Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Manweller's rule
Could be that I'm just starting to notice it, but it does seem that a pattern is starting to emerge in the last few weeks.
The first thing I noticed was "former" CIA man Michael Scheuer, the guy who calls everyone Sir. He appeared on Glenn Beck a few weeks ago. Beck, who is certainly open to truth even if he's not quite ready to speak it fully, asked Scheuer a question that amounted to a cry of despair: If our leaders are not going to fight this war, how in the world are we going to win? And Scheuer answered approximately: Well sir, I think you'll find, sir, that the American People, sir, are considerably more bloody-minded than their leaders, sir.
Bloody-minded is a British term, not often heard here; the nearest American equivalent is froggy. Both mean coldly and calmly prepared for a fight. Scheuer wasn't quite saying that the people will have to take matters into their own hands, but the inference is clear enough.
On Monday night Thomas Sowell, who doesn't say Sir but usually sees reality more sharply than the rest of us, appeared on Fox "news" and declared that we probably need a military coup.
I've been thinking the same thing but didn't have the guts to say it until somebody else crossed the street first. (Well, actually I've been saying it for quite a while, using the weasely formula "A competent wartime president would do this and that......")
Frankly, we need a Pinochet. A benevolent dictator who will hit the reset button, rip out enemy subversion by the roots and leave us in survivable condition. Among other things, he would eliminate Federal appellate courts, eliminate Federal agencies that do more harm than good (which is about 80% of them); he would cut off trade with China, open all American territory to oil drilling and force oil companies to drill and refine; he would turn idle auto plants and workers to building dozens of nuclear generators on the French model.
He would unfortunately have to eliminate the Constitution, because its words have been so totally corrupted and inverted by the black-robed saboteurs that we all read it backwards and inside-out. Almost every action generally considered to be "required by the Constitution" is in fact prohibited or absent; almost every action generally described as "unconstitutional" is in fact allowed or required. Leaving it in place would unfortunately leave all the backward readings in our minds.
Perhaps he could take us back to the Articles of Confederation, which would work better today than in 1790 because of better communication and transportation. And it's not just that decentralizing can work better; we desperately need decentralized decisions when fighting a loosely structured enemy.
= = = = =
Now, as promised by the title, Manweller's rule. Matthew Manweller is an unlikely source for dramatic statements of truth: he's a professor of Political Science at a state university. Granted, it's a small university in a rural town, but even there it takes some guts for a prof to come out solidly and loudly in favor of Western Civilization. He announced his rule as part of this speech a few weeks ago.
In bumper-sticker form: Elections only happen when they don't count.
Summing up the whole speech: Bush has made an unspeakably stupid error by putting elections first in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not how democracies develop. We have plenty of examples of the correct process: Taiwan, South Korea, occupied Japan and Germany after WWII, probably China in the near future. In each of these cases, private property, well-organized capitalism (banking, credit, stock markets) and fair courts came first. These gave business and invention the necessary backing and security. Elections and parliaments came later, and really don't make much difference. Elections are just one of the many goodies provided by a decent capitalist society, and they only hold up when they don't make a huge amount of difference. When you try to put elections first; when you let 51% of the votes decide which tribe gets the power and the oil; the election may take place, but its decision will be utterly irrelevant. The tribe that currently owns the power and the oil will bring out the AK-47s and settle matters more effectively.
Elections only hold up when all major groups feel that they are served "well enough" by the result, and this only happens after tribes have been replaced by a broad cultural agreement on the big questions, so that the political process only needs to handle the smaller questions. When a significant part of the population decides that elections are futile, the AKs come out of the woodwork again.
Polistra wishes she had written Manweller's Rule; it's her kind of observation. But credit where credit is due.
Still, she can add a corollary: Short of the AK point, the Manweller standard serves as a metric, to tell you which questions are truly important to the elites.
Regardless of all the pointless "debate" and partisan-sounding jabber, if a question is never allowed to be decided by a vote of the people or the Parliament, you know it's vitally important. Emphasis on decided because many questions are voted on for show, with both "sides" knowing perfectly well that the decision will not change.
Drilling for oil is a fairly subtle example. Both houses of Congress passed "bills" that appeared to allow drilling in the Gulf and in Alaska, knowing perfectly well that the other house would take care of turning it down.
Abortion is so important that the elites never even allow it to appear as a bill in Congress. When "conservative" Supremes are appointed, they agree openly and publicly that they will always treat freedom to abort as settled law.
Another settled law that I've been discussing a lot lately: America must not fight against the Arab enemy. Both "parties" agree nicely that our army must remain in Iraq where it's effectively held hostage by Persia, and that we must not do any real harm to the enemy's strongholds like Mecca and Medina. Any candidate who comes close to suggesting the correct path to victory (eg Tancredo) is immediately sent to the funny farm.
Finally and most immediately, we see the elites are in full agreement that Open Borders shall never be questioned. Anyone who dares to suggest that the purpose of a nation is to protect its citizens from invasion ... well, we know what happens. Teddy, George and Hillary, on behalf of their respective dynasties, all agree that such cretins are Klansmen. ¶ 4:43 PM
The first thing I noticed was "former" CIA man Michael Scheuer, the guy who calls everyone Sir. He appeared on Glenn Beck a few weeks ago. Beck, who is certainly open to truth even if he's not quite ready to speak it fully, asked Scheuer a question that amounted to a cry of despair: If our leaders are not going to fight this war, how in the world are we going to win? And Scheuer answered approximately: Well sir, I think you'll find, sir, that the American People, sir, are considerably more bloody-minded than their leaders, sir.
Bloody-minded is a British term, not often heard here; the nearest American equivalent is froggy. Both mean coldly and calmly prepared for a fight. Scheuer wasn't quite saying that the people will have to take matters into their own hands, but the inference is clear enough.
On Monday night Thomas Sowell, who doesn't say Sir but usually sees reality more sharply than the rest of us, appeared on Fox "news" and declared that we probably need a military coup.
I've been thinking the same thing but didn't have the guts to say it until somebody else crossed the street first. (Well, actually I've been saying it for quite a while, using the weasely formula "A competent wartime president would do this and that......")
Frankly, we need a Pinochet. A benevolent dictator who will hit the reset button, rip out enemy subversion by the roots and leave us in survivable condition. Among other things, he would eliminate Federal appellate courts, eliminate Federal agencies that do more harm than good (which is about 80% of them); he would cut off trade with China, open all American territory to oil drilling and force oil companies to drill and refine; he would turn idle auto plants and workers to building dozens of nuclear generators on the French model.
He would unfortunately have to eliminate the Constitution, because its words have been so totally corrupted and inverted by the black-robed saboteurs that we all read it backwards and inside-out. Almost every action generally considered to be "required by the Constitution" is in fact prohibited or absent; almost every action generally described as "unconstitutional" is in fact allowed or required. Leaving it in place would unfortunately leave all the backward readings in our minds.
Perhaps he could take us back to the Articles of Confederation, which would work better today than in 1790 because of better communication and transportation. And it's not just that decentralizing can work better; we desperately need decentralized decisions when fighting a loosely structured enemy.
= = = = =
Now, as promised by the title, Manweller's rule. Matthew Manweller is an unlikely source for dramatic statements of truth: he's a professor of Political Science at a state university. Granted, it's a small university in a rural town, but even there it takes some guts for a prof to come out solidly and loudly in favor of Western Civilization. He announced his rule as part of this speech a few weeks ago.
In bumper-sticker form: Elections only happen when they don't count.
Summing up the whole speech: Bush has made an unspeakably stupid error by putting elections first in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not how democracies develop. We have plenty of examples of the correct process: Taiwan, South Korea, occupied Japan and Germany after WWII, probably China in the near future. In each of these cases, private property, well-organized capitalism (banking, credit, stock markets) and fair courts came first. These gave business and invention the necessary backing and security. Elections and parliaments came later, and really don't make much difference. Elections are just one of the many goodies provided by a decent capitalist society, and they only hold up when they don't make a huge amount of difference. When you try to put elections first; when you let 51% of the votes decide which tribe gets the power and the oil; the election may take place, but its decision will be utterly irrelevant. The tribe that currently owns the power and the oil will bring out the AK-47s and settle matters more effectively.
Elections only hold up when all major groups feel that they are served "well enough" by the result, and this only happens after tribes have been replaced by a broad cultural agreement on the big questions, so that the political process only needs to handle the smaller questions. When a significant part of the population decides that elections are futile, the AKs come out of the woodwork again.
Polistra wishes she had written Manweller's Rule; it's her kind of observation. But credit where credit is due.
Still, she can add a corollary: Short of the AK point, the Manweller standard serves as a metric, to tell you which questions are truly important to the elites.
Regardless of all the pointless "debate" and partisan-sounding jabber, if a question is never allowed to be decided by a vote of the people or the Parliament, you know it's vitally important. Emphasis on decided because many questions are voted on for show, with both "sides" knowing perfectly well that the decision will not change.
Drilling for oil is a fairly subtle example. Both houses of Congress passed "bills" that appeared to allow drilling in the Gulf and in Alaska, knowing perfectly well that the other house would take care of turning it down.
Abortion is so important that the elites never even allow it to appear as a bill in Congress. When "conservative" Supremes are appointed, they agree openly and publicly that they will always treat freedom to abort as settled law.
Another settled law that I've been discussing a lot lately: America must not fight against the Arab enemy. Both "parties" agree nicely that our army must remain in Iraq where it's effectively held hostage by Persia, and that we must not do any real harm to the enemy's strongholds like Mecca and Medina. Any candidate who comes close to suggesting the correct path to victory (eg Tancredo) is immediately sent to the funny farm.
Finally and most immediately, we see the elites are in full agreement that Open Borders shall never be questioned. Anyone who dares to suggest that the purpose of a nation is to protect its citizens from invasion ... well, we know what happens. Teddy, George and Hillary, on behalf of their respective dynasties, all agree that such cretins are Klansmen. ¶ 4:43 PM
