nations: Bankruptcy, subjugation and servitude for the nation, wealth, power and domination for the oligarchy. Free your currency and prosperity will follow!

And with that we shall talk a bit about the power of currency and resource control.

 Internationally the empire main base of support is the simple and yet complex fact that Dollars are needed to buy Oil and that oil is needed to have a modern economy. This is the petro-dollar and it is the foundation upon which the Imperial Power rests.

The reason the 'world' cares one wit what the 'leaders of the free world' think is because they need their banknotes to buy the petroleum needed to remain in the 21^st century.

If you think of the world community as a fixed point and the Petro-Dollar

as a collar that can be used to leverage the imperial domains about economically, politically and if that fails to bring them sufficiently into line to weaken them for the military blow, then you are not far from the mark. It is this power and control over the volume and worth of the currency in relation to labor and goods, that ensures their domination of the Nations, from this flows the power to corrupt and buy elections so as to 'legally' sell us into bondage to the Money Masters.   This is so because their credit power gives them ALL the other power and authority which they posses!

 

To repeat and reiterate:

The Elite Rest Upon Their Credit Power! Thus if this power is knocked out from under them, they rest upon NOTHING! Remember when going after a world wide Imperium go for the softs.   And the 'softs' of the world system are paradoxically the very credit and resource monopoly that gives them their ability to project power. Rather it is the false belief in its power and a false understanding of money and wealth. * See appendix for related discussion. *

 
Hence smash the credit monopoly and you smash the oligarchies 'grand alliance'. 

 * Appendix:

Money and Wealth – their relationship to power and freedom.

In the end the end 'money' and 'credit' are merely counters for Human Labor. Once Any One of the Nations laboring under the Oligarchies whip realize and apply this great truth the time of the Usurer of over and never again will anyone consent to allow others to charge them interest ( extra time and labor really ) for their own work. Since if money is a counter for labor, then Labor is in fact the real 'money' and the actual wealth of a nation is measured not based upon usurer credit and debts but upon its ability to labor and create first its own needs and then secondarily to provide the needs of others in exchange for the goods of those others. Thus the ends comes when the greater mass is educated about the fact that THEY and not some nebulous cabal create all the wealth of the nation. America is the heart of the empire, it is also the ONLY land mass large enough to survive a world wide embargo and successfully jettison the economics of the Oligarchy and replace that with the assertion of National Autarchy. Autarchy is very simply the status of being able to provide for yourself. Such a nation would have NO use or need for credit, free trade, or any of the other treacheries of the Oligarchy. Such a nation that was large and had a nuclear deterrent could in fact be the basis for a world wide reconquest from these usurious trash. *

And for the above with Red Queen Ann ( Mircosoft Ann ) Lecturing along in my tortured prose! Lovely!  :)

Let us clarify terms: The USA ( Western Europe) is NOT a Democracy, it is an Oligarchy.

The USA is upset that other nations do as they please, while it does as it pleases! That is the backdrop to this tale of the tape.

Corruption was one symptom of Hungary's weakening democratic institutions, 

http://news.yahoo.com/u-calls-ban-entry-six-hungarians-warning-clean-181645487.html

I had to read this twice to make sure I was not asleep. The balls on these people. That was a statement by an apparatchik in DC. Yes DC that den of Democracy, devout and doubled down on the Democracy ... * narrator gags on own sarcasm *

Um we here in the USA have a 'democracy' ( really it is a plutocratic oligarchy ) in which 1% of the people have 32% of the wealth, and give about 75% of all the political donations. 1.2 billion for the Congress both house and Senate Races. Those votes don't come from heaven. And people making 30 thousand and giving 10-50$ are not putting up that money.

2014 Campaign Contribution Limits
On Nov. 6, 2002, the day after the 2002 midterm elections, a new set of federal campaign finance laws went into effect. Known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the law increased the contribution limits for individuals giving to federal candidates and political parties.
Every two years, the Federal Election Commission updates certain contribution limits -- such as the the amount individuals may give to candidates and party committees -- that are indexed to inflation.
Up until April 2, 2014, there were also aggregate limits on how much individuals could give to candidates, parties and PACs. On that date, the Supreme Court said the limit was unconstitutional in a case called McCutcheon v. FEC. The limit for the 2014 cycle was to be $123,200. Now, however, donors can give to as many candidates and committees as they want -- though they still need to abide by the per-candidate, per-PAC and per-party committee limits -- without bumping into an overall cap.
Source: 2014 Campaign Contribution Limits | OpenSecrets
Address : https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php

And again a 'democracy' usually does not ensure it richest members the ability to buy votes, offices and races ... that is a feature of Oligarchies.

Notice the Money Elite at the top in total control and the Demos or People as a cypher and really subjects not rulers of any kind. Thus NO Demos ( people ) Archy ( rule) But Oli ( few ) garchy based on Plutocratic principles or on amount of wealth. Thus wealth is the ruling power.

The good thing is that wealth comes and goes and Oligarchy is inherently unstable and as such no matter what tweaking or padding you put in place they will always either resolve to an more federated aristocracy tempered by what are in real life democratic/meritorious tendencies or a more centralized bueacratic tyranny styling itself as a monarch of some sort or another. Thus it is seems more desirable to simple skip this see-saw and either go to one or stick with the other. I would prefer the merit based system over the money based one. Just saying. I would rather leaders EARN their place than BUY their place and that ethical merit count more than GDP or ROI. Seems more sensible all things taken as a whole.

Reset: If only the American Folk came with such a function ...

But until then, all that sane rational people can do is continue to try to present the case for new institutions, founded on a reality based understanding of society, gender and the rest. Organic Society based on Patriarchal Families or Nothing.

We must continually and without fatigue, reject the framing of the debate by both the faux right and left who are two arms of the PC Credit Oligarchy who is our real enemy.

The Parties are merely means to ends ... the Money Power that dominates them is the Cause for the PC Regime. 

The Left will call us Fascists and the Right 'communists'  -- the liberals will call us haters, and the 'conservatives' will call us Jacobin Crazies -- the centrist housewife rhinos and business 'conservatives' will combine both as they are a combination of the right and left mental defects that add up to the PC insanity surrounding normal rational people.

This however is NOT a weakness, as the system's 'support' is all artificial and exists solely in between the shapeless shifting world of media 'reality' and the unmeasurable reality of beliefs, ie it is very very fragile and only a good disappointment to the commons away from being rejected and replaced. And anything that makes it attack rather than stay on the defensive only exposes its 'new clothes' to more and more rational and sane persons. To be seen as the enemy of the deadly snake is not a bad thing, my dears.

If  organizations allowed, nay funded by your enemy who dominates your reality, hate and denounce you as you call for the well being of your Kin and Kind to be paramount, then all is objectively very well indeed.

For if either of the enemies 'wings' have cover for you, or accept you, then you are either a lackey for the enemy or no threat to them at all.

But if they must fully press the attack all along their line that means you: 1.) have them terrified. 2.) are using up resources as they CANNOT relent once they commence, must like any Imperial dogma once it commits to your 'destruction' it must never relent as to retreat is to be reduced to irrelevance. 3.) Tying up time, and personnel that could have otherwise went to enforcing their insane edicts upon the remains of the Folk. And 4.) Providing a living example that standing up to their first few rounds of bluster and baloney is all that is needed to be able to weather their media tea cup storm, IF one has a strong base in his living Folk.

With that in mind:

Address the concept above, don't hide behind evasions about 'communism'. Deal with the reality of the statement don't bother with 'racism' or PC word play. Come with real solutions of STFU.

Read and address the text ... spelling games will not cut the grade.

Some thoughts on Organic Society

Family equates to the Solid Base of Organic Society:

The Organic Theory of Society explained in basic pictures that a 5 year old should grasp ...
Starting with the Family ( not the individual as liberalism falsely does ) we arrive at this TRUE and CORRECT understanding with which to combat liberalism's atomic individual ( the man that came perfectly into being with NO obligations to anyone else AND all his political rights in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 ... ) that, person never existed nor will ever exist! It is in the group that we find our fullest and highest expression as living beings.

            To begin the long march back to sanity:

 Of course any number of other steps could be put between the village and national level ... States, counties, cities, but you get the idea since ALL of these are just families, grouped into clans, grouped into villages .... And the entire Political/Social/Economic order based on that flows from this natural organization of human groups.

Contra Libertoonianism: Liberty only exists inside the Group.

 

* Basic Libertarian Assertions * Government is just force. Force is ebil, and any good it does the market would do better, M'kay. ( note the pie in the sky assertions stated as if they are the most logical and historically sound things that could be stated ... but they are in fact based SOLELY on the IGNORANCE of the audience as the speaker is using RHETORIC not LOGIC to 'carry' his non-points ... Government is just a group of people acting as one; no person exists outside of or apart from these groups; rights and property are creations of these groups and DO NOT EXIST in nature, while the material needs of the members such as hunger, thirst and housing are very real and must be accommodated. thus where personal 'rights' conflict with the group the person loses in almost all real cases, since minus the minimum needs being meet 'rights' are meaningless  -- I will give the libertarians their 'freedom' and keep ALL the food, water and housing .... That should counter his absurd and silly 'definitions' which are really just dogmatic pronouncements about what ought to be rather than observations about what really is in being.) ...

And notice how it will all be just free and good .... But hold on what exactly are these libertarian 'defense companies' and these 'mutual contracts' that together give the 'community' the right to jail, fine, enslave, your person and take your items if you violate its norms? ( Sounds exactly like a state jailing one for breaking a law, NO?) What is the exact difference between the good old fashion states with their public functions and the libertarian 'alternative' with its purely for profit model except that the libertarian one is even more corrupted by lust for money?

And the 'community' to these dingbats equals exactly everyone who can pay for contract with these defense companies and the network of companies taken as a whole, as well as the network of 'people' that have contracts with each other to do business together; everyone else is outside the market/society/protection-of-law and presumably ipso facto outlaws or criminals.  Not even the NSDAP claimed quite this much power over its members much less society as a whole. You have to go to East Germany or the USSR to get to this level of physical control over the life of the citizen. These Feedumb advocates want to literally throw you from society, and keep you from using the road to walk away!!! And then 'charge' ie slave labor you for the 'right' of being fined by them! In effect they are promoting a super corrupt banana republic slash corrupt African tribal village, idolized as the highest form of human organization once all the utopian gibberish is striped and the results made clear. :nuts:

Notice: They even claim the right to keep you from using the roads, ANY water at all, ALL land since in their ideal world ALL of these things would be SOMEBODIES property you would have to rent or pay for otherwise else you would be a THIEF, for using WATER! Even the Romans gave their slaves free use of water!  No slave master EVER did half the crazy shit these dingbats talk about doing to those that won't obey their 'contracts' which function just like Civic Law.

They both have the power to kill, jail and collect monetary income out of these acts; but the libertarian one would have a PROFIT motive openly built in, and would assume that EVERYTHING that you use should cost ... since nature cannot be unowned ... and we in fact are 'Self Owners' ( gibberish nonsense that assumes we are property to be bought sold or used ... Atheist double talk for 'we are all potential slaves.' ) ...  Thus they gabber about freedom but it is in the end the freedom to be considered equal to lifeless matter.

So they talk about 'liberty' but woe unto you if you lack the means to PAY for that liberty and WOE unto everyone that lacks the means to pay more than those that might pay to have the system 'find' that they 'owe'!
They further assume that humans are naturally 'good' and nonviolent ... so of course private paramilitaries are NO problem and are better than public ones ... I mean what would or could go wrong with arming private companies and given them a profit incentive to take over Smurf-ville ... What could possible go wrong?  And thus they talk about 'morality' but would either be the worst sort of tyrants or the first people filling the trenches.

Fundamentals of The PC Oligarchy

Fundamentals of The PC Oligarchy

We the modern Western Peoples live under a credit based oligarchy. It rules our society by means of controlling the volume and worth of both the issuance of credit and the commodities traded for that credit. All credit creation gains this oligarchy more power because ALL money created comes with an unpayable percentage of interest that does not exist. The basic formula is

A + X% =/= A; where only A exists in the world of empirical reality. If you think of society like a hamster on a wheel you are not far from the truth. This enormous power has allowed this oligarchy to in effect buy our social institutions in full.

Both parties are on their payroll. All major corporations are their partners or property.

Add caption

The media is a monopoly with the Oligarchies agenda as the ONLY allowed agenda. Education is designed to ensure stupid consumers NOT thoughtful citizens, because consumers are easily controlled by trinkets. IN sum our entire system social, economic, political and otherwise is rigged against you, the common man … and if you are 'majority' and male its doubly against you. This is the reason why it seems that YOU are not in control of your nation's destiny.

It is the reason why electing this or that party will not make any difference. It is the reason you are paying more and more and more for less and less and less while also making less and less and less, even before inflation is factored into the matter. It is the reason you are being empoverished slowly, and not so slowly. Why you are becoming like the Romans whom Tiberius Gracchus once noted were fighting for : “the common air and light ' for being 'houseless and homeless they wander about with their wives and children.' thir leaders lied when they said they were fighting for 'defend sepulchres and shrines from the enemy; for not a man of them has an hereditary altar, not one of all these many Romans an ancestral tomb, but they fight and die to support others in wealth and luxury, and though they are styled masters of the world, they have not a single clod of earth that is their own.”

Sound Familar to anyone you may know? 

For more start here.   Then try this, and I find pictures do the best explaining, and that is that, Folks.  Also for information about a lot of random nonsense.

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.

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.

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! 

 THE AXIOMS OF DIALECTIC AND OF
            SYLLOGISM.

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 Fakofo	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 Dokamok	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:

NAME	FORM	TITLE
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:

The theses embodied in this diagram I call ‘SQUARE’. They are:
SQUARE

• ‘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”

where

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’.