Book Review: “Fearmorphosis”

I present the latest highly imaginative and complex book authored by philosopher Desh Subba: FEARMORPHOSIS. Again, his core underlying philosophy of “fearism” (that sentient beings are primarily guided by self-preservation impulses, whether such impulses are natural and beneficial or manifest via ignorance and paranoia) underpins and interweaves within his book’s topics. Here he emphasizes how this impulse, coupled with other elements, transforms one’s life. I now summarize each distinct section using my own perspective:

{Part 1—Myth of Sisyphus: ~ORIGIN~ In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was the founder and king of Corinth. Hades punished him for cheating death by forcing him to roll a gigantic boulder uphill only for it to roll back down whenever it neared the top, repeating this action for eternity. Although preposterous if meant as literal truth, I see it as grandiose hyperbole. Through that supposition it influenced modern thought. Namely, tasks that are both laborious and futile are therefore labeled Sisyphean.

~MODERN LIFE APPLICATIONS~ A) True Sisyphean situations: These include drug addiction and gambling addiction, since they cause ongoing misery and wasted labor since wages support the vices. They also include endlessly chasing women. That’s because certain men are unable to attract an appropriate female, and through society’s pressure enslave themselves to this millstone, losing time, money, and sanity. Recognizing oneself as a Sisyphus allows escape, whether via aggressive addiction treatment, finding peace in the celibate single life, or other appropriate action.

B) Faux-Sisyphean situations: They include the false notion that normal productive jobs are a complete waste, leading one to choose a life of crime or vagrancy, or to take shortcuts or do sloppy work while tackling projects, resulting in low quality outcomes or failure. Again, realizing the truth and being willing to act upon it solves the problem.}

{Part 2—Panopticons: ~ORIGIN~ A panopticon is a penal institution, whose design originated in the late 18th century. Its architecture consists of a rotunda with a central inspection house having viewing portholes or windows at every critical geometric angle. The purpose was to allow all prisoners therein to be observed by a single security guard. Although impossible for a single watchman to observe all inmates at once or at all times, the inmates cannot know when they’re being watched. Theoretically, it motivates them to act as though they are always watched, effectively compelling them to self-regulate.

~MODERN LIFE APPLICATIONS~ A) Scarecrow panopticons: For example, some people have promoted the nonsense idea that governments spy on citizens through devices such as Siri or Alexa robots and suchlike, resulting in failure to harness useful technology. B) Righteous panopticons: The ever-increasing prevalence of security cameras qualifies, if used to deter crime. And certainly, GOD’s all-seeing EYE trumps every panopticon construct, as He is truly all-observing and perfectly good.

C) Unrighteous panopticons: This includes every imaginable group of people, from immediate family up to everyone on our planet, if their position cannot be backed with objective facts. Conceding to popular opinion or peer pressure is never wise. Quoting Saint Augustine: “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” Recognizing the difference between these variations leads to wisdom and proper application.}

{Part 3—Scapegoats: ~ORIGIN~ The Hebrew Tanakh contains numerous historical accounts of animal sacrifice (biblical types or foreshadowing). The LORD, in a way that we cannot fully comprehend, decreed that such expedient sacrifices (scapegoats that were sometimes literal goats) were necessary to sanctify unto the purifying of sinful man.

When humanity was fertile enough to receive the supreme antitype, the second person in the godhead was sent to Gaia Earth as a willing scapegoat and ultimate sacrifice which provided cleansing from and forgiveness of all sins, contingent upon choosing to serve the living God. The historical account of this Lord Jesus Christ is documented in the Christian “New Testament.”

~MODERN LIFE APPLICATIONS~ A) Legitimate scapegoats: The only just examples I can conceive of are the aforementioned Bible stories. Embracing their truth is paramount, superseding every worldly concern.

B) Unrighteous scapegoating: This includes anyone who has an obvious difference and whose mistreatment is predicated upon it, whether as an individual (often an autistic man) or as a pariah class (such as the Palestinians or Indian Dalits), for the scapegoater’s real or imagined benefit. This sometimes includes parents assigning perpetual blame to their child in order to redirect their exasperation away from their own self-made marital problems. In attempt to justify warfare and plunder, one country or Allied group will affix an evil moniker to another country or Axis.}

{Part 4:—Capitals: Herein Mr. Subba explains that unfortunately, much of life is dominated by politico-economic concerns since most people deify appetite. Instead of succumbing to the prevailing polarization, he rightly criticizes both binary opposites: Marxism, with its utopia communism, and Capitalism, with its utopia laissez-faireism. For example, Marxist’s lack of any spiritual panopticon, whose theophobia is motivated by the desire for big government to be idolized.

Therefore, everyone would be dependent on a draconian State (most of which history tells us have been malicious), without interference from any ideas of higher authority. Another example is Desh going beyond just acknowledging the existence of some unsavory elements such as crony Capitalism, but spotlighting the existence of vampire Capitalism, and that all forms of Capitalism are very problematic. Perhaps our author will suggest a solution to this dilemma in the future.}

{Part 5:—De-metamorphosis: Here our author extensively references the book Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka. Therein the main character Gregor Samsa is pressured into acquiring an especially demanding and unpleasant job because his parents and sister do not work, and he feels obligated to support them. Since his worries led him into a semi-Sisyphean situation, closely monitored by family and society, Gregor had become a “fear Sisyphus being watched by panopticons.” Desh emphasizes the fact that men are regularly used as mere commodities without humanity.

Then one day, Gregor’s physique transformed to resemble a giant harmful looking insect. This masking ironically unmasked society’s true motivations. Desh also realizes that instead of seeing this unusual work as merely reflecting the author’s personality, “Kafkaesque needs to be reread from a scapegoat perspective”, he exclaims. That is, people are stupid enough to fail to recognize the true soul beyond their differences, and stupidly marginalize others even if they would benefit from them. Hopefully our author will pinpoint solutions to these problems henceforth.}

I shall expound no further, as to not cancel the element of pleasant surprise, nor to impinge upon Mr. Subba’s exact intentions (at least not purposely or excessively). To help prevent readers from getting lost in a dark forest of opaque profundities, I recommend them familiarizing themselves with mythology and renowned philosophers, both Eastern and Western, and Desh’s touchstone book Philosophy of Fearism, as prerequisites.

*** K C Sunbeam, author and video maker ***

*****My posts organized according to subject=

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

Book Review: “Trans-Philosophism”

{Ready to be flabbergasted by a unique book totally unlike any ever encountered before? Author, lecturer, and philosopher Desh Subba, along with editor/part translator/quotation source R. Michael Fisher, have produced such a book: Trans Philosophism.>

First, this book has nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people or “sex changes”, as many might suppose, considering how the word trans is now commonly used. Instead, Mr. Subba uses trans to denote his desire to transfer what he sees as impractical philosophy to practical application, and to transcend just one or two philosophies or philosophical branches, while seemingly attempting to embrace the entire smorgasbord of the philosophical spectrum as an all you can eat buffet. Here philosophism is defined as affectation of philosophical knowledge and the enjoyment of applying it.>

This includes Desh’s extravagant implication that his fear-ism philosophy tops all previous philosophies in some regards, which he attempts to interweave into other philosophies. So, to better understand his current book, being familiar with his previously authored Philosophy of Fearism is prerequisite. Moreover, Desh opines that to best learn philosophy, we should start with its genesis at around six hundred years Before Christ, which began with the Greek philosophers. In fact, the word philosophy comes from the Greek word philosophia, meaning love of wisdom.}

{Another consideration to keep in mind is that Mr. Subba originates from Nepal, and his thoughts, notetaking, and rough drafts rest wholly on the Nepali language, despite his apparent attempt to appeal to western and English-speaking readers. A cursory reading of Desh’s book may give the impression of a chaotic gallimaufry of miscellanea. However, deeper examination should make the subtle systematization of his agglomeration materialize. A prime example is his simultaneous explanation and critique of Marxism which permeates throughout.>

Consider that Nepalese Capitalism was hopelessly infested with neoliberalism, leading to monopolistic and unfettered conditions which shrewd and manipulative citizens used to crush honest and less sophisticated ones. In desperation to escape this “disastrous capitalism”, citizens welcomed Marxist ideology and its inevitable lead to Communism. Consider Nepal’s caste system: a society divided into classes, with the lowest class: Dalits or “Untouchables.”>

This group was/is forced into the filthiest, most dangerous jobs with minimal pay. When Communism then arrived, Communists originally gave this Dalit community far more respect and opportunities, some even taking the revolutionary step of shedding their upper class and upper caste identities. However, the Communist’s steady increase in power coincided with a steady whittling away of these gains, until benefits of this noble aspect have often vanished completely.>

So, considering Marxism’s theoretical claims and temporary successes and alleviations of degradation, destitution, and distress, along with Nepalese Capitalism’s vampiric nature, Mr. Subba naturally wants to avoid making Marxist ideology and Communism vanish without thought or consideration as Capitalists would. Also consider that capitalism is not a new innovation. Rather, it evolved from the preceding feudal age. As Desh points out, the bourgeoisie shattered that feudal system, rebuilding into a capitalist society. However, when the Dr. Jekyll bourgeoisie came to power, their character turned into Mr. Hyde.>

Therefore, Desh sees socialism as a major function of hope. I do too: not “red” Marxist socialism, but a goldenrod nationalistic socialism of Third Position politics like Volkism. So instead, Desh wants to metamorphosize Communism into something else, like beating and polishing the bent rusty sword of oppressive Communist governments into shiny ploughshares to serve the people. This includes removing Marxist aporia (internal contradiction), chief of which is requiring another ruling class (big government) to replace the bourgeoisie in order to be implemented, instead of being purely classless.>

It certainly includes infusing Mr. Subba’s “fear factor”, which I prefer to call original and innate self-preservation impulses, which Marxism fails to adequately address. Specifically, he wants to change Marxism’s dialectic materialism into “fearological materialism.” Desh also declares that Marx “turned upside down on its head much of Hegel” (guiding principles of the great 18th-19th century philosopher Georg Hegel). Also, being a philosopher, Mr. Subba would have been especially impacted by prevailing Marxist ideology. Hence why he continues to mentally wrestle with it. This wrestling continues for most of the book. However, don’t even entertain the notion that Desh considers political solutions as any universal panacea.}

{For example, he declares that even politics (often materialism) and religion (often idealism) combined are insufficient. In fact, he declares them meaningless unless each applies a theory of subsistence. Another example is Desh’s observation that although Hegel gave remarkably valuable insights, he, along with other religious philosophers and theologians, were bewitched by the extreme conclusion that all history was completely ruled by God’s divine will. That is, that ideas could not arise without God, and history was predominantly God revealing Himself, thus leading to inevitable progress with just a smidgen of man’s participation.>

It should be obvious that continued following of this notion would lead to society’s collapse. However, this dogmatism was not birthed by Christianity, but rather by misuse of religion to cope with frightening circumstances by sweeping them under the blanket of vacuous platitudes. Besides, nowhere in Christian scripture does it teach this, despite continued attempts to bend texts to zigzag out of responsibility and avoid the straight and narrow path. Instead, humanity is presented as steward carte blanche of Creation, and recipient of the grave consequences of mismanagement.>

Christianity and Mr. Subba’s fear-ism are compatible and, in my opinion, complementary. He certainly does not consider the sinful fear of cowardice as any basic component. In fact, he insists it must be eliminated to a large extent, if not obliterated. Consider his novel The Tribesman’s Journey to Fearless. But he also recognizes the exception: the law needing to maintain the threat of terror like Cerberus upon society’s potential hooligans, leeches, and predators.}

{For more encompassing considerations, Desh has a whimsical Theory of Playing Cards: In figure 4, he had spades (swords in medieval Latin decks) as everyday needs or class struggle, clubs (wands in Latin, reminiscent of the Bible’s Aaron’s rod that budded supernaturally) as religion, diamonds (coins in Latin) as recurring emotions, and hearts (cups in Latin) as fear. Yet later he has diamonds as needs/class struggle, which is more sensible as it is based around money/wealth. Moreover, he has Hearts as the trump suit.>

Again, Desh uses fear not to denote its common definition as an emotion like any other, but as our inner alarm to maintain subsistence. It can even be non-emotional. Consider that whether our heart beats or not is of primary concern even before birth, which continues endlessly. The other factors not of perpetual pressing concern come later. Though everyone admits to everyday physical needs and wants, and many admit to spiritual needs, we must recognize the impact of other people’s emotions on us, and our emotions on ourselves.>

Earthlings are far more emotional and less logical than they will admit, with emotion driven actions impaling others like swords. We can even be a victim of our overwhelming emotions, which become a spade digging us into an inescapable pit. Desh cleverly refers to people as Fear sapiens. Yet I would remove sapiens (Latin for knowledge or wisdom) and perhaps designate humankind Homo timoribus (Latin for fears). Having an “inflated brain” does not indicate what that brain might be inflated with!>

Humans continuing to wield bombs instead of bananas would be de-evolution or dysgenics if not extinction. Perhaps some are Homo fatua, yet others Homo podex. The random deck shuffling and subsequent hands dealt represents the actions of others, our environment, and our biological limits (Determinism) that we cannot control. The playability of the cards represents our free will. As far as individual cards, Desh leaves that to our imagination, except to suggest that kings represent chosen rulers.}

{Interestingly, Desh applies Newton’s three universal laws of motion to societal motion: “1st Law: a society continues in its state of rest or uniform motion unless compelled by a fear force to change its state. 2nd Law: rate of change of societal momentum is directly proportional to the applied fear and takes in the direction of force. 3rd Law: to every action of fear there is an equal and opposite (relativity) reaction in development.” Also interesting is his personification of various hazards and threatening concerns into characters such as Dracula, Godzilla, and Thanatos (Greek mythology’s embodiment of death).}

{Mr. Subba uses unusual abbreviations that readers may not understand. So, I define them as: B3 = three basic needs: food, shelter, and clothing. D3 = oppression tactics of degrade, disrupt, deny. N6 = Nature’s six common destructive forces that our ancient ancestors had to contend with: hot weather, cold weather, wind, thunderstorms, hail, and earthquakes. P3 = public private partnership.>

S4 = four types of states known in history: slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist. W4 = four oppressed types of workers under the bourgeoisie (ruling class): general working class, peasants or agricultural laborers, proletariat (wage earners whose only possession of monetary value is their labor), and “laborers” (unskilled workers). 5F = five “fear” (impetus) factors: conditional reflexes, environment, incidents, necessities, sense organs.}

{Most extraordinary is Mr. Subba’s following outlook: Since Earth was void for ages before the existence of human beings, the place of humans is purely supplementary. Also, Earth would continue even in the absence of human beings. And when humans reproduce, our planet continues to adopt new creatures. He also notes that any excess of humans either causes the extinction of plants and animals or prevents their birth. This refreshing departure from anthropocentricism seems the result of Desh’s being impacted with eastern religious thought such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, which theoretically reverence all of life, whether or not practitioners are loyal to such core principles.>

Though American Christians often have substandard regards here, I see this as the result of Christianity, a religion with Eastern roots, becoming westernized and republicanized. In fact, even panpsychism (universal consciousness) is indicated in Christian scripture. Mark 4:39 & 41: “And he [Jesus] arose, and rebuked the wind and said unto the sea, ‘Peace, be still.’ And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And they [His disciples] feared exceedingly, and said one to another, ‘What manner of man is this, that even the wind and sea obey him?'” Creation is actually designed so it is impossible for humans to exist without other life forms. Thus, we are not to dominate, but are born as complimentary.>

Desh applies fear-ism philosophy to aid Mother Earth, Father Ether, and our feathered, furry, and leafy comrades in his section Sober Fear in the Sky. Therein he expounds on the specific problems of global warming, ozone loss, new health crises caused by stress and adaptive viruses (micro-monsters), human overpopulation, pollution, potential threat of asteroid impact, oxygen depletion, and the aforementioned impact on other life forms. This subject is covered in considerably more detail in the book Eco-Fearism which Desh coauthored.}

{He also has some thoughts on social consciousness, the science and technology revolutions, the meaning and impact of language including dialectics, and the significance of art, music, race, and culture. He also has a section: Challenging Questions to Postmodernism. To roughly define postmodernism, we can say that this mode of thinking and discourse rests on hostility toward what it considers the monolithic narratives of “Modernism” (the 17th-18th century Enlightenment). Though the Enlightenment impetus was overly materialistic, it thankfully promoted logic, objective reality, and scientific rigor. This helped defeat old superstitions.>

But poisonous Postmodernism, which mushroomed in the 19th-20th centuries, introduced relativism, rejection of objective reality and morality, rejection of historical and well-established binary oppositions, and the insane concept of hyperreality. This is the supposed inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation, a direct affront to Descartes’s Cogito, ergo sum. So, in subtle fashion, Mr. Subba derides Derrida, Foucault, and other infamous postmodernists with his fear-y queries.}

{Also, Trans Philosophism contains 474 source references, an index, and a short glossary. Finally, you need not agree with everything Desh postulates (such as feminism and other liberal ideas I find anathema). As stated before, there is a cafeteria of ideas to choose from and explore, some of which seem experimental, unlike his firmly established fear-ism. So, if you are a perspicacious intellectual who is interested in philosophy, I recommend this book. May Mr. Subba’s journey continue, along with his readers’.}

K C Sunbeam; author and video maker

*****My posts organized according to subject =

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

Capitalism VS. Communism: The Solution!

There are two major politico-economic systems: Capitalism and Democratic Socialism/Communism, which I call Marxism. Both systems have FATAL flaws. Capitalism fails to protect the nation’s many mentally and physically handicapped people, while Marxism fails by often trying to provide for everyone on Earth, and without measures to prevent people from being handicapped to begin with. That bankrupts the system. Capitalism fails to help the poor, such as when gifted students of poor parents cannot afford college, while Marxism promises *everyone* free college, which, if such a thing was possible, would bankrupt the system.

Capitalism can actually destroy the work ethic. For example, you can be running a successful business. But if several other parties open the same type of business on the same streetcorner, profits will be divided between each one, and you could all end up starving. Capitalism causes job loss when businessmen decide to import or export cheap labor. Marxism destroys the work ethic by creating artificial equality: heavily taxing hard workers and giving the money to the lazy and unproductive.

Capitalism often ignores *baseline objective value*. For example, farmers, who work extremely hard to produce products necessary for our survival often go bankrupt, while those who own companies that produce the latest gadgets that we can do without often become filthy rich. Capitalism also exploits *subjective value*. For example, those with life threatening conditions get charged a half million dollars for two hours of surgery because they are desperate, instead of a fair hourly rate according to the baseline value for surgery. Marxism robs society of things of objective value and exploits its power by causing the government to have extreme *inter-subjective value*.

So, Capitalism harms the elderly, handicapped, less ruthless, and poor in many ways. It is covered by the lie that everyone has the same opportunity. Marxism harms everyone through a giant government taking most everything, failing to create prosperity, and dominating its people. It is covered by the lies that everyone is identical and is in the same circumstances or should be, and that Marxism is needed. Neither system has a decent long-term plan four our economic, moral, or social interests. For thorough explanations as to why these systems fail, check out books, videos, or websites to help you. A Third Position solves these problems. To illustrate how different it is, let’s call Capitalism Blue, and Marxism Red. The Third Position would be Goldenrod.

I call this third position Folk-ism. It demands productivity and personal responsibility from everyone, engenders empathy between government and citizens, and cares for the disadvantaged. Caring for the disadvantaged requires socialism. But this has nothing to do with Marxist or Democratic “socialism”. It is on a different planet. Folk-ism employs the socialism that immediate families of a husband, wife, children, and elderly grandparents employ. As families expect each other to do their part, they also know that other members need support. They can also cultivate good qualities and squash the bad more easily because of having commonalities and being familiar with them.

But for a successful society, this micro-Folk-ism must be expanded into a community or nation. But again, unrestricted socialism fails completely. So, what should be the primary restrictions that stop people from leeching off and overburdening each folkish community or state? Consider the following: We cannot separate groups based on height, weight, or age, since they change throughout one’s lifetime, and naturally, all families are mixtures of different sizes and ages. For those same reasons we cannot separate groups based on experiences, hobbies, health, jobs, marital status, or wealth. We can separate groups by region, but *not by region alone*. That would cause everyone to swarm into one region to take advantage of it. Also, some regions have insufficient populations to enact largescale Folk-ism.

Concerning religion, people can possibly change from Christian to Atheist to Buddhist, etc. over decades. And people lie or go through the motions to appear to hold the same religion or lack of religion as those around them. So, we cannot properly create folkish groups upon religion. Neither can we separate groups based on gender, since the vast majority of people are heterosexual. So, societies always desire a mixture of male and female. That leaves us only with ethnicity or race. Since it’s impossible for race-mixed families to adopt Folk-ism, they are stuck with the other systems. But the focus of this article is non-mixed families.

Societies separated themselves by race and even sub-races or ethnicities throughout history. Those constructs worked and continue to work in Japanese society. Notably, the Dali Lama campaigned for a region of China to be set aside for the Tibetan people, and ONLY for the Tibetan people. And note that in the vast majority of cases one’s race can be instantly recognized. And today almost everyone’s family origin is officially documented. Even without documentation, everyone’s race can be proven through genetic testing. And neither race nor ethnicity can ever change. Also, every race and ethnicity can form their own folkish group. Folk-ism requires every group to be separate and apart. This includes limiting imports, exports, and foreign aid as much as possible.

So, left to themselves, each self-efficient group would naturally increase in number, and every incompetent group would naturally decrease in number. That’s only fair. Besides, the propaganda of race mixing started because some people wanted to take advantage of those of other races, and some people wanted to leech off more successful ones. Separatism stops that. In the Bible’s Daniel chapter 2 Daniel clearly states that widely differing people groups cannot mix, which is where we get the famous feet of clay expression. If Daniel was wrong, he would be a false prophet. But the Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly quotes Daniel in Christian scripture, giving Daniel his seal of approval.

So, that proves that the idea of the United States creating a great American melting pot is dead wrong. An obvious problem with it is the dozens of race riots that have occurred throughout American history. And if the government and most of its citizens are of different racial backgrounds, the government tends not to respect its citizens, and the citizens tend to distrust their government. That’s because most people instinctively prefer people of their own race and ethnicity more than those of others.

This has been true throughout history, and no amount of forced integration, teaching people that race is meaningless, or screaming racism will ever change that. It is human nature. And having everyone be of the same race can foster a sense of having a large extended family, which includes both citizens and their government. That’s why I call it Folk-ism. One’s folk is one’s own people who have the same characteristics and character. It is most commonly called National-Socialism. To fully understand this National-Socialism you must digest other works of mine on this subject.

National Socialism

If you are unfamiliar with National-Socialism, do NOT assume it is like the “socialism” promoted by Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, or liberal citizens of America, or that it is akin to the “socialism” in the former Soviet Union. This RIGHT wing system is on a different planet from that. Those unfamiliar with National-Socialism, which I call Folk-ism, should see my other posts on politics. If you have heard bad things about Folk-ism, know that they are a COMPLETE DISTORTION. The powers that be slander and libel this system because they cannot use it to take advantage of others.

National-Socialism was not invented in the 1920s. Nationalism and socialism, accompanied by various strict principles, was known by the ancients such as Confucius, before 500 BC. And if you note that millions perished under National-Socialism, keep in mind that mega-millions perished under Marxist-“Socialist” or Communist regimes, and mega-millions perished under Capitalist governments. I can also argue that both Capitalist and Communist governments were responsible for the millions of deaths under National-Socialism because they decided to fight a war against National-Socialists.

Capitalism engenders classism and favors what I call the wealthy race. Class and status is only based on wealth or lack thereof. Marxist governments oppress their citizens who are of a different ethnicity than their government. They seek to create a classless society for the masses which crushes individualism. But under National-Socialism everyone must be of the same race or ethnicity, to foster the sense of an extended family (folks). National-Socialism (NS) recognizes class and status, but only bases it on ability and merit.

Capitalism relies on globalization and exports/imports to/from other countries if it immediately benefits the economy, regardless of later consequences. And under Marxism, everyone is excessively dependent on the government. But under NS the country would strive to end all dealings with other nations, including the elimination of exports/imports as much as possible, for complete self-reliance under all circumstances. While Capitalists, including the police, push laws designed to make money off people regardless of the harm they do, and Marxists have laws that punish those that oppose government tyranny, NS laws promoted common good before private good.

As for freedom of expression and civil rights, Capitalists allow the media and other organizations to say, do, and promote whatever they want for their own financial benefit, whether or not it helps or harms society. And Marxists severely limit freedom of expression and civil rights only when their citizens oppose the government. But with NS nobody is free to sin at the expense of the posterity of the race. This includes forbidding injurious activities and subversive media communication and organizations. Otherwise, freedom of expression is encouraged. While Capitalist governments do nothing to help you find a job, and Marxist governments distribute free welfare while others work to support freeloaders, under NS it is the government’s job to help you find a suitable job.

Under Capitalism owners of private companies determine all jobs and wages for their own maximum profit. Under Marxism governments own all businesses and enterprises or work toward that end, for the government’s maximum profit. But under NS big businesses would be nationalized under government control to prevent them from dominating and taking advantage of citizens. Yet small privatized enterprises and businesses would be free, to maintain the work ethic and a competitive spirit.

Under unrestricted Capitalism some people were literally slaves. Others were sold food products filled with waste material. Regulated Capitalism still had many safety and worker’s rights violations. Even today there are many financial scams, such as selling products that are only a tiny fraction the size they are supposed to be, and companies encouraging sales stampedes where people bow to materialism. Marxism recognizes the so-called slave-master: rich oppressors, as evil, but may treat so-called slaves as good just because they are oppressed. It seeks to force artificial equality without thought as to individual merit. And by enforcing artificial equality among the masses, Marxist governments become the slave-master.

NS however recognizes the “slave-master” as evil while also recognizing that most “slaves” would happily become new slave-masters if given the chance. NS seeks to end oppression, but recognizes that oppression is sometimes justified because some people lack a work ethic, some lack a conscience, and many have inferior morals and other bad qualities.

Under Capitalism childbirth may be allowed to get out of control, as long as someone is making money off the need for childcare, schools, and suchlike. Under Marxism childbirth is controlled, but only so it does not burden the government, not out of consideration for citizens. However, NS would properly control childbirth via eugenics (beneficial selective breeding) and genetic engineering: methods used to create less criminal prone and more productive societies. Happiness would also increase as less people would suffer from disabilities and sickness.

Under Capitalism religious freedom is usually allowed since it is irrelevant to this chiefly economic system. But even harmful religions are allowed, such as various cults that brainwash people, take them from their families, and manipulate them into giving the leaders all their money. Marxists are the other way, being completely anti-religion so that people see their government as their higher power, which seeks to take everyone’s money. But under NS religion is encouraged for strengthening the nation, but only religions which do not endanger the nation’s existence or oppose its moral sense, and which contribute to its unified spiritual sense.

Capitalism has nothing whatsoever to do with charity. Capitalists may act charitably, but whenever they do, they are not practicing Capitalism; they are practicing a form of socialism. Under Capitalism everyone seeks their own private good, including the sale of products that rely on third world slavery and warfare, and products that harm self and/or others. Under Marxism so-called charity is forced upon all of society by heavy taxation, and wealth is redistributed to others regardless of morals or ability, such as free college for everyone and welfare for the irresponsible. Also, the government takes a large portion for itself and sometimes confiscates private property and goods.

Yet National-Socialists want voluntary charity, not force. NS governments would greatly reduce the range of luxury products and services available and terminate speculative investment and such. This would naturally invoke a great increase in helping the poor. Socialism would be implemented only for the deserving, such as State funded education of intellectually gifted children of poor parents, large scale expansion of old age welfare, and suchlike.

Now do NOT believe the Ad hominem attacks on former leaders of National-Socialism. What you have heard about Nazional-Socialism is a pack of LIES. Except for the truth that it is Fascist. To understand Fascism read my post on it. For more information about Nazional-Socialism (Volk-ism) see websites put out by Nazional Socialists themselves. I declare that this system is the ONLY RIGHT WAY and challenge anyone to show otherwise. I advocate its implementation in a peaceful way if possible. Now PRAY that you and your leaders acquire and apply more wisdom.

Republicans and their Feud with Democrats

I live in the United States, which has two main political parties: the Democratic, and the Republican. No other party has won an election in the last 100 years. And our country is a democratic republic. I have lived with my parents for most of my life, and they have always been Republicans. My father’s parents used to live with us too. His mother, born in 1912, was a political campaigner for the Republican party, while my grandfather was basically silent about politics. With the exception of saying that he thought Franklin D. Roosevelt was the greatest U.S. President. I was not close to my mother’s parents, so had no idea where they stood politically.

My father also thinks that FDR was the greatest President, though Roosevelt was a Democrat. My earliest memory of politics was as a young child, perhaps six years old, where my mother brought me to a political rally. She gave me a sign to carry which touted the Republican party with their elephant insignia. Although I knew absolutely nothing about politics, my mother told me it was the good party, so I was happy to carry the sign. But from then and many years thereafter, I had nothing to do with politics. I simply thought of myself as a liberal, while rarely vocalizing anything about it. I had no idea what either political party stood for. Now what most people don’t know is that the Democratic party started as the more conservative of the two parties, and the Republican party began as more liberal than the Democratic.

So what one party did or did not do or was like in its early history is often irrelevant to how it is now. Today’s Democratic party overemphasizes democracy, or the will of the majority of average citizens. There is a so-called “Green Party”, but don’t be fooled. It is basically the Democratic party, with a few minor changes. The so-called “Tea Party” is an expression of the somewhat more conservative elements of the Republican party than today’s average. It is not a third alternative either per se. “Tea Party” candidates simply appear as Republican candidates on ballots. And even the Tea Party is more liberal than any popular political party of over 150 years ago. All American political parties were more conservative than all widely known political parties today. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

The word Republican comes from two words: Re and publican. A publican was a Jewish man who accepted the office of tax collector for the Romans, to collect heavy taxes from his fellow Jews. So they were regarded as traitors. The word/s publican/s appear 23 times in the King James translation of Christian scripture. Re means go back or backward, as in recall. So to be a Republican means to oppose taxation which you consider unfair. So Republicans consistently want lower taxes than Democrats, and what naturally follows: their desire for smaller government. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. And naturally, the number one political issue that my parents were always concerned about was opposing taxes.

There were other issues, such as my grandmother vehemently opposing equal pay for women, largely because women too pregnancy leave which made them unreliable compared to men. Also, my grandmother and parents always strongly opposed homosexuals and/or alternative lifestyles. Again, I was apolitical for years. Then one day, after I said I was not political, my mother said that I cannot be, and that adults must concern themselves with politics. So, to my parent’s chagrin, I began to identify as a Democrat. So one day, my father gave me a lecture about that, and tried to discourage me from it by saying the Democratic party is for Blacks and Mexicans, not us Whites. And for lazy people, not hard workers.

But do not conclude that the Republican party’s focus is on discrimination. It is NOT. For example, despite my grandmother’s opposition to equal pay, my Republican mother not only supported equal pay, she actively supported the push for women’s empowerment and feminism for at least the last 30 years. She even held some bigotry against men. And Republicans wanted Sarah Palin for Vice President. So if elderly John McCain got elected, then died in office, Republicans would have given us our first female President. And Republicans have sizable Black support. Also, 44% of Republicans support same-sex marriage. There is even an organized group of gay Republicans calling themselves the Log Cabin Republicans.

The Republican party may have started out discriminating against women, nonwhites, and alternative lifestyles. But since Republicans see that that gays, blacks, and women can bring MONEY into the party and country, that vanishes. They basically recognize only two kinds of people now: green people (those with money) and non-green people (those without money). It’s all about the MONEY. And besides, the Democratic party used to harbor discrimination against blacks, gays, and women just the same. The difference is, Republicans are focused on maintaining the Capitalist system, while Democrats are more for Marxist Socialism. Or so-called Democratic Socialism.

Since I oppose both Capitalism and every form of Marxism, and put moral values as the first priority while both parties have little concern for morals, I am turned off by both parties. And I also support a healthy and wise form of discrimination, as opposed to unfair discrimination. Making delineations between the genders, races, and lifestyles would be prudent. Yet both Republicans and Democrats support an UNFAIR form of discrimination. That is, bias in favor of either Capitalism or Marxism. Though I’m unhappy with both parties, I have voted Republican as the lesser of two evils. And I believe that the greatest U.S. President was Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Interestingly, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt were cousins. See my other political posts for an explanation of my Third Position politics.

Marxist Socialism Explained

Without an economic system no society could survive. And the two major world systems are Capitalism and Marxism, or a combination of both. Marxist socialism and Communism are almost the same; the difference is that governments own all private property under Communism, but under “Socialism” most citizens do. Small, devoutly religious groups through history were said to be socialist or communist. But that is misleading since the modern Marxist versions are far different. Marxism became widespread chiefly through Karl Marx, who was of Jewish ancestry, and his book The Communist Manifesto.

To defend Marxism an acquaintance of mine mentioned reading Karl Marx’s entire manifesto. He noted that the book had no logical fallacies, and good points were made. The young man advocated the correction of society’s abuses with socialistic policies found therein. For example, the industrial revolution made Capitalism especially problematic. That is, a bourgeoise class would arise, comprised of those who own all the expensive machinery. They would rule over the proletariat, a working class whose only value is their labor power.

Because the bourgeoise completely controlled them means of production, the proletariat could never get ahead. So some Marxist theory was correct. But it is not primarily about what Marx wrote in his manifesto that’s the problem; it’s the exclusions. For example, although Marxism recognizes the “slave-master” as evil, so-called slaves are treated as good merely because they are oppressed, although most oppressed people would happily become oppressors if given the chance.

The giant problem is what Marx excluded and hid from others. Namely, Marxists do not seek a classless society. They cunningly seek to create two classes: the masses and themselves. Although Marxists rail against social and economic injustice, they have been instrumental in creating those very problems. This caused society to become desperate, and seek a radical solution, such as Marxism. This popular support then gave Marxists greater power and government bureaucracy. After achieving greater power, leaders within their movement sneakily caused even greater economic injustice. This in turn caused people to become even more desperate, and cry even more for Marxism’s elusive promises: a vicious circle.

Interestingly, only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key to understanding Marxism’s inner goal. The overall problem is fallen human nature. If humans were perfectly moral, large scale international socialism might work well. But since we are so far from that, major problems constantly arise. For example, Marxism always requires big government to enforce the redistribution of wealth from those who have a surplus to the needy. These governments abused their power to make themselves rich, keeping a large portion of the tax money, and only redistributed a fraction, leaving all their citizens poorer overall.

Also, by taking large amounts of money from productive workers and giving it to the unproductive, the unproductive lack the motivation to become productive and become even more lazy. It also discourages hard workers from being productive. In my country the Marxist program of welfare quickly became a social disaster. The result is millions of illegitimate and fatherless children. Fathers are disposed of; millions of women are dependent on the government instead. Our Marxist policy of Affirmative Action gives less qualified or unqualified workers preferential treatment because of imaginary racial persecution.

They desire to implement their “socialism” regardless of morals or ability, such as free education for everyone and welfare for the irresponsible. That is because Marxism ignores human differences. So to create equality for the masses, Marxism seeks a classless society for them, instead of class status being based on ability or merit. They go so far to create equality that it eliminates individualism. But again, that is for the masses, not Marxist leaders. For example, race is no consideration for the common people or is considered an artificial construct, while the government is of one united race or ethnicity, which they zealously try to keep pure.

Marxist governments are always huge and powerful. They own all businesses and enterprises or work towards that end. They own most of the money through heavy taxation, and sometimes own all property. Therefore, everyone is heavily dependent on the government. And if the government is evil, it even has the power to murder its citizens, such as the genocides in the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, and in China under Mao Zedong. There have been over a hundred million people killed under Communist regimes, besides people being sent to Siberia under torturous conditions.

We must also consider that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed. China has been successful, but know that China is over four thousand years old, and the Chinese Communist party did not come to power until 1949. And it was not long before it caused major problems. Consider that in the 1980s China achieved fantastic improvements in agricultural production by abolishing rural communes of a communistic nature and returning land to individual holdings.

Though European countries such as Norway, Scandinavia, and Sweden were achieving great success, that would not have lasted, as Europe was going bankrupt through its Marxist “Socialism”. Therefore Europe put its Marxist “socialism” in check. And those same policies of international socialism certainly would fail in the United States, as America has far more people than any of those European countries, and has a far greater diversity of people. Since people by and large prefer their own ethnicity, conflicts would be horrendous. And Marxists are anti-religion, as religion would give people hope in a higher power other than their Marxist government. Such governments take from their citizens by force, eliminating the free will principle of voluntary charity, which should come from a loving heart. And consider that by adopting Marxist socialist policies, we can eventually arrive at full blown Communism.

Capitalism and Marxism dominate our planet because people can abuse either system by taking advantage of others and aggrandizing themselves. Often the same group of people are behind the manipulation of both systems, and flip flop between the two based on whichever system benefits them more at the time. Both systems can be seen as one monstrous entity, as a giant two-headed skeleton with vampire teeth. However, a third option exists and solves this conundrum. I explain it in some of my other political posts on WordPress.

Capitalism Revealed

Every society needs a system of governance, especially for economics. Without a system no society could survive. The two major world systems are Capitalism and Marxism. Marxist Communism and Marxist Socialism are almost the same. The difference is that under Communism there is no private property: the government owns everything; while under Marxist Socialism citizens can own private property. Per Capitalism, its different subcategories are similar. As for demographics, most countries combine both systems.

First, consider unrestricted Capitalism. It took the form of monopolies; as in the game Monopoly one person wins everything and other lose everything. All slavery, dope dealing, prostitution, and organized crime are forms of unrestricted Capitalism. Sometimes such Capitalism resulted in people consuming meat products filled with sawdust and babies being poisoned by milk diluted with dangerous chemicals. Before U. S. President Theodore Roosevelt enacted the Food and Drug Administration in 1906, people were inadvertently eating contaminated meat that was picked off dirty company floors, and bought worthless medicines promoted by quack doctors.

Most Capitalists favor restrictions and regulations. So I will spotlight the country most known for controlled Capitalism, the United States, where I live. It is common knowledge that we suffered the devastating Great Depression. Yet most are unaware that this was not our first severe economic crisis. There was the Panic of 1797, the Depression of 1807, the 1815-1821 Depression, the Panic of 1837, the Panic of 1857, the Panic of 1873, the Panic of 1893, the Panic of 1907, and the Depression of 1920-1921.

To fight our Great Depression of 1929-1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted New Deal policies that had positive effect. Yet those policies were questionable, as they hinted at Marxism. Regardless, another country hit just as hard by the Great Depression employed a Third Way, thereby escaping said Depression much faster than we did, though Roosevelt was one of our best Presidents. And yet our country still struggled with serious issues. So President Lyndon B. Johnson, having been influenced by FDR’s New Deal agenda, created the so-called Great Society plan, which resembled the New Deal plan, and expanded on it. Johnson’s plan had Marxist elements, and spawned the welfare disaster, resulting in millions of fatherless children, illegitimacy, and undue dependence on the government.

And despite these socialist policies we still had the 1973-1975 Recession, the early 1980s Recession, and our very recent Great Recession, whereby 7 million Americans lost their homes and 42 million were without health insurance. President Barak Obama reduced that number with the Affordable Care Act, but had to raise taxes to do it. To solve the entire problem, he proposed a Universal Healthcare plan. Many rebelled against that, as it would raise taxes dramatically and might bankrupt the country. That is because Obama did nothing to restrict illegal immigration and failed to tackle undeserved welfare and other problems that strain the system. With several great restrictions in place, a universal healthcare plan would be wonderful.

But without restrictions we have Marxist Socialism. Another term for this is Democratic Socialism, as used by Bernie Sanders. This can lead to Communism, which is much worse than regulated Capitalism. And despite this we still had the harmful Capitalist and sometimes Marxist) element Globalization, which takes American jobs overseas. To this day there are college graduates who cannot find a job, or end up flipping burgers to pay off massive tuition debt. Because of Capitalism many Americans are in credit card debt and in debt to loan companies. Because of Capitalism, roads are constantly torn up and rebuilt, and even luxury homes are cheaply constructed because they are faster to build.

Irregular store pricing instead of selling at exact dollar amounts makes knowing exactly how much you are sending extra difficult. So it takes longer to shop. And people spend lots of precious time collecting coupons and so hold up shopping lines since they are reading dozens of scraps of paper. Coupons are simply designed to trick people into spending more. And if everyone could figure out how to use coupons to great advantage, that would put companies who issue hose coupons out of business unless they dramatically raised prices to compensate their loss. Americans are bombarded by commercials, billboards, spam e-mail, junk mail, and annoying telemarketers in a materialistic society where people worship money.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans, our two major parties, are the answer. Neither are so-called Independents or the Green party. They simply combine Capitalist and Marxist policies in varying degrees. Japan’s Collective Capitalism solves most of Capitalism’s problems by interlocking diverse companies to create mutual reliance and stop harmful competition. However, it causes such long hours and high stress levels that some employees literally die from overwork. Moreover, every Capitalist country has had serious problems. Haiti is a Capitalist country, but the country is horrible.

The stated goal of Capitalism is motivating people to produce the best products and perform the best services via healthy competition. This byproduct of Capitalism would work perfectly if not for one problem: fallen human nature. And so Capitalism always rewards people for appeasing the majority’s wants, though the majority if often foolish, immoral, and/or stupid. Consider that America combines the demand for alcohol and the demand for automobiles into one instead of curtailing one or the other. This way, money is made four ways: through vehicle sales, liquor sales, others making a fortune from people being fined for drunk driving, along with lawyer’s fees and court costs, and hospitals making a fortune from drunk driving accident victims.

Capitalism itself is morally neutral. The problem is that it fails to tackle issues which must be addressed, thereby allowing injustice to creep in. Consider that under Capitalism success or failure frequently relies on chance instead of productivity alone. For example, if someone has a shoddy business, but it is the only business of its kind in the area, they will make good money. And a top notch business with too many competing businesses in the area will go bankrupt. Regardless, societies need much more than an economic system. Capitalism became known as a philosophy, chiefly through Atheist authoress Ayn Rand and her book Atlas Shrugged. Ayn, of Jewish descent, was born Alisa Rosenbaum.

This philosophy has involved addressing immediate economic issues first, and after that letting everyone do their own thing. But that is akin to Democracy, and as I explain elsewhere, democracy doesn’t work. Capitalism and Marxism dominate our planet because a certain segment of society can take advantage of either system by crushing others and aggrandizing themselves. Often the same groups of people are behind the manipulation of both systems, who flip flop between the two based on whichever system benefits them most at the time. Both systems have been amalgamated into one monstrous entity, as a giant two-headed skeleton with vampire fangs. THE SOLUTION is a Third Option, which I explain elsewhere.

War on Words

I shall explain how communication, via both words and symbols, are misunderstood. First, here are reasons why it could be misunderstood: 1) Being too lazy to learn what someone’s symbols and words actually mean or not being taught properly. 2) Replacing one’s intellect with irrational emotion. 3) Being unfairly judgmental, stemming from a bloated sense of self-worth or an unloving or uncaring attitude toward others. Quoting John 7:24: “Judge not according to the appearance (that is, your initial impression), but judge righteous judgment. That is, take time to know others whom you don’t understand, and so evaluate them properly.

Now for symbols. The most controversial and hated symbol is the swastika. Since that is so, should we abandon its use? My conclusion: NO. That’s because it has been an extremely important cultural, philosophical, political, religious, and social symbol that has united mega-millions of likeminded people for at least the last 12,000 years. And this is not secret obscure knowledge; this is common knowledge found on the Internet. By the way, it was my grandfather who taught me how to draw a swastika.

Moreover, acquiescence creates a slippery slope: conceding to or forfeiting one relatively minor point gives others license to have their way over you until everything you stand for is obliterated. So Slippery Slope or Camel’s Nose on Wikipedia. For example, actress/comedian Sarah Silverman launched a complaint over construction markers which she mistook for swastikas. A man had the audacity to object to swastikas I displayed while he displayed a Confederate flag. Yet the ignorant also consider the Confederate flag a hate symbol which they falsely equate with slavery.

A White man displaying a Confederate flag in his rear car window was driven off the road by two Black men who then shot him dead because of that flag. In some circles the regular United States flag is considered a hate symbol. Sometimes even the LGBT flag has been deemed “not inclusive enough”, and so a star of David or black and brown stripes are sometimes added. Trying to ban all American Indian symbols in advertising and sports is another attempt to destroy tradition.

Now for words: Many normal everyday English words now have sexual or obscene definitions. Via society’s crudeness, normal definitions are often ignored. Example: cock. My introduction to the word was from the Cock Robin ice cream shop. Cock means a male bird. My Bible uses the word cock in Matthew 26:34, Mark 14:30, and other passages. Modern Bible translations use rooster, but that’s inaccurate, since hens do most of the roosting. Modern translations inaccurately translate thousands of passages. So, I’m not going to throw out my Bible. And when I was a child, dick meant Uncle Dick. In England dick means detective.

When I was a child, a special type of tree was prominent in our yard. My grandmother explained that those were pussy willows. That was my first exposure to that word. The scientific term for them is Salix capera. I had a friend who got frustrated with a woman friend because she kept making excuses for not going to church. He left a message on her answering machine saying, “When are you going to do it” (meaning, when are you going back to church). Her husband heard it and thought that meant they were having an affair and he was pressuring her for sex.

Some people react if you tell a coworker to service a customer. But to avoid its sexual double meaning you would need three word: render service to, or take care of, to replace the one. So should we avoid all words with a sexual, vulgar, or unpleasant second meaning so as not to offend people or reduce our conversation to a dirty joke? NO. Eventually every word in the English language may have a sexual or ugly second meaning. People just need to grow up, stop misjudging others, and educate themselves.

Some words are mistaken for hate speech. For example, a British man got temporarily banned off Facebook for showcasing the word faggots. He was referring to pork faggots, which is what they call sausage links in England. David Howard, aide to the mayor of Washington, D. C., used the word niggardly, meaning petty or reluctant in giving and spending, in reference to a budget. This upset a Black colleague, who took it as a racial slur and launched a complaint. Howard responded in an extremely cowardly and masochistic way, by profusely apologizing, declaring that people who aren’t Black are ignorant, and resigning from his job.

The front window of the Chop Chop Chinaman restaurant in Chicago was vandalized by a woman with the words: “F this hate crime shit. It’s 2015.” Not only that, the owner was partly Chinese. Besides, calling the Yellow race (which many call themselves) Asian is inaccurate, as White Russians are also in Asia, along with the entire country of India. Calling them Chinamen or Orientals is more appropriate. To be scientifically accurate, there are three major races: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. This classification is not obsolete; it is currently valid. This is known from the fact that hair samples of murder suspects are put into one of these three categories by forensic scientists: highly educated intelligent people who do the best, most accurate job in matters of life and death.

If we continue to avoid words because idiots put a pornographic or bigoted label on them, and avoid cherished symbols, artwork, and products because some complain about their bad connotation, eventually all traditional values may be wiped out. Consider that no Christmas decorations are allowed on White House property, but Hanukkah decorations are.

Besides, objectionable words already fill classical literature, such as old poetry books, Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, and others, which referred to Black people as n******. Many statues are of now objectionable figures such as Confederate soldiers. Innumerous films, filmmakers, musicians, religious leaders, and inventors are labeled as intolerably bigoted. Traditional men’s and women’s clothing may eventually be labeled as unacceptably sexist. And on and on. The solution is not to burn down and tear down the entire Western civilization, which is the goal of social Marxists. This may include killing and destroying the people themselves. So, to Hell with politically correct Leftists. FIGHT BACK NOW.