let it all collapse, the icon for the www.punkerslut.com website
Home Articles Critiques Books Video
About Graphics CopyLeft Links Music

Why Fighting Things You Don't Understand Makes No Sense

To TeaParty.org

By Punkerslut

From PeaceLibertad Blog
Image: From PeaceLibertad Blog

Start Date: August 6, 2011
Finish Date: August 6, 2011

Info: TeaParty.org Page


     I have spent some time going over your material, and I thought it was only fair to offer a counter-perspective. There seems to be quite a bit of contradictions.

     For instance, you describe your movement as founded by immigrants, like George Washington and Thomas Paine, "men and women in 1773, known today as the Boston Tea Party, who dared defy the greatest military might on earth." Less than a few seconds later, you list your "NON-NEGOTIABLE CORE BELIEFS OF THE TEA PARTY." (Caps yours.) And, number one is, "Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally."

     Now, what a minute... The illegal aliens known as James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc., were great because they "dared defy the greatest military might on earth." But when someone crosses the border today without permission, they're "criminals." It seems like, however, it should be reworded. George Washington didn't defy the greatest military might on earth -- he raided a drunken encampment of German mercenaries and dealt attack after attack to the king's untrained favorites who made it into command. Washington definitely wasn't fighting the force that took on New France (Canada) or India.

     But look at the immigrants today. To get into the United States, they need to pass through a 2,000 mile-long border, covered with $4.4 billion dollars worth of security sensors and cameras, that's so effective, it's drastically contributing to the extinction of the native bobcat species to the local area. (LATimes.com) (Wired.com)

     This truly does look like these immigrants have far more grit than a bunch of merchants and slaveholders from Boston. Washington was so bold he could fend off men who were paid to kill, by killing his own men and ruling them by fear. But he couldn't survive if there wasn't someone beneath him to fetch his food, plough his fields, attend his accounts, and harvest his fields.

     Why is it that some pale-faced rebels from London get all of your favor and adoration? Why is it that rebels with more heart and ability to suffer are cast away as "illegal aliens"? Isn't it curious that you favor a group of white men being law-breakers, but then you withdraw when men and women of another color do the same thing? If you're impressed by what Washington did in defying the world's greatest military, look into the Mexican rebel Zapata, who defied the world's top three greatest militaries, without making use of slave labor.

     The next two things in your list are similarly contradictory. "Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable" coupled next to "Stronger Military Is Essential." I've got important economic news for you from the past 2,000 years of sociological investigation: the military sucks up jobs and economic prosperity, it doesn't contribute to it. Big militaries are the hallmark of empires, aggressive nations, imperialists, and capitalist exploiters -- they can be found anywhere there are native populations who can be subjugated for a profit. They don't produce employment; they produce slavery and poverty.

     Besides that, "Pro-Domestic Employment" doesn't solve the issue of *HOW*. You want people to have jobs and this is the definition of your political party? It sounds like you bought some "make your own political party" kit over the Internet. Any idea on how to achieve employment? Any idea on how to create work? I've heard quite a few ideas, from every spectrum, but you have no ideas -- your idea is "wouldn't it be great if there were jobs? Let's make that a priority." Welcome to economics 101, being taught by Xenophon, but wait, looks like you're more than 2,000 years late to class.

     There are ideas next to the employment thing. For instance, "English As Core Language Is Required" is one your core beliefs, as well as "Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory." (I think you meant "Reduced".) Reduced business taxes aren't going to improve the economy, except for the businesses. There is no reason for a business to invest in an economy where there is no point to make a return; the economy isn't saturated by taxes, it's saturated by profit, which produces an infinitely worse effect on the exchange of goods. Of course, if you read Adam Smith, you would know this.

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people." ["Wealth of Nations," Book 1, Chapter 9.]

     That's economics. Let's deal with technology now. Agricultural technology is at a state currently where one person's labor can produce enough to feed one thousand. In fact, this was the case more than one hundred years ago, when the Biologist, Geographer, and Anarchist Peter Kropotkin built his own greenhouses to test this fact. (See "Fields, Factories, and Workshops.") Nobody's going to doubt the state of technological growth today.

     So, if one person working a standard eight-hour day, five days a week, can produce enough for one thousand, why not divide work up? Why not give everyone two minutes of work per day, and let all have what they need? It's a perfect idea: except it helps the poor, the hungry, and the laboring, with no benefit whatsoever to property holders. Why should we allow people to cooperatively and collectively manage land which their ancestors had held as property for tens of thousands of years? How can we respect any contracts between Capitalists, when they violate the contracts of our ancestors, who in fact gave us no right to submit ourselves to slavery?

     Your Capitalist system will need to be ripped apart, entirely, from top to bottom. Workers will need to be given the right to directly manage the land themselves. This is the only way you're going to encourage "Domestic" employment. How else are you going to give everyone the right to work and live, except by destroying those things which block their path to achieving this? How are you going to give something to labor upon to all, except by taking it from those who have hoarded it up and kept it idle?

Patiently waiting in need of an answer,
Andy Carloff

join the punkerslut.com
mailing list!

copyleft notice and
responsibility disclaimer