Trading with the Enemy
IS WAL MART THE ENEMY?

THOSE WONDERFUL DEBTS AND DEFICITS

There are still those wonderful optimists among us who insist that huge and growing debts and trade deficits are really only evidence of our growing economic strength. The last time I looked, the federal deficit stood at $6,933,911,219,507.28 — only about $23,696.00 per man, woman, and child in the country. The theory is that, in the final analysis, it makes little difference how large the debt becomes — it can literally, and simply, be "rolled over" in perpetuity, without any significant consequences. Who really cares who actually ends up owning our nation or the world. We'll still get to occupy it.
    Debt, in any case, is just money. And if the debt were to suddenly evaporate, we'd all be left penniless. So the debt is not only desirable, but necessary. It also follows that the more debt there is, the more money there is available. Right now, each and every American has $23,696.00 more wealth than he knows about. The growing level of interest on the national debt isn't a problem either. The time will probably come when we'll be pleasantly surprised to lean that the entire population of the United States will be able to live off of the interest on and from the national debt, rather than pay it. I'm not exactly sure how this is going to work, but it sounds pretty promising. It'll probably take an act of Congress to do it, but in the mean time we have something to look forward to besides Social Security, unemployment compensation, and our paltry retirement savings. The Federal Reserve will probably have to raise interest rates somewhat, so we'll have enough discretionary disposable income. Of course, we won't have to pay income taxes any more, because the interest machine will turn out all the money that anybody needs, including the government's.
    The trade deficit is a great boon, also. In fact, when we're all living off the interest on the federal debt, there will be no need for any American to produce anything. We can import and buy everything we need from abroad. There won't be any need to worry about producing anything for export. The very concept of balanced trade will be obsolete. Americans will just sit back and enjoy, as the rest of the world produces our products, and our livelihoods, and sends us a fat monthly check.
    While we're waiting for our first monthly interest checks, there are certain things every individual can do to weather the lean economic times just ahead. Borrow as much as you can from your family, friends, and friendly banker — maximize your personal debt. Max out all your credit cards — enjoy. Buy whatever you want. Never worry about your debts. They never have to be repaid — just roll them over and expanded them using various smart tactics. Buy a new car or SUV. Then, take out a second mortgage on your home to cover your credit card debts. Then max out your credit cards again and start over. Be sure to buy more property so you can get future second mortgages. Visit your local casino regularly, you may be lucky. If worse comes to worse, and you don't start getting your monthly interest checks in time, you can always declare bankruptcy — in fact, smart people will do that anyway, so creditors won't have any claim on that new interest income. Pridger

OVERTIME PAY AND THE WONDERFUL NEW WORLD
And other benefits of Deregulation

President Bush sent many taxpayers, $600.00, shortly after taking office — yours truly included — and we didn't even have to ask for it. That made him pretty popular with taxpayers. But now he wants to take over time pay away from perhaps millions of America's workers. I don't get it.

The $600.00, I understand, was my share of a proposed tax cut — an income tax rebate, I think it was called. Or maybe it was actually an advance on my share of the projected budgetary surplus (circa 2001. I appreciated it, of course. After all, it was my money to begin with, and Bush simply caused the Treasury to return it. I was glad to get it back. Yet this seemed a highly irregular act on the part of any President. It did purchase a lot of good will for the Bush administration, I suppose, and made him feel more "legitimate" in office. But even as I cashed the check, I could not help but think that it was bound to cost me much more than $600.00 in the long run.
    Part of Bush's original agenda, as stated during his campaign, was to begin to disengage our nation from some of its many foreign entanglements. But the Bush administration was high-jacked by the events of 9/11/2001, and it has taken a course which is the complete opposite of what he had supposedly intended. This has happened to many presidents in the past. Events intervened to negate campaign promises and reverse supposed foreign policy intentions — and replace them with those already in the national security apparatus hopper. Circumstances force the sitting president to become the spokesman for policies he may never have had in mind — policies devised and dictated to him by the un-elected foreign policy and national security establishments. It remains an open question, to what extent such sitting presidents have been privy to such plans before the events which turned their own plans into something not worth the paper their campaign promises were written on.
    9/11 and the wars that have followed have more than blown any possible budgetary surplus out of the nation's foreseeable future. The truth of the matter is that the budget was never under control in the first place, and the alleged surplus was merely Voodoo Economic smoke — the budget will probably never be under control again. We're talking big money with the on-going War on Terrorism, our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq (with no end in sight), along with the astronomical projected costs of Homeland Security. We're spending such big money now that nobody is even thinking of balanced budgets this century! Yet, Bush still plans to honor is promise to cut taxes, in order to stimulate the economy. That's good, but no longer very politically popular.
    Meanwhile, the economy isn't doing too well. A lot of the hot air has slipped out of the Wall Street bubble since 9/11. We've lost another three or four million good jobs since Bush took office. Bush prefers to focus public attention on the hack jobs that are being produced in great profusion. The economy did unexpectedly well last quarter, so that is being interpreted as a sign of economic "recovery." In spite of the many burger flipping jobs, it's another jobless recovery. Massive military activity and production help the economic outlook and push the GDP up, even though it's all on credit.
    Part of the payback for the tax cut and rebate must be Bush's unfathomable desire to rewrite the federal overtime laws. I don't understand his reasoning. If workers make more money, they pay more taxes. What advantage is there to the Treasury in lowering wages? On the other hand, it's true that the nation's largest employer is now the federal government, and, though government employees pay income taxes, their pay checks come straight from the Treasury. It makes sense to want to put them on the chopping block to save money, but not the average Joe in the private sector. In fact, it would be nice if we could get a nice large rollback of Congressional, Judiciary, and Executive salaries and benefits moving, including the president's. But I don't think that is very likely. It's only the working stiff who is targeted.
    Bush, of course, is a New World Order man. His very pedigree would indicate as much. That means free trade and soaring trade deficits, the export of jobs, factories, and entire industries. It means more outsourcing of jobs abroad and more and more job-loss at home — all for the benefit of corporate bottom lines.
    Of course, there is always much more going on behind the scenes of any presidential administration than ever meets the public eye. The only thing that the public can ever be certain of is that nothing is as simple as it seems. Put another way, nothing is ever what it is made to seem.
    9/11 once again put secretive organizations like the CIA firmly in charge of America's foreign policy. Without war, or the threat of war, it might be possible for a president to re-establish presidential authority over the executive branch of government. That will never be allowed to happen. Pridger

NATIONAL DECONSTRUCTION

The history of our great republic started with its Declaration of Independence and progressed through the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Thereafter, until the Civil War, its primary problems stemmed from severe national growing pains, as the continent was explored, conquered, and settled. Republican government suffered severe setbacks under the Republican administration of Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, and throughout Reconstruction. Thereafter, it thrived until the present era of Deconstruction that began about the turn of the twentieth century. The Spanish American War, The Federal Reserve Act, World War I, the New Deal, World War II, and the Cold War (including the assassination of President Kennedy), were the highlights of the early Deconstruction period. During that period, and well beyond, industrial and material progress blinded the public to the on-going political Deconstruction of the nation. Since the end of the Cold War, Deconstruction has gone into a new and accelerated phase, as our trusty leaders have abandoned American nationalism and trade protectionism in favor of Global Village building, and making the world safe for international corporate piracy. The present open-ended war on terrorism promises even a more accelerated era of national political, and economic, decline. Global empire building, has displaced all notion of protecting constitutional republicanism — this, again under a Republican administration. Pridger

Even those who disagree with Bush's Iraqi War, are affirming that we must now "stay the course" (this time), to insure democracy in Iraq and freedom and liberty in the United States and the rest of the world. This, of course, is almost an exact replay of our early situation in Vietnam, yet few are willing to draw such parallels.
    "Iraq is different," we hear, and the times are different. We got sucked into Vietnam by slow and incremental degrees born of the presumed threat of international communism. We literally jumped into Iraq (the second time around), supposedly because of the threat of international terrorism, and the existence of weapons of mass destruction. The freedom loving Iraqis, however (at least some of them), seem less than enthusiastic about our well intended assistance. The word "quagmire," with reference to our occupation of Iraq, still waits in the wings.
    The French had jumped into southeast Asia in the nineteenth century, and established some nice colonies there, including Vietnam. They lost them to the Japanese during World War II, however. When the Allies (including Soviet Russia), waxed victorious over the Axis Powers, the nationalist Ho Chi Minh (who had helped fight the Japanese, and was a protιgι of the USSR, and an admirer of America), expected that deliverance had arrived. He hoped to establish an independent Vietnam. He was disappointed, of course, and the French (who returned), and later us Americans, suffered the consequences. We found it impossible to stay the course and remain engaged in Vietnam.
    So, we're supposed to "remain engaged" in Iraq, and the general war of terror, until the threat of international terrorism has been purged from the earth. Well, Pridger isn't going to hold his breath on that one. We abandoned South Vietnam years after we'd determined to remain engaged and stay the course and save southeast Asia from the communist juggernaut.
    Though the USSR collapsed of its own weight (much to the embarrassment of the military-industrial and national security intelligence complex), Vietnam, China, and Cuba remain under the communist yoke. A communist Chinese warship was recently welcomed as it made a friendly visit to our naval base in Guam, and one of our warships has recently been welcomed on its goodwill visit to Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. Communism must not have been all that much of a threat in the first place. At least it was apparently something that time would heal. All the wars and the killing were in vain, though many fortunes were made.
    Castro remains an acute embarrassment in Cuba. After being helped into power by our own policy (stabbing our corrupt friend Bautista in the back), he's survived an aborted invasion, several assassination attempts, an on-going trade and travel embargo, and eight of our presidential administrations. Ironically, we're tightening our Cold War stance against his suffering island nation again. This, even though Cuba is perhaps the most benign and stable regime in Latin America. Time seems to have served Castro well, but in the end time appears to be on our side. Presumably Castro will pass away or otherwise step down within only a few more years. At that time, we'll finally be able to declare victory over communism (or, at least Castro's version), in the western hemisphere without undue bloodshed. Castro's successor, whether he's an avowed Marxist or not, is going to have plenty of trouble accommodating America's historic demands for reparations for nationalized American property.
    International terrorism is a totally different ball game. To compare it with international communism would be like comparing democracy to people. It is impossible to defeat on the field of battle, for it is ever-present in so many diverse forms. Today it is supposedly centered in Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalism, with large and small pockets active throughout the world. It isn't about to simply fade away or die of old age, and is likely growing at an accelerated pace as we battle it with bombs, missiles, and rifles. It will continue to thrive as long as it is under attack. Tomorrow it may be centered elsewhere in completely different form. Terrorism is much more slippery than the elusive Viet Cong was, much more widely scattered, but nonetheless walks among us unrecognized, not just "over there." Pridger

The situation is, indeed, a lot different in Iraq than it was in Vietnam. In Vietnam, half the nation was supposedly on our side, and we had a friendly "democratically installed regime." Not only that, but we had the entire South Vietnamese Army on our side, in addition to half a million of our own troops. What is even more embarrassing, many South Vietnamese actually liked us in spite of ourselves, and had a lot of faith in our ability and determination to deliver national salvation. In other words, there was a lot more light at the end of the tunnel in Vietnam than there is in Iraq today. Pridger

If we ever had a valid excuse to go to war with any small communist nation, it was Cuba — before the USSR got heavily entrenched there, and before the missile crises. But when the Cuban missile crises developed, it was too late, because the real antagonist had become the USSR. Kennedy had enough sense to avoid a war with them. We had been provoking Russia by literally surrounding it with our own nuclear missiles.
     Kennedy seems to have been planning to pull us out of Vietnam also, but was removed from power before his plans could be put in force. Between that and avoiding war with Cuba, Kennedy probably signed his own death warrant. Pridger

Another provocation that certainly warranted an attack by the U.S. was the Embassy Hostage crises in Tehran, Iran — during the Carter administration. Carter declined to start a war over that provocation. It was a humbling embarrassment for the nation, but Carter avoided war, much to his credit. Pridger

The events of September 11th, 2001 were certainly a provocation. But Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it. Our invasion of Afghanistan was at least understandable, if not absolutely necessary. But our war with Iraq has all the earmarks of a private vendetta. The fact is, we were ready for a war with Iraq, for reasons that have never been adequately explained to the American people. The reasons probably boil down to two words, oil, and Israel, with the latter likely as the real reason. Iraq was a potential threat to Israel. Pridger

MICHAEL JACKSON'S ARREST
And the General State of American Pop and Police Culture

As might be imagined, Pridger is no Michael Jackson fan. He sees Jackson as a pitiful specimen — worthy of both pity and compassion. But the very idea that such a person could become a pop-culture superstar, and a multimillionaire in the process, is about as damning a reflection on the state of American popular culture as can be imagined. Still, Jackson is a talented singer and entertainer, and head and shoulders above the gangster rap artists that are shepherding our youth down into ever darker recesses of the cultural basement.
    Jackson is bizarre, to say the least. A good-looking African-American who decided to become an effeminate little, long-haired, white creep. His noteworthy propensity for grabbing his crotch while performing on stage could have only been somehow inherited from professional baseball heroes who popularized the practice in the ball stadium before millions of admiring fans. Jackson's purpose was to be sexy in a particularly quirky, freaky, way. I suppose he was a turn-on for adolescent boys as well as girls, not to mention adult pedophiles and gays, and that was probably his purpose. It made him tremendously popular and equally rich.
    It so happens that Jackson like's young boys so much that he apparently prefers them to young girls as bed companions. He has admitted (if I'm not getting him confused with former President Clinton), that he feels the kindest, most affectionate, way of showing his tender affection for a person is to invite them to sleep beside him in bed. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity.
    Some parents seem to think sending their children to Jackson's Never Land ranch for overnight stays as more important and wonderful than their presumed innocence and virginity. The only thing quite comparable would have been to get a young daughter an internship in the Clinton White House, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Then they claim to be surprised, shocked, or even outraged to find that their innocent little boy claims to have been sexually molested. Pridger hasn't even heard the details of the latest allegations, but presumes the boy complained to his parents, or at least told them he'd been "inappropriately touched or fondled," or maybe worse.
    Jackson says he would never hurt a child, and Pridger believes him. Loving a child, of course, is not necessarily hurting him — though we all know what "loving" actually means these days when translated into "adult" language. (Not that Jackson would necessarily do that, of course!) Whatever Jackson does of an intimate nature with his child friends cannot be all that outrageous or harmful (unless one is coached by a psychologist, psychiatrist, or some sort of social worker). After all, this is the era of "if it feels good, do it," and everybody knows that virginity seldom lasts beyond the second year of puberty any more. And the implied parental consent (if the parents are mentally competent), is certainly a mitigating circumstance. Though the child was probably a bit young, at least it was only a homosexual encounter (impossible to cause a pregnancy or otherwise ruin the life of a virgin), and Jackson undoubtedly thinks of himself (at least subconsciously), as the High Priest (or Priestess), of Never Land.
    So, anyway, little Peter Pan has once again been accused of molesting a little overnight visitor to Never Land. Jackson's friends and family, of course, are outraged at the charges, knowing that their little cultural icon is harmless. So what if he loves little boys? Another victim and his family have an opportunity to becoming independently wealthy — if Jackson has enough money left. (There are rumors that his financial circumstances have done a reversal like those of the United States Government back during the Reagan administration.)
    But none of this has anything to do with what I really want to say about Jackson's problems. Jackson is merely another freak in what has become a rather freakish society. What really outrages me (though it may seem a small matter), along with Jackson's family, friends, and fans, is that when Jackson meekly gave himself up, the long meaty arms of the law felt it necessary to handcuff him like a dangerous and violent criminal. Jackson may be a lot of things, but hardly a threat to law enforcement officers. He isn't a potential terrorist or enemy combatant, and thus is supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty.
    Handcuffing of even the most benign lawbreakers when arrested has lamentably become standard procedure in America. This tactic is a typical police state psychological warfare practice, though I don't even thing the Gestapo handcuffed their prisoners until they got them out of public view. No less than the cultural decline that Jackson himself represents, this practice is evidence of the decline in the spirit of decent treatment of citizens "accused" of committing a crime. After all, Jackson is supposed to be presumed innocent rather than guilty — and since he is not accused of a violent crime, what's the point of handcuffs? Nothing short of intentional humiliation and degradation! Even if Jackson actually deserved it, it should not be the practice of arresting officers in a civil society that once held itself up as the epitome of civility and justice under the law. No wonder respect for the law is at an all time low, and on the decline. Pridger

Respect for the law? There's simply too damned much of it to respect! Pridger

23 November, 2003

RUSH LIMBAUGH IS BACK ON THE JOB!

Pridger was pretty disappointed to learn that Rush was hooked on painkillers. We thought he was a bastion of strength and moral rectitude. Part of his loyal following is bound to fall away. One thing is fairly certain. "Rush Rooms" (if any survive), and "dittoheads," will henceforth carry slightly different connotations.
    Pridger admired Rush, and still does — but not too much. Pridger has never been a "dittohead." Rush was (and presumably will continue to be), an excellent liberal basher (and the liberals needed one badly), but otherwise he early on proved to be just another neo-conservative, champion of the Republican Party, and a drummer for global mercantile piracy. Pridger, of course, is a paleo-liberal conservative libertarian populist constitutionalist. As such, he feels that neo-conservatives are little better than liberal democrats, socialists, and cultural communists, when it comes to defending "Truth, Justice, and the American Way."
    In the final analysis, it seems that liberal democrats are preferable to neo-conservatives. True conservatives are becoming as scarce as hens' teeth — their ranks having been successfully divided and most of the divisions totally confused. The neo-conservatives are New World Order war mongers — willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters in foreign wars in defense of Mammon and corporate bottom lines — all in the name of freedom and liberty, of course. What most people fail to realize, is that the freedom and liberty to which they refer applies to capital, and not necessarily the people. Liberal democrats tend to eschew both American jingoism and any form of international slaughter (save, perhaps, in Palestine). Yet they are New World Order socialists — most of whom wouldn't lift a hand in the name of American patriotism if the homeland were besieged by foreign armies with red flags. "Better Red than Dead" was the motto under which most of them cut their teeth. Pridger

PALEO-LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN POPULIST CONSTITUTIONALIST?

What is a "paleo-liberal conservative libertarian populist constitutionalist?" (1) A paleo-liberal, of course, is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "classic" liberal, i.e., one "Favoring individual freedom... broad mindedness, and tolerance." It bears almost no relation at all to modern leftist political liberalism. (2) A true conservative believes in the "conservation" of all that has proven to be good and valuable (things as diverse as the environment, core religious values, moral standards, standards of common decency, and political ideals), and is willing to stand up and fight for them. (3) A libertarian is part conservative and part liberal, but his liberal half is infected with a belief that mankind is capable of thriving under anarchy (particularly the anarchy of free international market forces). A "conservative libertarian," however, is an adult libertarian with common sense, (i.e., realizing that maybe the agents of Mammon need a little regulation). (4) A Populist, to over-simplify, feels that "We the People" are what government is instituted to serve, but only in a limited way, conductive to conditions necessary for realization of "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (5) An American "Constitutionalist" believes in the American form of limited, republican, representative government, as envisioned and instituted by the founding fathers of the United States — and adherence to the Constitution and its original Bill of Rights (in the contemporary contexts made clear in the writings of the founders who drafted and ratified them). This includes a jealous regard for the defense of our national integrity — our sovereignty, our political institutions, our borders, our resources, our currency, our markets, our advantages, our peoples, and our "God given" rights and freedoms. It implies both reasoned degrees of national "isolationism" and "protectionism."
    Isolationism means, minding our own business, keeping the national fences mended, and borders guarded — and protecting against all nature of invasions. Protectionism, simply means minding the national store on behalf of the owner-operators, producers, and consumers — i.e., "We the People." Neither are synonyms for xenophobia, militarism, or selfishness, as our most learned modern economists, historians, and political scholars insist on claiming. Pridger

The differences between liberal democrats and neo-conservative republicans are few. Liberal democrats want to make sure the poor, the sick, the elderly, and minorities (voters all, after all), are taken care of as everybody else, including the nation itself, are sold down the river. Neo-conservatives, knowing that the poor, the sick, the elderly, and minorities aren't really doing all that badly, figure they may as well maximize the profits of selling the nation down the river. Pridger

Liberals sell the nation out in hopes of gaining a utopian socialist Global Village, financed primarily by taxpayers and their descendents. Neo-conservatives sell the nation out in hopes of gaining a utopian free market Global Village, financed primarily by private capital on the backs of the global labor pool. Pridger

Liberals believe that all problems can be solved through bigger, more expensive, government — freed from the constraints of the Constitution. Neo-conservatives believe all problems can be solved through bigger, more profitable, corporations — freed from the constraints of any Constitutional government by, of, and for the people. When things begin to get a little unstable, war is the prime solution. Pridger

Liberals believe in government of the people, for the benefit of the people, by armies of federal bureaucrats, paid for by working people. Neo-conservatives believe in government of the people, for the benefit of Wall Street and corporate profits, paid for by working people. Pridger

Labor, not capital, is the primary source of all wealth. It preceded organized capital by millions, perhaps billions, of years, and basically did pretty well without it. Wealth is harvested from the natural resources that abound within the biosphere and sub-surface of the planet. These gifts of God, however, have never been hunted, fished, mined, or harvested except by the hand of labor. Nothing of value has ever been fabricated or mass produced but by the hand of labor. Capital organizes and concentrates labor to greater productive capacity, but labor still deserves due credit, and an equitable share in the fruits of that labor. Labor deserves more than just a living wage if a business is sufficiently profitable to provide its employees "good jobs" — and no CEO or stockholder deserves a king's ransom simply because he's able to short-change labor. Pridger

When a CEO can "earn" millions annually from the fruits of labor, but that labor itself remains poverty-stricken to the point of servitude, something is direly wrong with national economic policy. Pridger

The ultimate goal of international free trade (when all workers are finally equally compensated), must be that America produce the food, automobiles, electronics, and other consumer goods for the rest of the world, while the rest of the world produces the food, automobiles, electronics, and other consumer goods for America. Pridger

Both liberal democrats and neo-conservative republicans envision a world where global labor will make a decent living wage and the wherewithal to purchase the necessities of life, and sufficient consumer goods and diversions, to keep revolution in check. Pridger

The American industrial wage is doomed, along with meaningfully organized labor, due to the internationalization of markets. International labor organizations will apply some pressure for a global minimum wage, which will eventually apply equally to American and other First World labor pools. The goal is full employment for an international slave-labor class. The Elite Liberal democrat establishment will continue to maintain its elite lifestyle, as always, largely at taxpayer expense, supplemented to a significant degree by corporate profits. The elite conservative establishment will continue to maintain its elite lifestyle, as always, through corporate profits, also supplemented to a significant degree by taxpayers. Pridger

The purpose of national governments under the New World Order is to produce, and ride herd over, a docile corporate workforce. They will used their social engineering capabilities (public education), and its police powers, to accomplish this. Pridger

The neo-conservative (and capital's) definition of a "good job" in private industry, is a job in which labor is paid more than it is worth. Good jobs (outside of top management, of course), are something to be eliminated. What any particular job is really worth, of course, is gauged by what the lowest paid worker on the planet is willing to accept. That's the law of the free international marketplace. Good jobs are eliminated in high wage countries through export of production to cheap labor areas, domestic automation and downsizing, out-sourcing, downsizing. These things, in turn, make it possible for corporation in high wage countries to lower wages and fringe benefits, and extend working hours, in high wage regions. Pridger

American capitalism, essentially confined to free trade philosophy within the the forty-eight or fifty states of the Union (through protectionism), is what made our nation into the prosperous wonder of the world that it became. The rise of the great laboring middle class produced a miracle never before witnessed in the history of mankind. This miracle of broad-based prosperity was driven by the American industrial wage, i.e., the development of a profusion of "good jobs" throughout the nation. These good jobs in private industry, was a tide that lifted all boats. Pridger

The spectacular success of American style capitalism was made possible by a reasonable degree of national protectionism combined with the demands of organized labor. This essential degree of protectionism protected the American worker from competition from slave and peon labor abroad, and prevented American capital from moving its production abroad to cheap labor markets. Pridger

Industrialist Henry Ford pioneered the idea of giving workers the wherewithal to purchase and enjoy the fruits of their own labor by giving them the first "industrial wage" and the leisure time to spend and enjoy it. He had figured out that wage slaves couldn't afford to purchase the products of their own labor. Ford Motor Company prospered along with its workers, and never had to be baled out by the government. Pridger

"Divide and Conquer" has been the tactic of perverse forces sense the dawn of civilization. America once worked as a self-contained productive powerhouse in which both industry and labor were well rewarded and married to a mutually beneficial economic system. "Good jobs" enhanced, rather than stifled, corporate profits. The American consumer was empowered by the fact that he had a "good job," enabling him to be an effective and valuable consumer for the products of industry. Workers were the primary consumers of their own production in the broadest sense. But this magic formula (never totally perfected), was only possible within the regulatory confines of a closed and protected national economy. Today, labor and consumer have been divided. On behalf of the consumer (and capital), production is moved to cheap labor areas. Cheap imports are made available to the consumer as he is undermined as a producer with a good job. This is the carrot on the stick, by which the consumer has been seduced into voting for free international trade through his pocket book. As the good jobs disappear, the cheap imports look even more enticing than they did when the American worker had a good job. Pridger

One of the rationales for free international trade is that protectionism deprives Americans of the bounty of cheap foreign imports. That it is also depriving him of his good jobs is coming into focus too, but that doesn't drive policy. Profits (money), not the concerns of labor, drive policy. Pridger

The phenomenon known as the "jobless economic recovery" came into being a decade or two ago. Largely divorced from domestic labor, industry can recover and be prosperous even as workers regress in economic fortune. Huge corporate profits show up on Wall Street and the Gross Domestic Product, but not in the pockets of labor, nor on Main Street U.S.A. American prosperity is gauged by Wall Street performance and GDP rather than the well-being on Main Street. This formula for economic disaster and revolution is still being sold to the American people as what my old Pappy called the "Wonderful New World." Fewer people are buying it, but economic perversity and national suicide have taken on unstoppable lives of their own. The only "solution" ever offered by our illustrious leaders is more and more political and economic poison. Revolution waits in the wings. Americans are still far too well fed, and too well entertained and distracted, to have serious thoughts about taking their country back. Pridger

21 November, 2003

SAME SEX MARRIAGES

Same Sex marriage has apparently been mandated in Massachusetts by that lucky (or unfortunate), state's Supreme Court. Here is where another popular initiative and recall would seem highly appropriate. The California governor was subjected to such a recall. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ought to be considered for similar treatment. If a sufficient percentage of the voting public has the right to recall a state governor, they should also have the right to recall Supreme Court justices. Should any Supreme Court be able to over-rule the majority of the people? If so, democracy is a sham.  Pridger

Of course, the United States Supreme Court has been making a sham of democracy and representative government for several decades. Most of that sordid bunch should be recalled too, and sent out of town with sufficient tar and feathers adhering to their torsos to excite the vigorous pursuit of every bird dog in their flight paths. Pridger

In the United States it's extraordinarily politically incorrect to offend, much less outrage, any minority. The majority may be offended and outraged with impunity, in a wholesale manner and without end — and it has no real recourse short of revolution or civil war. Pridger

The silent majority won't complain too loudly about anything as long as it is overfed, Social Security is safe, and Monday night football is never preempted. Pridger

Apparently same sex marriages will only be allowed between two individuals. One would think that polygamy would have been legalized before same sex marital unions. But while sodomy and all nature of "traditional sin," are no longer against the law — morality laws (except for murder, rape, and theft, etc.), have been judged as violations of the separation of church and state (at least according to the ACLU). Polygamy is still against the law — perhaps because it has religious connotations (Mormon, Muslim, etc.). But if same sex marriages are to be legal, I suppose we're all free to get married to anybody, as long as they are of the same sex. Buddies and best friends can get married, provided there are no prohibitions against Platonic relationships in marriage. I wonder how long it will be before man and dog, or woman and donkey, may legally tie the nuptial knot? Pridger

The country had been going to the dogs long and fast enough. But now we're in a head-long dash to catch up with more progressive European nations that have allowed same sex marriages for some decades. Can another revolution be far off? The short answer is, "Not while Americans remain overfed and sufficiently entertained." Pridger

Same sex marriage opens whole new scenarios for "alternate life styles." This could be the answer to the single men's prayers. Two heterosexual men could enjoy all the advantages of a married life without having any full-time females around to bicker at them. They'd simply play the field with women as if they were single, without worrying about getting caught up in any serious relationships that threaten traditional marriage. They could do partner swapping with heterosexual same sex female married couples, without the onus attached to the lifestyle of traditional "swingers." Pridger

Pridger is thinking of calling up one of his old pals and running off to Massachusetts to get married. The purpose would be to test whether same sex marriage jurisdictions will discriminate against same sex heterosexual marriages. There should be no "ask and tell" requirements. Why shouldn't two heterosexual men, or heterosexual women, have the same rights as homosexuals? Wouldn't such a union comprise just as much of a "family" as a couple of homosexuals (except, perhaps, somewhat more morally wholesome)? Couldn't they raise children just as well?  Shouldn't same sex partners with a purely Platonic relationship qualify for the same advantages homosexuals want? Pridger

18 November, 2003

"Wherever universal suffrage, or some close approach to it, is the primary axiom of government, the thing known as 'freak legislation' is a constant evil." H.L. Mencken

Even more common than freak legislation, is freakish Supreme Court rulings, at both the Federal and state level. Pridger

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?

This November 22nd is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Everybody who is old enough, remembers exactly where he was and what he was doing when the news of the assassination reached him. As well we should! — for November 22, 1963 was perhaps the singular most defining moment of American post Civil War history — since the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. On that date executive power secretly, and unequivocally, passed from the duly elected president, to the non-elected agencies of the executive branch, i.e., the CIA, FBI, JCS, etc.
    Since then, every president, regardless of his party or personal political leanings, has towed the line of a well defined political agenda, knowing fully well that to stray too far would amount to either political or real suicide. President Reagan was perhaps the most outspokenly independent minded president that we've had since JFK — and his brush with assassination (whether or not it was anything but the act of a single crazy "lone gunman"), was undoubtedly a wake-up call to him. Whatever the circumstances of that attempt on his life, Reagan undoubtedly towed the line more carefully thereafter. Vice president, George H. W. Bush, after all, was the man the movers and shakers behind the scenes would have preferred as Chief Executive.
    As a conspiracy buff, Pridger has read at least a few of the hundreds of books that have been written about the JFK assassination. Most of the works have been, either intentionally or inadvertently, part of the post assassination cover up, intended to keep the reading public in confusion as to the real facts. Only a relative few have come close to nailing down the real scenario. As intended, however, they were overwhelmed by the number of works intended to throw the public off the mark. The movie, JFK, by Oliver Stone (a very daring piece of work, in spite of its flaws), did get a lot of people thinking down the right lines.
    At this late date, almost nobody believes the "official" government line relative to the assassination. The Warren Commission report has been so completely and routinely discredited, that it is no longer even considered credible fiction, though its determinations remain the government's "official" findings on the assassination. In other words, the thinking public no longer believes anything the government says relative to the assassination. And a good number of us no longer believe anything at all "the government" ever says. We know that the lingering notion of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is nothing more than a quaint fiction. It has simply perished from the earth, though the greater public remain blissfully unaware.
    Yet, even the most conspiratorially oriented felt that the president was killed by "rogue" elements within the CIA, rather than by any broad, "officially sanctioned," high level conspiracy (though it was obvious that a very high level, broad based, coalition assisted in the cover-up). Until last year, 2002, not even the best and most comprehensive of books on the assassination, could present any official documents proving that Kennedy was killed by "legitimate" (to use that word very loosely), elements within his own government. As in the case of the Lincoln assassination, the truth in the matter appears to be more damning, alarming, and down-right bizarre, than anything heretofore imagined, even by the most conspiracy minded fruit-cake.
    Irrefutable documentation has finally surfaced and been published in a book entitled Regicide, the Official Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by Gregory Douglas, "With documentation compiled by Robert T. Crowley, former Assistant Deputy Director for Clandestine Operations of the CIA." Yours truly has only recently read this book, but Washington insiders, have undoubtedly been aware of the facts long before its publication — some, obviously, since the beginning of the assassination conspiracy.

Statement of Policy
1.   The removal of the President and the Attorney General from their positions because of high treason has been determined...
4.   Removal by impeachment or other legal means is considered unfeasable (sic) and too protracted.
5.   Therefore, an alternative solution has been found to effect this removal.
6.   This removal is the result of a consensus between the various concerned official agencies...
8.   The government departments directly concerned consisted of: (CIA, FBI, JCS)
9.   Other government agencies involved but not with specific knowledge were:
    (The Secret Service, National Security Agency, Naval Security Group, INTERARMCO, Dept. of State)
10. ...the new President (LBJ), who had been fully briefed prior to the act, agreed...

Excerpt and condensed from a document classified as TOP SECRET!: Summary of Conferences held March-November 1963; Reference: Operation ZIPPER; Dated, December 22, 1963, published in Regicide, The Official Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by Gregory Douglas

Others have known, too, but have been afraid to speak out because of threats and the fact that many suspicious deaths followed the assassination. But now many are finally talking.
    A new TV documentary called, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy," places vice president "Lying Lyndon" Johnson at the very forefront (and prime instigator), of the conspiracy and skullduggery that culminated on the 22nd of November, 1963 (and has followed). This documentary compliments the information contained in Regicide.
    In view of these facts, I'm prompted to ask myself, Where is the outrage such revelations should occasion among our duly elected representatives, as well as the general public? Why isn't Congress clamoring for another, but this time "real," investigation? Are we so ready to accept the fact that we live under a government of false pretexts and false premises that we're willing to let it pass as if it were really nothing of any great importance? All parties seem to be saying, "Well, it's old news, and not all that important at this late date." Besides that, many of the participants are still alive and susceptible to prosecution — and further revelations are likely to be fraught with surprises and danger. So nothing is likely to happen for some time yet, as they may be too explosive — especially in light of the nation's present warpath. Today we live in the shadow of a war declared upon terrorism, and our trusty government defines who is a terrorist — every man, woman, and child, being potential targets.
    Perhaps if the book (and other revelations), had been published before the events of September 11th, 2001, it would have had a greater impact. In a sense, 9/11 has stolen the thunder of what should have been a cause and moment of political awakening. Undoubtedly, the root causes behind 9/11 can probably be placed squarely upon the doorstep of the very agencies behind the Kennedy assassination, and those which sponsored and manipulated the Cold War and our involvement in Vietnam, etc. But public opinion was outraged and overwhelmed by the events of 9/11. Regardless of any possible historic causes, the outrage has safely launched us on the path to perpetual global conflict, if not some facsimile of Armageddon. To the majority of Americans, the idea that all of this was possibly planned in the most secret recesses of our un-elected government policy makers, seems irrelevant, if not quite unthinkable.
    "Patriotic" Americans answer the call exactly on queue, choosing to believe that our present leaders are genuine good guys, and the war on international terrorism (in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere), is absolutely justified. After all, we've been attacked by foreign terrorists. Many stand convinced that the war on terrorism is somehow intimately related to the defense of freedom and Liberty here in America. Even though most of the public have already come to realize that pure lies were used as justification for our invasion of Iraq, it is a "good" and "just" war. There is a difference now, though. There is a large and growing minority that is not fooled. Yet, most of them feel honor bound to "support the troops" (and thus the war), if not the administration. But there are a vocal few who insist on being heard, and will increasingly be heard. It is unlikely that President Bush will be re-elected, in my opinion. He'll be a one term president, like his father — unless (of course), he can manage to pacify Iraq, find some WMD, or get us involved in a much bigger, and popular, war in time for the election. This appears to be increasingly unlikely.  Pridger

Hollywood has been engaging in a make-over of President Kennedy's public image for some time now. The focus has increasingly been on Kennedy's "numerous flaws." It's the same number the media has been doing on such figures as George Washington and (especially) Thomas Jefferson. The purpose of this make-over of the Kennedy's legacy, in Pridger's opinion, is simply to mitigate the outrage an admiring public will feel when they finally fully realize the real facts behind the Kennedy assassination. It is to condition public opinion to accept that Kennedy was "properly" removed from office for the good of the nation by people who rightly had the best interests of the nation in mind. It is to show that the official cover-up and the Warren Commission's bogus investigation were not only necessary, but actually patriotic acts. In the long run, none of this will fly. But short-term enough people can be fooled to sort of smooth things over. Pridger

The American people (most of whom are over-fed and under-educated super-consumers), aren't eager to find out uncomfortable truths. It might adversely impact their comfort and consumption levels. Pridger

It has been said that Kennedy was the last president who seriously attempted to wield presidential powers. Since then, executive power has been vested in the un-elected branches of the executive branch of government. Pridger

Presidents are mere tools and figureheads "used" to further the goals of our real rulers. Regardless of Bush's war and policy-making value at any given time, he can be discarded at any moment he no longer serves as a compliant spokesman for the powers behind the throne. Of course, he's doing as good a job as possible under the circumstances — a damned good job. But when things go to hell (as they seem to be doing in Iraq), he'll be the one singled out as both the author and the perpetrator of disastrous policy. Bush knows it, and he's probably getting pretty nervous by now. He has been given an impossible task. It requires much more than one presidential term, but it is unlikely that Bush can be made popular enough (again), to weather the present decline in public approval ratings. Others are even now being groomed to take over during the next administration. It really doesn't matter who gets into office (democrat, republican, liberal or conservative), the agenda will be the same. Only the window dressings change, to convince the public that the election process has responded to voter input. Pridger

Ironically enough, it hasn't been the much maligned old-fashioned jingoistic American patriot who has been responsible for our foreign wars and imperialistic adventures. The true American patriot, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, is for speaking softly, and carrying a big stick. We (yes, I consider myself one of them), are for minding our own national business — the business of preserving American republican institutions, freedom and liberty at home, with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe in preserving our own unique national advantages, minding the national store, defending our borders and national sovereignty, while making this country a model of just government and an example to, and for, the world. Always a small minority among avowed "patriots," there aren't many of us left. It requires taking unpopular stances, and even being called traitors.
    Our cause has become so hopeless as to seem almost totally irrelevant, but we still delight in preaching truth, and pointing out "what might have been" had our representatives remained true to the Constitution they all swore to uphold, and the visions of our founders. Pridger

Could there be a rebirth of freedom in our nation? Not likely. Certainly not in the foreseeable future. We're still moving rapidly in exactly the wrong direction. Our government isn't preserving freedom in America, it's too busy building a global village, and tearing down foreign obstructionists (tyrants), to that end. Today's "National Security" agenda, "thanks" to 9/11 and the war on terror, is about limiting real freedom in this country. The USA Patriot Act (a real Orwellian instance of Newspeak) is a disgrace and outrage to any real patriot. It's even an abomination to the great libertarian and socialist party crowds, who couldn't care less about anything like American nationalism and patriotism. The American Sovereign of today, is very much on his own. He has no legitimate government, and no representation in Washington. The very term "American Sovereign" (the very idea), is considered absurd today. Modern academics and politicians openly laugh at it and ridicule the notion. So the American Sovereign must look to his own devices to preserve his status and seek freedom in an un-free world. Pridger

Long before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that we are not "One Nation Under God," we became "a very divided nation under G.O.D. — 'Government, Omnipotent, and Deified'." It happened as We The People Slept comfortably on full stomachs with visions of sugar-plumbs dancing in our heads. Pridger

Before there could be a rebirth of freedom in America, there would have to be a rebirth of learning. And if there were a real rebirth of learning — if it were even possible — it would take at least a generation to show any results. And a rebirth of moral character wouldn't hurt any either. There's nothing resembling either of these things in sight. Pridger

Many people think we still have freedom in America. That's basically because we can use the "F" with impunity in public, have ready access to pornography, and plenty of cheap consumer goods at Wal Mart. And we have legalized gambling! Even recreational drugs are plentiful and almost universally available (in spite of being illegal).
    Aren't these the things that freedom is all about? Many baby boomers, generation X'ers, and Joe Six Packs think so. Isn't this "way of life" what we readily sacrifice our sons and daughters in foreign lands to preserve? We certainly didn't want Saddam Hussein to leap over here and take any of those freedoms away.
    Again, I ask, where is the outrage? There is none, or very little that can be heard. (when heard, it's usually those damned Christian fundamentalists! [that's how we're conditioned to think of them]). Public opinion is carefully crafted and manipulated by the moguls of the mass media. Conventional wisdom is public opinion, falsely labeled as truth, and is the result of successful media propaganda campaigns. Public opinion polls, measure and tout the success of those propaganda campaigns. Most of us like our new, totally hedonistic, society — our license and the toys we're encouraged to play with — even if it means Big Brother watches and waits for a slip-up. Let him watch (we think), he can't get all of us. We're overfed and perpetually entertained by such an array of cake and circuses, video games, and virtual reality, that we no longer even care what true freedom is about. We haven't got time for it. Pridger

12 Nov. 2003

GLOBALISM

Look at "the present madness of nations, which desire above all to produce as much as possible, and be as rich as possible... Today, mercantile morality is really nothing but a refinement on piratical morality—buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest." And these men cry out for laissez-faire, to be let alone,—these very men who most need supervision and control. (Will Durant, quoting Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), on "Aristocracy," in The Story of Philosophy.

The "mercantile morality" and "piratical morality" of which Nietzsche wrote in the nineteenth century are the very ruling creeds of today's Globalization. Free trade and deregulation represent the repudiation of the supervision and control government, by right, should exercise over capital, in order to protect their peoples from the depredations of predatory corporate capital. Pridger

Nietzsche said that "Democracy is drift." And we have drifted (under the false notion of a federal democracy), from the ideal of a representative constitutional republic (by consent of the people), to a particularly flawed form of socialism combined with, and dominated by, the mercantile morality of globalized capital. Globalism is nothing short of an updated form of international fascism, in which the real ruling power is vested in the financial leverage of international corporate cartels, leaving national governments solely to provide the necessary police powers required to produce and supervise populations of docile corporate workers.
    These corporate citizens (in the U.S.), are made happy with their subject status by the abundant availability of cheap imported consumer goods, as well as sufficient cake and circuses to keep their minds and bodies occupied in opiate-like diversions. Their false freedoms are in the form of a degree of licentiousness carefully calculated to seduce them to enthusiastically participate in the undermining of their own waning national culture and the very political institutions under which they still believe themselves to live. Pridger

The war on terrorism, of course, is another convenient diversion. It is a diversion by which the American citizen, in the throws of what he believes to be patriotism, is herded together and persuaded to don the fetters and chains of safety and security in the face of distant or contrived threats to his comfort level. Pridger

The dastardly attacks of 9/11/2001 were intentionally provoked over a long period of time to further a global agenda that even president Bush probably hasn't got an accurate focus on. Bush was selected as the tool and instrument of change by the true manipulators of global events.  In time, president Bush will be left swinging in the wind, as was president Johnson before him (after Kennedy was removed from the picture), during our war on international communism. Johnson really thought he was fighting the the good fight against the threat of international communism, just as Bush really thinks he is doing the nation and world a favor by committing our national military forces to a fight against international terrorism.
    True peace and stability in the world? Those are not the goals of our real rulers. Those are the things to be avoided, for we are engulfed in a system that is inherently unstable and unsustainable, and in danger of total collapse without the timely intervention of extraordinary events. Pridger

Marxist Communism at least espoused a governing ideology based on a worthy moral premise. As perverse and false as it might have been, that ideology was not based upon the quest for monetary gain. Corporate collectivism has the potential of consuming the earth through rampant mercantilism run amok — the inevitable reward of the worship of Mammon. Pridger

Capitalism works, but not well (and not for long), unless it is made to work for the true benefit of the people. Left to its own devices, capital is exploitive, predatory, cannibalistic, all-consuming, and thus ultimately self-destructive. There is no morality, no loyalty, and no heart to capital, except through rigorous national regulation. It must be controlled and fettered. The free market principles which presently enthrall modern economists and our mis-representatives in Washington is ultimately carefully channeled anarchy and chaos turned to the profit of a few. It's only goal is perpetually increasing profits for the few, at the expense of the many. Pridger

The WTO meeting in Cancun, Mexico (September, 2003), didn't go so well. It seems the world's political leaders and economic gurus are incapable of agreeing upon how to regulate free trade in a manner that pleases everybody in the global village. Beside the internal squabbles, an array of anti-globalists were out in force, too, trying to make their voices heard. What they were saying was that the global Utopia is a sham and a shame upon the institutions of civilized nations. Many of the anti-globalists are radical and of violent nature. Of course, that's about the only way they can make themselves heard, because our global rulers really don't want their voices heard (nor their votes or heads counted) — and the controlled press would ignore them if they were too peaceful. Pridger

One anti-globalist went the ultimate mile to make himself heard in Cancun. Knowing that words alone would make little impression, Lee Kyunghea, a farmer from South Korea, committed ritual suicide before the shepherds of globalism. He made the ultimate statement and sacrifice on behalf of Korean farmers and the farmers of the world.
    Why would a Korean farmer sacrifice himself in protest against globalism and the World Trade Organization? To graphically demonstrate that the WTO is killing Korean farmers. It's killing all independent farmers everywhere, and economic independence everywhere. That's what it is all about.
    The New World Order — a.k.a. globalism — is about one thing. Making it a universal imperative that every life-sustaining morsel of food, and every consumer item, will eventually be produced by and purchased through appropriate corporate channels. Local economics systems, agriculture, and production are doomed. The American farmer has been displaced long ago — over decades of federal farm policies engineered to "help him out" (of business). So the American family farm, as a national institution (and insurance policy), faded gradually away with hardly a protest. Those few that survive either work corporate scale farms or hobby farms while earning a living off the farm. Those with the corporate scale farms are perennially on the brink of bankruptcy and foreclosure. The machinery is now in place to do the same number on all the farmers in the rest of the world. Independent farmers are too independent. They are not good corporate citizens. Good corporate citizens contribute to the profits of capital with their every activity (be it productive or consumptive), and are beholden to capital for their livelihood and every pleasure. Pridger

14 Million "Knowledge Worker" jobs at risk

President Bush is being blamed for the loss of some 3.8 million production jobs during his tenure as president. Bush wasn't responsible for those job losses. The wholesale de-industrialization of America was begun in earnest at least three administrations ago. While Bush didn't start the process, he's certainly making sure the process continues. It's called globalism — president Reagan's "new international economic order," and the elder Bush's "New World Order" — and it isn't going to go away anytime soon. "Free trade" and "deregulation" are the twin policy instruments of globalism. Our government (which no longer bears much resemblance to the government our founders conceived and established), has sold the American people down the river, pure and simple.
    The potential outsourcing of approximately 14 million of the very sort of jobs that were supposed to rescue the American worker from the toils of production jobs, put the final lie upon the alleged benefits of the New World Order dream, as it has been held out as a carrot to Americans. Our membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), a creature of the our own rulers' Utopian visions, binds us to more and more of the same.
    The carrot was that Asian, Latin American, and Eastern European workers would produce our goods, and Americans would be able to consume them at bargain prices. Americans, freed from the toils of actual production, would be rewarded with the opportunity of becoming service industry and knowledge workers so they could continue to consume at their traditional levels.
    The problem is (and the problem has been obvious all along to anybody with a smattering of brains), is that Asian, Latin American, and Eastern European workers can perform those service and knowledge worker jobs too, and a lot cheaper than Americans can.
    High tech industries and jobs can be exported much more easily than was the case with productive industries and jobs. Thus, in the end, the only remedy would be that American workers must learn to underbid foreign labor by accepting the inevitable — wage and benefit standards that are competitive with those of the lowest paid workers on the planet. Thanks to the foresight of our mis-representatives in Washington, we're locked into a national economic suicide pact that cannot end until domestic chaos and revolution intervene. Pridger

Schwarzenegger is the Governor of California

No sooner has the Terminator actor become governor of California than a push has developed in in Congress to amend the Constitution to permit foreign born presidents. In other words, some of our brilliant national legislators have demonstrated both the depths and lengths of their long-term political vision. They already hope for a Terminator president even before he has proven his metal as governor of California. Perhaps he could out-do president Bush. Pridger 10/31/03

IMMIGRATION AND
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Why do legal and illegal immigrants continue to flock to this country? Because this is the land of opportunity, of course.

We need immigrants to do the jobs that poor Americans don't want and refuse to take. Why don't poor Americans want them? Because the poor classes of people who would once have needed and filled those jobs were put on temporary or perpetual paid vacation by our war on poverty. Welfare, unemployment insurance, and other state and federal subsidies to the disadvantaged, insured that Americans no longer needed to work hard, or work at all, for a mere living wage. The domestic workforce in jobs such as agricultural field work and domestic services, were taken out of the menial workforce market by these subsidies, insuring the need for foreign workers. No longer would poor whites and blacks feel any compelling need to accept "undesirable" employment. Such jobs were to become beneath their dignity.

How do we get these needed foreign workers to come to this country? They come of their own accord, without the need of any prompting. Our worst jobs usually pay much better than most of the best ones back in their home countries. But we've gone the extra mile to prompt even more to come. By initiating the Maquiadora program (the precursor of NAFTA), which exported American factories to the border areas of Mexico, we drew hundreds of thousands more jobseekers to the border areas than there were jobs available for them. This was both a magnet and an invitation for more illegal immigration to this country, and hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans are answering the call.

Now there are also thousands of immigrant arriving from almost every nation in the world, except nations populated by the descendents of our founders. Muslim Middle Eastern nations are providing an increasing number of immigrants, and that situation will increase, as long, and long beyond, our war on terror, our nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the general turmoil in the Middle East continue. War has always resulted in aftermaths of unintended consequences — one of which is always massive surges in immigration. Starting with the Spanish American War, which opened the floodgates to Cubans and Filipinos, each subsequent war has caused the massive displacement of large populations. Many of the refugees find their way to our shores. The Vietnam War — the one that we supposedly lost — brought hundreds of thousands of refugees. Their numbers (in terms of more refugees, Vietnamese-Americans bringing in their relatives, and all their descendents), have swelled into the tens of millions, and there will be no end of it. Latin Americans, Africans, Asians, and Middle Easterners will not only totally change the complexion of the nation in a few short years — the nation has already ceased to be the nation that it was as recently as the mid-twentieth century. The change is not only demographic and cultural, but at the nation's political core, as politicians vie for the support of large and growing blocks of minorities, rather than seeking to represent the the traditional, and still major, majority (or even "We the People" in aggregate, which includes everybody). It is no longer the nation founded and envisioned by the founders. It's a nation that has been gifted to the world as the multi-racial and multi-cultural center of a New World Order. It was not gifted thus by true representatives of the people. It was gifted by political crooks and mis-representatives, many of whom didn't have the slightest idea what they were doing, and couldn't have cared less, as long as they got the necessary votes to get elected.

The War on Terror will bring thousands of terrorists to our shores, mixed in with hundreds of thousands of fine Muslim immigrants seeking the opportunity to better their lives.

An inordinate percentage of our doctors are Indians, Pakistanis, and other Asians, because we make it easier for foreign students to attend medical school in this country than for native-born Americans. I have a cousin who had to go abroad to become an American physician, and his case is far from unique. Most Americans who aspire to become doctors simply give up because of the number of hurdles they encounter. Of course, many find that the public schools simply haven't prepared them for a higher education, much less medical school. Others succumb to a lack of financial means, while the foreign and severely disadvantaged enjoy special subsidies. Still others are denied admittance due to a de facto AMA quota system that limits the number of students admitted — unless they are foreigners.
    Then we say we need these Asian doctors because we don't have enough American born doctors. We say that there simply aren't enough qualified American students to make the grade. But, if that is really true, the obvious reason for it was that back in the 1960's public educational standards took a precipitous nose-dive in order to accommodate and "uplift" disadvantaged minorities. At about the same time, our national immigration policies were radically revamped to make sure we had an ever-growing supply of disadvantaged minority immigrants.
    Smart and ambitious Asians took advantage of these asinine national policies. They saw "opportunity knocking." Often they were sponsored by their home governments, and subsidized by our own. Naturally, a high percentage of foreign born, American trained, doctors fail to return home to look after the sick and disadvantaged in their native lands. They stay where they can cash in and make most money. I don't blame them for taking advantage of a wonderful opportunity, of course. It's our short-sighted policy that I take serious exception to — the long-term results of suicidal national policies is bound to be national suicide.
   Part of the result, of course, will be that the next generation of elite professionals will be native-born — that is, American born Latins, Africans, Asians, and Arabs, etc. Nothing wrong with that, in itself, of course.
    Today, many of our best citizens are already Latin Americans, Asians, Africans, and Arabs, while many of our worst (and most disadvantaged, due to poor and worsening education), are native Anglo-Americas. Though we don't discount the goodness of this new multi-cultural population, the mix is lamentably a formula for national disaster. Two reasons: (1) The religious, political, and philosophical genes that founded and built the nation, with its unique political institutions, is being bred out of the nation at both the top and bottom of society, and (2), Racial and internal political conflict is bound to result — not today, tomorrow, or next year, but in a generation or two, or even longer, in the future. The bluster of today's white supremacists, racists, black nationalists, and other political radicals is nothing but the earliest precursors of things to come. The real problems will occur when the mass hysteria of one group or another takes huge segments of the population into destructive frenzies. The ethnic conflicts of Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East stand as examples. Often ethnic conflict had been held in check for decades or centuries before flaring up due to a change in political or economic circumstance. The same is almost guaranteed to happen here.
    The supposed, but impossible, goal some dreamers have of total racial sameness, through interbreeding, would be no cure for ethnic conflict and war. Europeans of each race warred incessantly for millennia among themselves — family against family, tribe against tribe, city against city — long before they ever warred against a markedly foreign race. The same would occur if the world were populated by one golden-skinned race. Territorialism (today's nationalism), was not the sole cause. Man is simply born to conflict and strife. Eventually strife accedes to the scale of global warfare in a modern world. It will be that way in the next epoch, as it has been throughout the history of man.
    Peace is most likely within groups of like-minded, and racially kindred, peoples, with a unifying religion, cultural background, and sufficient defendable territory to provide the wherewithal for the good life. The world will never be such a group. The global village is a fantasy whose time will never really come.
    This said, however, peace between modern nations is possible in a modern world, as long as good leadership material can ascend to leadership positions within nations. Therein lies the major problem — one for which there is no known solution. How, in Heaven's name, can good leadership be engendered in a vast, institutionalized, educational vacuum? Nations always degenerate, as all things known to, and of, man degenerate. (Is this a manifestation of unconscious "planned" obsolescence?) All we can hope for is a holding action that would slow down the process. But our government, at least in my humble opinion, is speeding it up at an exponential rate, and has been since the last great war. What sustains us is an incredible store of social capital for which we can thank our forefathers and the materially rich continent they conquered and settled. We have inherited an incredible legacy, but find ourselves without the necessary collective wisdom (and thus without the necessary leadership), to preserve it.
    I blame generations of mis-representation in Congress, skullduggery at the White House, and usurpation of legislative powers by the Supreme Court. If Congress ever gets anything right (which, naturally, is seldom enough), it's checked by the White House or overturned by the Supreme Court. Even the best and most perfect president (if it were possible to elect such a person), is impotent against a background of behind the scenes skullduggery, broad-based Congressional mis-representation, and Supreme Court obstructionism.
    We still boast of the best higher educational facilities in the world (though many are increasingly watered down to accommodate sufficient numbers of students and politically correct agendas), yet our public primary educational system cannot produce college material. Even an alarming percentage of military recruits, I understand, require remedial education in order to function in a modern military environment. It isn't the students' fault, of course — it's cause is a dire lack of good material at the head of government, which is also being impacted by the decline that started in the sixties. Not only the perverse, but the mal-educated results of yesterday's mistakes, are now leading the nation. This does not bode will for the nation's future. When even the best and the brightest have been mal-educated in the basics, our educators, philosophers, economists, politicians, and statesmen, enthusiastically lead us into vast mine fields of error, without the slightest idea of where they take us. The brain trust is, if not brain dead, incapable of true vision and unworthy of trust.

We have never seen any "real" racial strife in this country. The Reconstruction and Civil Rights eras, and black riots since, were small potatoes compared to what is likely to happen in the future when the already "dispossessed majority" awakens to the fact that it has been numerically overwhelmed — and has become a disadvantaged minority. That will probably happen within the first half of this new century.

New World Order building is not a democratic process. It requires that the people be kept in confused disarray — ignorant of what is actually transpiring in the nation and the world. Government "of the People, by the People, and for the People" doesn't even enter into the equation. The informed and knowledgeable consent of the governed is an impossibility. It is a 3-D process, and none of the 'D's stand for democracy. They stand for Deficits, Deceit, and Deception. Pridger

Speaking of education, where do most kids and grownups get their history lessons these days? TV docudramas, of course — like "Jefferson in Paris." Those who learn about Thomas Jefferson from that movie, learn that he was a hypocritical slave-owner who dillied and dallied in Paris, while fathering a child by his little slave girl, and little else of historical consequence. They learn that Sally's brother, and fellow slave, was brilliant, and able to spare intellectually with his master. He, for example, if the movie is to be believed, had learned French while in Paris, and Jefferson had not. Hummmm? I wonder.
    Of course, it is far from a proven fact that Jefferson fathered any of Sally's children, in spite of DNA tests hyped as proof. It's possible that he did, of course, but why go the extra mile to make it seem to the gullible public that it's a proven historical fact? Why even bring the matter up at this late date, except to discredit a great man? Who gains thereby? Those who produced, promote, and laud the movie, contending that it is history, are merely latter-day spoilers mimicking Jefferson's contemporary political enemies. They at least had selfish political motives. What's Hollywood's motive?
    These movies, which masquerade as history lessons, should be required to carry warning labels, such as, "This movie is 10% history and 90% fabrication." Another such movie I've recently seen (I don't watch many of them), which badly needs such a label is Benedict Arnold. The totally false theme of that movie was that General George Washington (father of the nation), was a cruel, anti-Semitic, bigot. What was the point? Apparently, simply to discredit another great American icon.
    Meanwhile, the current generation of young adults, immigrants, along with men from Mars, would have to conclude that it was the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. who fathered the nation and made it great. Of course, it's true that MLK played a significant role in making America what it is today. Pridger

7 November, 2003

THE CALIFORNIA RECALL ELECTION
Why I wouldn't have voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnold Schwarzenegger lost any and every election in my book the first time he uttered the "F" or "MF" words in action movies targeting adolescent audiences. In fact targeting any audience with such language earns any actor an F in my book. Pridger

Of course, Pridger is an anachronism — one who has never been able to adjust to modern realities. Vulgarity and profanity are now accepted adult language, just as pornography is accepted mainstream adult entertainment — as American as Mom and apple pie. Not that Pridger is a prude. He accepts that Vulgarity, pornography, prostitution, recreational drugs, etc., all have a legitimate, and unavoidable, place in society. The place, however, is the gutter (hopefully in a gutter zoned away from decent neighborhoods) — not on prime time TV, places of family entertainment, or in the vocabulary of every child, movie star, and politician.

The Terminator image, with which Schwarzenegger is so proudly associated, is not the image I would like to associate with any public official or holder of high office of this land. Pridger

There's nothing wrong with body-building. But the vain and self-centered nature of any man seeking the position of Mr. Universe, is unbecoming of any politician or seeker of high public office. This is not an admirable attribute of the sort of philosopher/statesman that should routinely ascend to roles of state and national leadership. Pridger

Our youth are tutored in what now passes for American culture, by "R" rated movies that make cultural icons and action heroes out of men like Schwarzenegger. Pridger

What a far cry is actor-turned-politician Arnold Schwarzenegger from actor-turned-politician Ronald Reagan. The contrast is very telling with regard to the direction we are headed as a nation. Pridger

Schwarzenegger, as governor of California, is an insult to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Pridger

Reagan was certainly not perfect. But he really stood for something (many things), much greater than himself. His public image was pristine, and his political philosophy left no doubt where his heart was. He was a truly great president, even though (like all presidents in recent memory), he was used in office to promote the New World Order agenda of corporate mercantile globalism. Pridger

Reagan's Hollywood image was head and shoulders above that of the Terminator. One could not imagine Reagan allowing himself to be used in an "R" rated movie, or using what is now called "adult language." Pridger

Reagan, in every aspect of his public an private life was the very epitome of common decency. Pridger

What we now call "adult language" used to be called obscene and profane language. It was never acceptable in the presence of women, children, or "decent" society in general. Such language was once unthinkable in public prints or broadly distributed media entertainment. Pridger

What we call "adult language" and "adult entertainment" define American culture to the rest of the world. America, the super power, is seen as a real life Terminator running rampant in the world, seeking to destroy common decency everywhere it is found in institutionalized form. Pridger

A whole generation of Americans has been born and grown to adulthood, and thousands of immigrants (such as Arnold Schwarzenegger), have come to our shores and raised children, with the impression that pornography and the "F" word have always been central to American culture. Pridger

We've experienced a "new birth of freedom" in this country since this writer came of age — the freedom to be vile in print and entertainment media. To a certain class of people (often calling themselves progressives), this is progress. To me it is a form of regression and a clear sign of decadence in our society and political processes. Pridger

Societies seeking to maintain high standards of common decency, have little choice but to view America as a decadent nation — a base, degraded, and degrading influence in the world. This is why our attempt to rule the world, and establish a New World Order with our so-called "democratic values" is ultimately doomed to fail. We have galvanized the opposition. Pridger

Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his attempt to be a role model to our youth, has played (albeit probably not intentionally), a significant role in corrupting their morals. Pridger

America's primary semi-organized opposition in the world today happens to come from the world of Islamic fundamentalism. It's most radical elements attacked on September 11th, 2001, and provided the powers of globalism the excuse it had been wanting to wage an open-ended global war against all non-globalist self-determination. Pridger

We can't win that war because it's goals are not the goals being articulated by our leaders. To paraphrase Lincoln, "You can't fool enough of the people long enough" to accomplish the long-term goals of the perverse.  Pridger

If we can't get our national sense of common decency back up where it belongs, neither war nor political processes will do us, or anybody else, any good. Pridger

George Bush II, apparently has the mission of delivering up Iraq to the forces of Mammon and producing Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. "Peace," in this context, is Newspeak for "Control" (either by the United States or a compliant, subservient, United Nations). Pridger

What does Bush want to control? Ultimately, the world, of course. That includes you and me. Pridger

Only through war can unsustainable systems be made to appear sustainable. Emergency measures permit all nature of things that would be unthinkable under peacetime conditions. Extraordinary levels of compounding debt, for example, and the machinery to enable the military and police to control both "We the People" and global geopolitical events. Pridger

One must never loose sight of the fact that "We the People" are all potential terrorists, so the war on terrorism cannot but eventually come back and bite us. Pridger

Bush is in trouble. His public approval rating is on the decline, and an election is approaching. The mission in Iraq is becoming contentious — the Iraqis are not submitting as meekly as envisioned. It is quite an embarrassment to have to beg for United Nations assistance in Iraq so soon after we made it clear that we are the dog and they merely the tail. Pridger

Bush requires at least another term in office to finish mopping up Afghanistan and Iraq, and deal with Iran and Syria. And there is that troublesome side-show over in Korea. Bush has bit off more than he can possibly handle in one term, and it is unlikely that the next president will be able to keep the public enthused about continuing and more war with such costs as more and more Americans coming home in body bags, and $87 billion appropriations for the current engagements alone. Pridger

The Bush "Road Map to Peace" is quite embarrassing too, of course. There can be no lasting peace in Palestine, and everybody knows in advance that all attempts will be futile. That has been a self-evident truth since the establishment of the state of Israel. Israel cannot afford to allow a "real" Palestinian State to come into existence. To do so would seal its long-term fate, and most Israelis know it. On the other hand, the Palestinians will never accept the fragmented "Palestinian Reservation System" that Israel envisions as the only acceptable Palestinian "State." At best (and in spite of possibly good intentions), Bush's Road Map to Peace is nothing more than a high profile attempt to temporarily appease our bought and paid for (but none too loyal), Arab allies, and keep our so-called Middle East coalition together. We need to bring "democracy" to Iran, and Syria to accomplish what appears to be our plan for the future of the Middle East. Pridger

10/9/2003