I receive many e-mails asking why I don’t post articles to this log more often.

The reason is that like most people I find that the trivia that one encounters in everyday living consumes time that could be better spent in creative pursuits

   I write when I encounter either ignorance or stupidity so overwhelming that I have no choice.

   Ignorance can be excused but stupidity is something else entirely.

   People who have not been exposed to fact, for whatever reason, can be excused but when facts are available and well-circulated then those who, again for whatever reason, chose not to accept those facts are truly stupid.

   Stupidity has no place in civilized countries. The people therein have had access to schools, libraries and recently to TV and the Internet.

    There are countless documentaries on TV with well-developed time-lines of the evolution of the surface, forests and landscape of our planet. The rise and fall of ocean levels and the formation and melting of glaciers has been a continuous process.

   Core samples taken from ponds indicate, from very durable pollen samples, the plants that grew in the areas and the temperatures and moisture necessary for those plants to exist.

  The planet Earth has warmed and cooled for eons before there were people, power plants and automobiles.

  Even a fifth grade level geology book would enlighten people to this fact so why are so many people resistant to truth?

   What is it going to take to convince those people who make decisions that can wreck the economies of the entire planet to change conditions that are unchangeable?

   Is it politics alone that so blinds people or is it a more sinister hidden agenda that is determined to revert us back to living in caves and eating roots and berries.

  There are no more new caves and many many more people today so expect violent competition for survival.

In this very long article I hope to discuss the dangerous cliff on which we presently stand.

I have lightly discussed revolution in a couple of former articles but this is an in-depth look at what can precipitate one.

The French Revolution of 1789 overthrew an absolute monarchy and ended a system of feudalism for the aristocracy and the Catholic Church.

The precipitating cause was a famine. This was most likely caused by crop failures caused by the eruption of the volcano Laki in Iceland in 1783-1784 whose sulfur fumes and dust clouded the northern hemisphere. It is estimated that 8 million tons of hydrogen fluoride and 120 million tons of sulfur dioxide filled the atmosphere.

Temperatures plummeted to such an extent that the Mississippi froze at New Orleans and there was ice in the Gulf of Mexico. This caused enough famine and hardship in France to make the people desperate.

When the system that is looked to for stability and the well-being of the masses falters, for whatever reason, conditions are ripe for revolution.

It can be an actual cataclysm or the perception of one that triggers a revolution.

After the overthrow of the French Monarchy a period of relative stability existed during which time the Industrial Revolution began to occur.

Machines were invented which could produce much more than men could individually.

. 

Between 1834 and 1846 France’s economy mushroomed as a result of the Industrial Revolution.

However, the means of production was in the hands of a few who could afford to buy the machines by accumulating enough money to buy them.

The machines displaced hand labor and caused a migration of people from farms to the cities which possessed the power to operate the machines—steam and water-power.

This led to a rise of capitalism and the middle class which ultimately created a class struggle. It became a struggle between the owners and managers of the means of production and the laborers.

About that time two people developed a philosophy that attempted to deal with this problem.

 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles produced The Communist Manifesto in which they used the term ‘Proletariat’ to define the working class. These are the people in a Capitalist society who do not own the means of production but sell their labor for a wage.

The ‘Bourgeoisie’ were defined as the managers of the means of production.

Where there is a reasonable amount of freedom in a system of government, there will always be a conflict between these two groups. The laborer wants to receive the most financial advantage for each hour of his work while the manager wants to maximize his profit.

This is not the case in either a Monarchy or a Dictatorship. What you get is what you get. A person is essentially a slave in either of these systems.

How much material wealth is spread among the masses is a function of the generosity of the leader.

Unfortunately both the Monarch and the Dictator generally have other aspirations—grandeur or conquest—which permits no surplus for the masses to enjoy.

Socialism’s goal is to spread the surplus capital, the difference between what the actual generators of that production, the ‘proletariat’, have generated minus the cost of that production.

Of course, what history has shown is that this system kills incentive for investment because the would-be venture capitalist is not willing to expend the effort if there is no possibility to accumulate some of the surplus capital.

There is no point being the owner of the means of production if it is a ‘break-even’ venture. If a person’s expenses exactly balance his potential income there is no point in working harder.

The common laborer is also not likely to attempt to better himself and advance into the ranks of the owners of production when he realizes that he would be no better off to assume more responsibility and work harder.

This is the flaw in the concepts of Socialism and Communism.

The dream of Utopia is just that, a dream. The fathers of modern day Socialism/Communism , Marx and Engles, never addressed how this perfect state would come about. They produced The Communist Manifesto at about the same time as the French Revolution of 1847.They, like most idealists, would have enjoyed living in a system in which one could enjoy prosperity and leisure without trading the hours of their lives to achieve it.

Marx’s definition of Capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the Proletariat by the Bourgeoisie.

The French Revolution of 1847 was precipitated by conditions not unlike those presently existing in the United States.

The Industrial Revolution showed people that if they could acquire the ‘means of production’ they could become wealthy. Machines could out-produce people but it required money to buy these new machines.

Those with aspirations could achieve that by borrowing money. This caused competition for money which raised interest rates and increased speculation.

The Russian people, through the actions of Lenin and Trotsky, became, for the most part, almost unwilling participants in the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The Crash of 1929 and the following Depression created a pattern of similar thinking in the United States. The election of a Liberal President who fathered The New Deal, Social Security and permitted a fertile climate for the labor unions probably averted a revolution in the US as its citizens looked toward the apparent success of the Soviet’s first Five Year Plan.

We Americans are facing a series of hardships with the loss of enormous wealth in auto manufacturing, investments, home and business values that we may be on the verge of acceptance of either a total socialistic system or a revolution.

Socialism stifles investment and creativity; revolution creates chaos.

Utopia is an impossibility and Marx and Engles realized it.

It is unfortunate that the followers of their philosophy do not understand this and are willing to create a revolution to lose everything in the hope of achieving that which is impossible. Revolution has only led to a long period of misery.

Today we are seeing the possibility of a revolution in Iran.

Could a revolution there create a ‘fall-out’, as the volcano Laki did to France,

that would affect the United States?

   For as long as I can remember I have heard people say “Don’t discuss politics or religion”.That makes sense because both are subjective issues and people usually adhere to religion as a ‘faith-based system of salvation’. Faith is the sticking point.

People do not change unless given a reason and since the principles of a religion do not change significantly people continue to believe in their deities. Theists, of just about any religion, use the argument “it could not have been otherwise”.

People usually stay with the religion of their parents until an event in their lives causes them to question why they are of a particular faith. People do not simply change from one religion to another. They must first drop their original beliefs because of disagreement with their church leaders, a change in church policy or they dislike someone in the congregation so much that they are uncomfortable being there.

Politics, on the other hand is also subjective but the results of politicians are generally visible. The process may not be transparent but the results of the politicians actions are.

I have tried to avoid these two topics in my articles when I started writing them a year and a half ago but I wish to remind people of what happens when you ‘owe’ something to someone.

If someone loans you money they expect it to be repaid.

I believe people borrow money for two primary reasons.

The usual reason is that they need to borrow because they have mismanaged their affairs and are in debt.

The second is that they want the money to invest in a new home, car or business.

In the former case it is expected that the borrower will modify his or her habits so that they can avoid actions which caused their original financial problem.

The individual who loaned the money expects that assurance and so monitors  the debtor’s behavior, and if necessary, attempts to control it.

In politics no one is elected who is an unknown therefore to advertise a candidate’s attributes requires money. We have seen recently that even elected positions that are of minor significance require ever increasing amounts of money.

This money comes from campaign contributions so the politician who receives it owes something to the contributor. The larger the contribution, the greater the debt.

Whoever loans you money essentially controls you. If it’s an individual or bank they need to know that the course that you are pursuing will guarantee that they will get their money back.

If you expect a handout from the government then you owe the government and they receive their payment through taxes. If you owe the government, it can tell you how you must live your life and how much of your money that they will take to make that happen.

We are caught up in a huge game.
The people at the top make–and keep– the most money in a Socialistic system.
That seems to be the game plan, a Socialistic ‘One World’ system of currency and governmental control by a few people. Perhaps it will be those few who have the greatest influence on the United Nations organization.

Every time the Democrats get elected, they push us a little closer toward Socialism.
When the Conservatives get back in, it’s like a ‘ratchet’–it never goes back. They never undo what the Liberals have done.

This is not to excuse all Republicans either. They want to get as many votes as possible so they must satisfy the desires of the masses with hand-outs which also is a step toward Socialism.

In short, no matter who gets elected in this country, Democrat or Republican, you can expect Socialism in the end. It is only a matter of who gets us there the fastest.

The government will decide what the individual is entitled to and control that through taxes and the redistribution of wealth.

That is, except for the privileged few at the top.

CORD                  1929-1937

CROSLEY           1939-1952

DUESENBERG   1913-1926

ESSEX                  1919-1932

HUDSON             1910-1957

KAISER               1945-1956

NASH                   1916-1957

PACKARD           1899-1958

STUDEBAKER   1902-1966

When these fine American cars could no longer compete in the market, they simply went out of business.

Where was their  Uncle Sam when they needed him? No one bailed them out

When the horse and buggy could no longer compete with the automobile, the buggy manufacturers closed their doors also.

The United States did not collapse.

If a company is unable to produce any product competitively then it should fail.

Subsidizing failure seems to be a trend in the US today but it creates the expectation of continuity in enterprises that make incompetent decisions.

During this period of religious significance to both Christians and Jews, a mental  ‘almost overload’ has “….come upon me”–while I was raking last fall’s leaves.

Not being a theologian the following is the best that I could do.

Christians celebrate Easter as the rebirth of the Savior—someone who would cleanse them of sin and perpetuate their survival in Heaven.

Pagans celebrated this period as the resurrection of crops and fruit trees–those things necessary for their survival.

The Jews celebrate it for another reason—that they were ‘passed over’ and so survived to today.

It appears to me that ‘survival’ is a major component of this holiday season.

People want to hope for better times. They need a belief that things will get better as the pagans knew would happen in the spring. Or is it simply that people have faith that things will get better?

Faith is blind acceptance of a possible outcome. There is no available data to back up faith.

This seems very appropriate for what is happening today.

The Jews had faith that a Messiah would come and make things better. When Jesus came into the picture He didn’t help them in their struggle with the Romans so he was rejected as not being the Messiah that they expected.

Today we are experiencing a similar situation. Times are tough; fear is rampant.

Obama has been compared by many to be a ‘Messianic figure’.

The fact that he was elected President might have been as a result of this perception by a large number of people. In his campaign he said that he had a plan that would solve all the problems facing our country and perhaps the world, by extension.

I wonder if Obama and Congress will “deliver us from evil” or must we wait another four years for some, as of yet, unknown Messiah?

It seems that some lead has been found in the paint on the fenders.

My answer: ” Anyone who goes around licking motorcycle fenders deserves to remove themselves from the ‘gene pool’.”

How far is too far?

There is a connection between conservatism and greed but it is not an absolute “A=B”.

One can be ‘conservative’ (as I am) and not be greedy (as I am not).
Greed stems from conservatism but is not necessarily the end product. Too much conservatism is greed.

In other words, I want to be self-sufficient and in so doing I must accumulate enough of the  ‘implements’ to do so. In primitive times this meant arrowheads, wood,  skins and dried meat.

Today it is money. I feel money is a vehicle (a bartering medium) that will allow me to trade for those things that lead to my survival.
It has never been my goal to accumulate more than I feel is necessary to meet the goal of survival in a modern world– a world of taxes and shelter and fuel (energy) and transportation and food and some left over for pleasure.
Without some pleasure life becomes merely existence.

Those who accumulate simply with that as a goal are indeed greedy and that breeds resentment in those who are truly deficient.
This leads to extreme ‘liberalism’  using the vehicle of guilt to take from the truly greedy….and give to perhaps the less greedy.

How much is ’sufficient’? Who evaluates how much pleasure one is entitled to?
How much money do the apparently  deficient allocate to pleasure that gives them the appearance of insufficient means of survival?

My grandfather’s favorite expression was, “Moderation in all things.”

In short be conservative (self-sufficient) but not greedy.

   At the time I certainly didn’t expect to see what I have seen on TV today in London during the G20 Meetings.

  When I wrote that article I had only considered economics– Money.

  I forgot about, or really never thought that I would need to consider, another equally important reason for revolution.

  That is the loss of freedom. I had always expected that to be a constant and an absolute in the US. but events are changing the rules of the game.

   I had expected a relatively stable middle-class but the concept of the loss of personal freedom is changing that. People have very little faith in their future now.

  Guns and ammunition, the tools of revolution, are flying off the shelves as fast as they are stocked.

   The masses are in a state of both economic and emotional depression.

   If the people lose confidence in our government’s ability to deal with the multiple problems facing the country will revolution become a possibilty?

   If the government feels itself threatened will it result in an attempt to confiscate weapons and declare martial law?

    If so will there be a revolution?

   The reader I refer to has a site definitely worth visiting: www.blog4brains.com.

   I guess that’s what it takes. We are simply humans and it seems that once we get into a rut we tend stay there. It is the easy way out. Someone needs to poke us with a stick.

   Anyway, the reader mentioned that we have a neglected freedom, the freedom to fail.

  Our present American culture has become very–I won’t call it success oriented–but ‘anti-failure’ oriented.

  I first experienced this in 1968 when I had moved into a new neighborhood and a neighbor invited me to his home for a visit.

   The basement had been made into a very impressive game room and while touring the house his young son challenged me to a game of table tennis.

   The boy was very good but I managed to win a very close game.

   Both the kid and the father significantly cooled and the visit ended fairly quickly.

   When we went outside, the father said angrily, “You were supposed to let him win!”

   Having been a Boy Scout, an Assistant Scoutmaster, an Explorer Advisor and a Cub Scout Committee Chairman I was very surprised by that attitude.

  During my entire life I had been conditioned to survive and one only survives by giving everything in you to every task. The concept of intentional failure was beyond my comprehension.

   Since then we have seen the system of survival replaced by the system of ‘preservation of self-esteem’

  School children are not permitted to fail. No matter how poor their performance they still graduate from high school barely able to read, write a meaningful sentence or give you back the correct change.

  We do have the ‘freedom to fail’. If you manage your personal finances or your business in a manner in which you cannot survive then it is necessary that you fail.

  I am fairly certain that if you cannot compete in business or in the academic fields in China, India or Russia then you have the freedom to fail.

  No one will bail you out if you are a proven loser.

  Why should they?

   If we continue to place a higher value on  self-esteem than on performance, we, as a country, can expect to fail. It is, after all, one of our freedoms.

“I owed the IRS $10,000 but I went to the firm of Joe Cheat and Associates and I only had to pay back $400.”

This, in my opinion, was the start. People tried to weasel out of their obligations in a semi-acceptable manner.

If you owe the IRS taxes it’s because you made the money. It’s as simple as that.

The problem, however, is the honest guy who sees that ad over and over again starts to wonder why he/she doesn’t do the same.

We have some wonderful examples of our ‘Big-League’ politicians who are doing this on a grand scale.

“Hell, why waste time with Joe Cheat and Associates, I’ll just bypass the middleman and simply not pay my taxes?” 

No one wants to voluntarily give away their hard-earned money but that happens to be the system that we live under.

If you want government services you must pay for them. That’s why we have a system of taxation. To do otherwise is to take advantage of the person who is willing to work and play by the rules.

Remember, money doesn’t come cheap. You trade hours of your life for a paycheck.

You have made a decision to swap part of your life for dollars.

How many hours of your life are you willing to give to someone who would rather go fishing or play golf instead of working because he/she figured out a system to coast at your expense?