.

Archive for the ‘Corporations’ Category

Ideological Evolutionary Theory (vs. Ideological Creationism)

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

People who believe that Jewish influence dictates the direction of society through the media have a most peculiar view if they believe that human behavior is genetically determined. If they believe in an ethnically based ideological determinism that dictates that Jews are just “acting as Jews because they are Jews” and non-Jewish Europeans are simply “acting as gullible Gentile Whites,” then they raise a contradiction to their own presumption of genetically inherited ideology when they focus on the environment (cable tv, the internet, newspapers). If people’s ideologies are more or less determined by how much Jewish blood they have, then how can Jews be influencing non-Jews? Are Jews natural leaders and Gentiles natural followers? If such a theory actually were true, the only solution to this problem would be genetic engineering! If the strength of genetic determinism cannot be mitigated, then why start a movement to convince people to change their viewpoints? If you believe that people can change their viewpoints, then should you not renounce your genetic determinism? If people can change their ideology voluntarily, then much of what white nationalists say is hogwash! The White Nationalists raise this own contradiction by pushing “Jew-genetic” determinism on one hand but raising the importance of the media environment on the other.

Obviously to argue that Jews control the thinking of non-Jews is to argue for a blank slate hypothesis in which white gentiles are programmable but blacks are subhuman and Jews act as a group. Notice that most people who “name the Jew” are information technology style nerds like Mike Conner who probably write computer programs and view White Gentiles as programmable beings.

Mike Connors’s “Name the Jew” Computer Program:

// below is programming code
// lol
string x_Jew = “follow me. I am the jew.”;
class white.ideology = x_Jew;

My response.
// x_Jew = strong and white.ideology = weak!

It would seem difficult to reconcile a belief in genetic determinism with a belief that the environment (which Jews allegedly control) sets the pace of society. However, it is insufficient to act offended when people push these theories. To combat the inconsistent babbling of the “name the Jew” crowd, it helps to both point out these inconsistencies and promote theories (instead of simply crying foul). One problem that I have had is that I have not promoted a theory to explain “why” we are in the situation we are in. A person who does not like me may think I am simply raising objections because I want to “defend the Jews.” The Basarab theory of ideological evolution will challenge this viewpoint and show that I have good and valid objections!

Evolution vs Creationism
Marxists who focus on dialectical materialism and class struggle are like evolutionists. They believe society evolves piece by piece and that the persuasive powers of the media are limited by the characteristics of the audience (contingent prejudices, assumptions, material conditions, market forces). In contrast, “right wingers” who blame the Jews are like creationists. They believe our society was just created by ideas that somehow the “blank slate” white Gentile European can absorb. These supposed “genetic determinists” believe that any ideology can be environmentally PUSHED on a “white gentile” society!

My viewpoint takes into account material conditions and argues that humans view the dissemination of propaganda through their own ideological lenses. People set goals to achieve outcomes and consider the material conditions, so while I reject hardcore genetic determinism of ideology, I do not believe an audience is a “blank slate” for a speaker either. According to my view, the media cannot just say anything it wants to and automatically transform society. My theory questions this, because society must move from “point a” to “point b” before it gets to “point c.” While I believe ideas and goals matter, goals and ideals cannot be utopian but must be materially based (and we can view humans as a resource for this purpose). An extreme economic determinist position argues that people’s ideologies are determined exclusively by their material conditions. This position is more extreme than Karl Marx’s position. Even Marx referred to ideology as important, but saw ideology as being tailored around real life conditions (dialectical materialism). Marx’s position has influenced my thinking because I believe it to be correct. The theory of the wns is more this : Jewish people have specific genetically-programmed interests. The Jews acted to push anti-racist ideas and push America into wars for Israel. They seized control of the media and disseminated their propaganda to achieve their outcome. The only material condition that matters to WNists is the amount of Jewish blood in MsNBC and Fox News!

My Rebuttal : Even if Jews control the media, they must operate within market forces. Let us pretend that Jews had an objective that everyone else vehemently opposed. In this scenario, Jews would still have have to compromise their arguments in a way to make them practical and achievable by building a consensus. To deny this fact is to argue that the rest of the society went along with the plan and questioned nothing. In that case society is to blame! To accept this is to argue that Gentile underlings and Jewish “masters” compromised! In that case, Gentiles are still to blame! Whether Gentiles simply lied down and let Jews control society or actively negotiated the outcome, the blame cannot be solely laid on Jews.

Regarding the media and its support for Israel : The media is controlled by corporations who need cash and see Israel as an ally. The same media works in a multi-racial and multi-regional American society (do not forget that I am Eastern Pennsylvania 100%)! Society is driven by an imperfect desire to secure its business position in an evolving market situation. The media cannot just say anything it wants to and automatically transform society. In summary, my theory (the Basarab theory of ideological evolution) postulates that this is not possible because of the reasons listed in this essay.

Nobody can reasonably believe that Jews operate external to the material conditions of society. Society was not a perfectly working computer program that got hacked by a Jewish virus, but instead a process of evolution of which Jews are an internal part affected by the same material conditions. I am arguing that even if Jews promoted the ideas, the material conditions are what allowed for the ideas to prevail.

Skills Shortage Article – InformationWeek

Monday, March 12th, 2012

http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/interviews/232601751

This is a very good article by Rob Preston of InformationWeek that validates important points that I am in agreement with. Basically, if the IT industry outsources everything to India and only hires Americans who have high experience, then where are the future workers going to come from? What happens in thirty years when no-one has experience?

He hit on points that I have hit on for years in private.

The Book and the Cover

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

Liberal capitalists push the idea of individualism and condemn the idea of dividing people in a way that inhibits globalization. If “sexism,” “racism,” “nationalism” or other “isms” are bad for business, they are condemned.

Yet even though Corporate culture trumpets the merits of individualism, in my experience, Corporations still judge books by covers.

It’s not your skills or potential, it’s your experience.
It’s not your loyalty, it’s your work history.
It’s not your interview, it’s the results returned from your background check.
It’s not a good background check, it’s a google search.
It’s not you, it’s your network and who you know.
It’s not what you know, it’s how you look on paper.

You get my drift? I am sure you do.

Corporate culture pushes the idea of not judging the book by a cover when it is convenient. However during other periods of history, the controllers of economic activity (not necessarily Corporations) have used other propaganda to perpetuate institutions such as slavery to the extent it fits the given mode of production. Yet corporations do judge people by things that are very unrelated to their qualifications for the job. They just don’t do it for the same reason as a “racist” or “sexist.”

In fact, corporations are willing to sometimes fill quotas by ethnicity simply for political / public relations reasons. That may not be racism against Blacks, but it is still racial.

Power Dynamics

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

I had an interesting conversation on facebook. Because I do not want individuals who engaged in this conversation to experience any harassment, I have cut out the last names and the full name of a person who is not a political activist of any sort. But I posted the conversation.

Power Dynamic Conversation

This conversation marks a significant realization. It explains why “we” are protesting the 1% as the 99%. It explains why employers like to blame their employees. It explains why Governments go to war but Soldiers die.

Read it and reflect on it.

The people who get screwed over are the ones UNDERNEATH those in power. That is why we must assert ourselves. Your mistake is our problem.

The other issue is that we have a system of Government that is not addressing this and rectifying it. It is maintaining the power dynamic(s).

A battle we can win

Sunday, October 9th, 2011

Let us describe the way that social media background checks would be governed if the Government worked the way it should on behalf of the populace. If the Government really wanted to allow rights to its individual citizens, instead of allowing corporations to penalize people for free speech because corporations directly fund the capitalist and imperialistic Government, then some of the rights of corporations would be smaller. In exchange for a true right to free speech, employers would have to lose some of their rights to make hiring decisions off of political ideology or off the job legal conduct. What the bourgeois class loses, the middle and proletariat classes gain.

Instead all we hear about is “free markets,” the “rights” of employers and “democracy.” But below is a reasonable moderate social media policy. While many goals that the working class are shooting for are a bit out of reach, I do believe we can reach this goal. We can make it illegal for employers to penalize employees and potential employees based on off the job conduct that is legal and not directly impacting on business operations. I do believe the fear of being out of work in a bad economy causes a large amount of people to stay silent who otherwise would correctly fight harder for change.

When discussing social media, blogs and employment background checks, one of the trite arguments made by apologists for the bourgeois class is “if you make it public, then we can judge you on it.” In legal issues, the standard proof of criminal conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I believe a similar standard should be required of employers who assess employees not on their performance but on their lives outside of work. The standard must be that it must be determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a Jury that the conduct is directly causally related to a legitimate and proven loss of business (loss of customers, loss of employees) for such behavior to be retaliated against.

For example, if John Doe posts about his hatred of midgets and you find it on his facebook, your business should not be able to retaliate against John Doe by firing, not promoting or treating him differently simply because YOU are offended. Instead, John Doe’s right to free speech should be prioritized over your “right” to retaliate against him. Sure, you have the right to disagree with John Doe and say “hey, that is offensive, I disagree” but that should be the end of it.

John Doe has the right to say he does not like midgets or the Government of Iowa. A business should have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt by a Jury, that John Doe making his “tweet” about midgets is costing the company employees or customers. Correlation is not causation. Now it is true, he did “put it there” and it is “public,” but if it is not directly tied to a business issue, retaliation should not be an option. You being offended about John Doe’s tweet should be an insufficient cause for termination, lack of promotion or consideration of the behavior.

We must find a strategy to lobby for such change in legislation, so that the American people can be truly empowered to speak up for their own interests instead of for the interests of the small minority who profit the most from doing in the private sector what the Government does not do in the public sector. Let us face it, until we develop labor solidarity, we will never have any rights.

It is entirely legitimate to make jokes, to speak informally when addressing friends, to post a picture, to make political opinions, to listen to music others do not like, to write music, to have a life. Until the government sets an example by criminalizing the retaliation against free speech in the private sector by employers against employees and potential employees, there are no rights in the “land of the free” (the land of imperialistic warfare, cosmopolitan greed, rootlessness, racial self-hatred and politicized religion).

Competition and Socialism

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity.
- Deng Xiaoping

People who are aware of the history of USSR and perhaps Maoist China may come under the impression that the definition of socialism is a command economy. The definition of socialism is actually the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and not specifically a command economy. The definition of Communism is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” and this may imply some degree of commanding but nothing is explicitly defined as planning. Bailing out major banks as Obama did is a form of planning but it is not a form of socialism. The idea of socialism is that the working class truly “owns” the means of production and that no “human right” gives a particular business leader ultimate authority to use the means in a way that contravenes the interests of the working class or the country.

Those who consider themselves to be fans of Stalin may believe that Stalinist economics are a tenant of socialism. No, Stalinist economics are an adaption to the material conditions at the time. It is a fact that in Marx’s hierarchy, feudalism is considered less progressive than capitalism. Stalin applied a Marxist “pro-worker” leadership to feudal conditions. He had to take what was not industrialized and industrialize it. This does not change the fact that capitalism is more progressive than feudalism. Being a Marxist is not solely being against capitalism.

Socialism implemented in a capitalist country would contain characteristics of capitalism. Socialism created in a feudal economy would have to develop those forces. The key is that under socialism the market is not seen as sovereign but controlled. The Chinese economy works such that market forces exist, but communist party members also manage corporations. It is pragmatic in that the profit motive is allowable except when it violates the interests of workers, in which case the Government steps in.

When competition provides something that is good for society, it can be utilized. In fact sometimes capitalists do away with competition through monopolization. The essential difference between socialism and capitalism is “who is in charge.” Are the business leaders in charge or is the revolutionary party in charge? The difference is not that one plans and the other competes. A business leader can succeed, but a revolutionary party leader will determine how this success should be used to benefit the working class and country.

radio : subterranean-fire friend discusses “left hand path”

Sunday, November 28th, 2010

The link
The show discusses heavy metal, nazism, Marxism, anarchism, conservatism, satanism, rebellion against authority, capitalism, corporations, corruption and a few topics.

I will comment more later.

The guy who set this up got this info to me via social networking.

Anti-Zionism vs. Black/White Thinking

Thursday, October 28th, 2010

Anti-Zionism is one thing. Refusing to see negativity outside of Zionism is another.

Just because the mainstream Zionist movement is full of corporate imperialists, hypocrites, “law of returners” and international traitors who want every Jew to be loyal to Israel does not mean that people who oppose it should do so in black and white terms. In other words, people who oppose Zionism should not be blind to the flaws of Arabs and Persians, which most certainly also exist. Such “black and white” morality is both flawed and to the extent one admires Marx, not very Marxist.

Also while vacuuming all the Jews and dumping them in Israel, kicking out the Gentiles and expanding from the Nile to the Euphrates is “Black and white” thinking, arguing that some Jews legitimately belong in Israel is not the same thing.

Black and white thinking must ALWAYS be rejected for gray thinking. Black and white thinking is a serious red flag. Black and white thinkers over-react when their worldview is exposed as false. I have net enemies, and I know what I’m talking about!

Dick Morris on Illegal Immigration

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

The link

Here is a nicely written non-partisan article which describes how the immigration issue is buthchered by corrupt politicians.  Over and over again, Americans poll that they want the borders closed down and illegal immigrants approached instead of ignored or legalized, but over and over again, the leaders of the establishment are very reluctant to do what should be very easy.

Quotation from Dick Morris

Both parties are hypocritical on immigration. Democrats, controlled by unions, want Latinos to vote but not work. Republicans, controlled by agribusiness interests, want them to work but not vote. The answer is to stand up to union and to agribusiness pressure and take tough action to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants.

In their desperation, President Barack Obama and senators with large Latino populations in their states (like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.) are seeking to polarize Hispanic and Anglo sentiment over the issue of illegal immigration. In his frequent messages calling for higher Latino and black turnout and his condemnation of the Arizona immigration law, Obama is trying to recapture over immigration the voter approval he lost over healthcare.

Arizona acted as it did because of a lack of federal enforcement of federal law barring undocumented immigrants. With a porous border, they felt that they were left no choice but to pass a law allowing potentially intrusive searches to ferret out illegal immigrants. Because this law could subject American citizens of Hispanic origin to undue scrutiny and perhaps to needless trips to the police station, the Arizona law antagonizes the jump ball in the immigration debate — Latino-American voters. If there were a real national identification card, the requirement to produce papers might be less intrusive. But, as it is, with the burden of proof on the citizen (or the illegal immigrant), the law is bound to raise tensions between Anglo cops and Latino citizens.

But being forced to support or oppose the Arizona law is a false choice. It reflects the unimaginative politics of confrontation that jeopardize race relations and elect demagogues like Barack Obama. (Obama’s share of the white vote was the same as Kerry won in 2004. He was elected only because of a three-point increase in black turnout and a shift in Latino votes to his corner. He won because of race, and now he schemes to keep control of Congress by using the immigration issue.)

The real answer is not to round up Latinos in the streets of Phoenix and hope to catch illegals in the net. Nor is it even to pretend that we can stop determined men and women from crossing the border by way of more guards, more troops and better equipment. The answer is to dry up the will to cross the border in the first place by stopping employers from offering jobs to undocumented workers. If there were felony penalties — jail time — for hiring illegals, they would not be hired. And if there were no jobs, there would be no illegal immigration.

The Republican position on illegal immigration should be to demand tough employer sanctions, including jail, and coupling that program with a vigorous guest-worker program to bring needed workers in legally, pay them a living wage and then escort them out when they are no longer needed. The United States, in need of a younger population to pay for our current and future retirees, should also raise the allowed levels of immigration.

Both parties are hypocritical on immigration. Democrats, controlled by unions, want Latinos to vote but not work. Republicans, controlled by agribusiness interests, want them to work but not vote. The answer is to stand up to union and to agribusiness pressure and take tough action to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants.

If there were no jobs for illegals outside of guest-worker programs, there would be no need for amnesty. They would all go home of their own accord or wait until they got legal status.

We would need a foolproof, biometric identity card to speed identification of those eligible for employment to accompany the sanctions against hiring illegals, but this is a small price to pay for an answer to so pressing a problem.

But Obama will not take the step that could end illegal immigration. Why? Because he wants immigration. He seeks to reshape the partisan balance in America by increasing the number of Latino voters and marrying them to the Democratic Party by provoking Republicans who just want law and order to appear racist to Hispanic-Americans. His is a game of great duplicity and racial opportunism. But good legislation can defeat his designs and solve one of our most pressing domestic problems at the same time.

Goldman Sachs Accused of Fraud by US Government

Saturday, April 17th, 2010

The Link
One who is concerned with populist issues in the United States of America must applaud the Government for what it has done. Granted, the entire system has not realized itself to be fraudulent, but it is a step away from denial. The Government is solving a major problem here.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government on Friday accused Wall Street’s most powerful firm of fraud, saying Goldman Sachs & Co. sold mortgage investments without telling the buyers that the securities were crafted with input from a client who was betting on them to fail.

And fail they did. The securities cost investors close to $1 billion while helping Goldman client Paulson & Co., a hedge fund, capitalize on the housing bust. The Goldman executive accused of shepherding the deal allegedly boasted about the “exotic trades” he created “without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities!!!”

The civil charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission are the government’s most significant legal action related to the mortgage meltdown that ignited the financial crisis and helped plunge the country into recession.

The news sent Goldman Sachs shares and the stock market reeling as the SEC said other financial deals related to the meltdown continue to be investigated. It was a blow to the reputation of a financial giant that had emerged relatively unscathed from the economic crisis.

Goldman Sachs denied the allegations. In a statement, it called the SEC’s charges “completely unfounded in law and fact” and said it will contest them.

The SEC is seeking to recoup the money lost by investors and impose unspecified civil fines against Goldman Sachs and the executive, Fabrice Tourre. The SEC could enter into settlement negotiations over the amount if Goldman changed its stance and decided not to fight the charges in a trial.

The SEC said Paulson paid Goldman roughly $15 million in 2007 to devise an investment tied to mortgage-related securities that the hedge fund viewed as likely to decline in value. Separately, Paulson took out a form of insurance that allowed it to make a huge profit when those securities’ value plunged.

The fraud allegations focus on how Goldman sold the securities. Goldman told investors that a third party, ACA Management LLC, had selected the pools of subprime mortgages it used to create the securities. The securities are known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations.

The SEC alleges that Goldman misled investors by failing to disclose that Paulson & Co. also played a role in selecting the mortgage pools and stood to profit from their decline in value. Two European banks that bought the securities lost nearly $1 billion, the SEC said.

“Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party,” SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami said in a statement.

But Goldman said in a statement that it never mischaracterized Paulson’s strategy in the transaction. It added that it wasn’t obliged to “disclose the identities of a buyer to a seller and vice versa.”

The charges name only Goldman Sachs and Tourre, who was a vice president in his late 20s when the alleged fraud was orchestrated in 2007. Tourre, the SEC said, boasted to a friend that he was able to put such deals together as the mortgage market was unraveling in early 2007.

In an e-mail to the friend, he described himself as “the fabulous Fab standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities!!!”

Tourre, 31, has since been promoted to executive director of Goldman Sachs International in London.

Stanford University spokeswoman Elaine Ray said a student by the name of Fabrice Tourre received a master’s degree in management science and engineering from the school in 2001.

A call to a lawyer for Tourre, Pamela Chepiga at Allen & Overy LLP, wasn’t returned.

Asked why the SEC did not also pursue a case against Paulson, Khuzami said: “It was Goldman that made the representations to investors. Paulson did not.”

Paulson & Co. is run by John Paulson, who reaped billions by betting against subprime mortgage securities. He is not related to former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former Goldman CEO.

John Paulson was among the first on Wall Street to bet heavily against subprime mortgages. His firm earned more than $15 billion in 2007, and he pocketed $3.7 billion. He has since earned billions more, largely by betting against bank stocks and then buying them back after their shares plunged.

In a statement, Paulson & Co. said: “As the SEC said at its press conference, Paulson is not the subject of this complaint, made no misrepresentations and is not the subject of any charges.”

Goldman, founded more than 140 years ago, built a reputation as a trusted adviser to investment banking clients and for sending top executives into presidential Cabinet posts.

In recent years, it shifted toward taking more risks with its clients’ money and its own. Goldman’s trading allowed the firm to weather the financial crisis better than most other big banks. It earned a record $4.79 billion in the last quarter of 2009.

The complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan “undermines their brand,” said Simon Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Goldman critic. “It undermines their political clout. I don’t think anybody really values being connected to Goldman at this point.”

He continued: “There are many people who — until this morning — thought Goldman Sachs was well-run.”

The SEC’s enforcement chief said the agency is investigating a wide range of practices related to the crisis. The prospect of possible legal jeopardy for other major financial players roiled the stock market.

Goldman Sachs shares fell more than 12 percent Goldman and lost $14.2 billion in market capitalization. The Dow Jones industrial average finished down more than 125 points.

The SEC appears to be taking a particularly aggressive approach with Goldman. Typically, cases are resolved by firms agreeing to a settlement before the charges are made public, said John Coffee, a securities law professor at Columbia University.

“The SEC has changed its style,” Coffee said. “They wanted to tell the world what they thought Goldman had done wrong.”

The charges come as lawmakers seek to crack down on Wall Street practices that helped cause the financial crisis. Congress is considering tougher rules for complex investments like those involved in the alleged Goldman fraud.

President Barack Obama vowed Friday to veto a financial overhaul bill that doesn’t regulate mortgage-backed securities and other so-called derivatives. Legislation in Congress would for the first time regulate derivatives, whose value depends on an underlying asset, such as mortgages or stocks. Senate Republicans oppose the bill.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is “pleased that the SEC is departing from the lax enforcement of the Bush administration and is returning to the SEC’s proper role of protecting investors in the marketplace,” spokesman Steven Adamske said.

The biggest loser in the alleged fraud was ABN Amro, a major Dutch bank, and the Royal Bank of Scotland, which acquired major portions of it in 2007. The SEC said the Royal Bank of Scotland paid Goldman $841 million to unwind ABN transactions.

IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, a German commercial bank, lost nearly all its $150 million investment, the agency said. Most of the money the banks lost went to Paulson in a series of transactions between Goldman and the hedge fund, the SEC said.

IKB was an early casualty of the financial crisis. It issued a profit warning in 2007 saying it had been hurt by U.S. subprime mortgage investments. IKB was sold in 2008 to Dallas-based Lone Star Funds.

Ed Trissel, a spokesman for Lone Star Funds, declined to comment on the case.

The SEC charges come after Goldman Sachs denied last week it that bet against clients by selling them mortgage-backed securities while reducing its own exposure to them.

In an annual letter to shareholders, Goldman said it began reducing its exposure to the U.S. mortgage market in late 2006.

AP Business Writers Alan Zibel in Washington, Stevenson Jacobs in New York and Ashley M. Heher in Chicago contributed to this report.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor