Keys Writings, Part 7

This entry is part 9 of 34 in the series 2011C

Welcome
Aug 23, 2011

Let me welcome Lori as a new poster. She is not new to the teachings though for she is Duke’s (socioheresy) wife and I have met her several times. They are both very nice people.

Kris points out that that the posts here seem to lean to the right and wants to know if there is room for a liberal.

My answer is, yes, of course. In my first couple years of teaching on the Keys I pretty much stuck to metaphysics and members did not know what my political views were. I would guess at that time that the majority of the members were liberal. Eventually we did discuss politics and it turned out the majority posting anything political seemed to have more conservative views. At present we have a mixture of many political views here, but the most popular is probably libertarian.

When discussing pure metaphysical truth it doesn’t matter much what your political views are. People from all belief systems are looking for higher truth and answers to their many questions, There are not many places where the right and left can merge in a group and calmly talk politics together without insulting each other. We try and do that here.

The strongest arguments in political discussions though have come between me and several here that are not liberal by any means, but in many ways close to my libertarian thinking.

If a liberal here sees an error in thinking or disagrees with something said he or she is surely free to speak up. All we ask is that members stay on the plane of the mind as much as possible.

To insure that things stay fairly civil we do have moderation here. When a person joins he is automatically placed on moderation until we see he is a responsible poster. Then if a member gets out of control or quits and rejoins, he may be placed on moderation again.

You should have been here in the last days of the unmoderated group. The conflict really got to a point of tension and we had to make a change and overall moderation has helped, for the main thing it does is keep the troublemakers away. When they realize they can’t insult people they move on.

Anyway, I hope you feel welcome here.

Dream Book
Aug 23, 2011

I don’t think I ever told the group why I chose red as the dominate color for my books. I first started playing with writing around the age of 16 and I gave a couple things to a good friend to read. Then one day he comes to my place all excited and told me he had a dream about me that seemed very real and significant. He said that in the dream I had written a book that became a blockbuster seller and everyone was talking about it.

I asked him if he saw the title or what it was about.

He said he couldn’t recall the title but did remember it had a bright red cover.

I don’t know if there is anything to his dream but have used the idea of a red cover and plan to keep red prominent in future books.

Re: Book Cover2
Aug 24, 2011

Not only do most of the Keys members like your cover, but so does my wife so that just about seals it up.

JJ

Re: Book Cover2
Aug 24, 2011

Steve writes: Concerning your friend’s dream about a red book of yours becoming a bestseller, perhaps The Immortal is the one but has yet to make its mark. You can’t get much ‘redder’ than that.

Maybe the foundations are still being laid behind the scenes (spiritually speaking). There is something very special about that book.

JJ Yes, I still think that The Immortal could become a best seller if it got the right publicity. That could still be the book in my friend’s dream.

Molecular Art
Aug 24, 2011

Good to hear from you again Viggi.

This must be the artwork you created:

http://www.synthesisnet.com/Art/Triads.jpg

I had forgotten that it was you that designed it.

Mental Plane
Aug 25, 2011

Speaking of Ann Coulter and the mental plane – here is a great example of her intelligent writing on Darwinism. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45747

While checking out this subject I discovered the best article yet on intelligent design. It is lengthy but worth the time to read it. http://spectator.org/archives/2005/08/05/the-little-engine-that-couldun/

It starts out stating:

“IMAGINE A NANOTECHNOLOGY MACHINE far beyond the state of the art: a microminiaturized rotary motor and propeller system that drives a tiny vessel through liquid. The engine and drive mechanism are composed of 40 parts, including a rotor, stator, driveshaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller. The engine is powered by a flow of ions, can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm (ten times faster than a NASCAR racing engine), and can reverse direction in a quarter of a rotation. The system comes with an automatic feedback control mechanism. The engine itself is about 1/100,000th of an inch wide — far smaller than can be seen by the human eye.

“Most of us would be pleasantly surprised to learn that some genius had designed such an engineering triumph. What might come as a greater surprise is that there is a dominant faction in the scientific community that is prepared to defend, at all costs, the assertion that this marvelous device could not possibly have been designed, must have been produced blindly by unintelligent material forces, and only gives the appearance — we said appearance! — of being designed.”

Then I had to laugh at the author’s description of non believers stereotype of believers in intelligent design:

“Among certain sectors of the media, for example, it’s an article of faith that those who believe in God, or advocate principles supporting that belief, are just a mob of Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, Scripture-spouting, hellfire and brimstone-preaching, rightwing, gun-toting, bigoted, homophobic, moralistic, paternalistic, polyester-wearing, mascara-smeared, false-eyelashed, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, big hair, big gut, fat butt, holy-rolling, snake-handling, Limbaugh-listening, Bambi-shooting, trailer-park-dwelling, uneducated, ignorant, backwater, hayseed, hick, inbred, pinhead rubes — mostly from the South, or places no better than the South — who voted for Bush.”

That sentence is a masterpiece in description.

Re: Sharón prophecies from 26 June 2011
Aug 25, 2011

Ruth writes: JJ I have not read anywhere in your teachings about this point about Judas that Sharón mentioned:

“Northern India will produce proof that Judas Iscariot did not betray Jesus but a guy with a similar name… Authorities attempted to change the story by rewriting that one of Jesus’ own disciples betrayed him in an attempt to discredit Christ. The new books will expose their illusion.”

Any clarification on that?

Judas was like the one chosen to betray Jesus, from my understanding.

JJ Variations on the idea that the disciple Judas did not betray Christ has been around since the days of early Christianity.

I believe the betrayal as portrayed in the gospels is fairly accurate. This is also supported in the Gospel of the Nazirenes, believed to be the earliest gospel, and the Aquarian Gospel.

I am not infallible so there is nothing wrong with members having another opinion.

Re: Mental Plane
Aug 25, 2011

JJ posted: Among certain sectors of the media, for example, it’s an article of faith that those who believe in God, or advocate principles supporting that belief, are just a mob of Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, Scripture-spouting, hellfire and brimstone-preaching, rightwing, gun-toting, bigoted, homophobic, moralistic, paternalistic, polyester-wearing, mascara-smeared, false-eyelashed, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, big hair, big gut, fat butt, holy-rolling, snake-handling, Limbaugh-listening, Bambi-shooting, trailer-park-dwelling, uneducated, ignorant, backwater, hayseed, hick, inbred, pinhead rubes — mostly from the South, or places no better than the South — who voted for Bush.”

That sentence is a masterpiece in description.

Judy: I just do not agree with that sentence and do not find it to be truthful although colourful. I do not associate Republicans with the image she depicted.

JJ But you are not the media. From my listening to the mainstream media this is te way many think of conservatives, especially the Tea Party.

The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

Larry Woods passed through Boise a couple weeks ago and he, Lorraine and I had breakfast together. He was excited about starting a chapter of The Majority Speaks in his area and he asked me what project we should pick to push. He was thinking of something like, “No taxes on the internet.”

We didn’t have much time and I wasn’t able to give him a complete answer so I thought I would add a few details here.

The first problem Larry or others have to deal with is that I have not yet started the central organization here in Boise. I plan on doing this after the book is published and not before. I’ll have a lot more clout with influencing people when I can present myself as the author of a unique political book.

When I begin the organization the first goal will not be to implement one of the 95 points, but to gather and organize groups in order to garner sufficient power to create change. If we only have a handful of members and attempt to change national policy and attitudes then we are doomed to failure.

The first step is to gather enough laborers so we have a chance to become a center of influence.

Now, if Larry or someone else wants to get started early I would suggest that he seek to gather people around him that are interested in some of the 95 theses or points I made as well as participating in a more direct democracy. He could organize this like a study class and invite in guest political speakers. There are many in the political arena who like to speak and many looking for interesting speakers.

Larry reminded me of my teaching that we need to concentrate on one thing at a time rather than scattering our energies and wanted me to name one of the 95 points in which to begin.

I don’t plan on pushing any one of the 95 points at the beginning (except to group members) but will concentrate on teaching the groups the basic idea that people can create change and have a strong influence on how our politicians vote.

As the group grows we will use our influence to encourage members to create activists groups centered around the 95 points. Ideally a group created around this idea would pick only one of the points so their energy can be concentrated. I see the main purpose of the initiating group would be to promote direct democracy and encourage the adaptation of the 95 points.

If this project becomes successful it is bound to draw attention to my other writings. This is likely to lead to some controversy, which may turn out to be a good thing.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

I haven’t changed my mind on the one thing at a time approach but to influence an issue takes a lot of money and manpower. Since we will not have that on start-up the one thing we will be teaching group members is about their own power and motivating them to use it. Group members may go several different directions with their own “one thing” which we will support if it makes sense.

Once we have the manpower to influence legislation then we’ll examine the field to see what the next best one thing will be – probably implementing Molecular Politics.

JJ

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

Blayne: Sorry I couldn’t help but chuckle at the irony of a central organization promoting direct democracy 😉

JJ I don’t see the irony. There are central organizations in any endeavor. Not much can happen without them.

Blayne It sort of speaks to where we are as a people. I see the free market as the ultimate direct democracy

JJ I am a big promoter of the free market but don’t see it as having much to do with democracy, but a result of democracy. The free market does not elect a President or Congress, but a democracy can.

Blayne: if you will but the majority of people still need some central authority and refuse to claim their full rights to individual self determination and self government as long as they are harming no one.

JJ It sounds like you want to throw out the Constitution and have no president or Congress, or even state legislators. Perhaps you could clarify as I have a hard time thinking you believe this.

Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.

Blayne One of the main problems is the majority of people accept the idea the government or central authority has a right to intervene in almost every aspect of the individuals or groups lives. I doubt direct democracy will cure this wrong belief.

JJ It wouldn’t cure the problem, but the majority believe the government is too intrusive and that is a starting point.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

The issues I see us dealing with are those that naturally evolve which is normally one main issue at a time. The last main issue was raising the debt ceiling. The one before that was the Health Care Bill. As these issues come to the forefront we can take majority opinion beliefs that make sense and offer solutions.

To take an issue and force it on the public consciousness as happened with the Health Care bill would cost billions of dollars. By taking something already in the public’s concern we save a giant costly step.

When the organization becomes large and powerful it can then introduce ideas for change that are not already in the front pages.

One thing that is coming before the public more is the changing of the Constitution by either adding amendments or a Constitutional Convention. We’ll have to watch this and see where it goes. JJ

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

Blayne The free market is the purist form of democracy WITH NO CENTRAL AUTHORITY! Just people voting with their feet or wallets deciding market trends demand etc. period.

JJ I’ve never heard the free market where people vote with their feet called a democracy before. Everyone I have ever seen write about it just calls it a free market or capitalism for there are no ballots and you elect no people to represent you. It appears you have an unusual personal definition of democracy.

The terms, democracy, republic, monarchy etc usually have to do with government rather than business.

Quoting JJ I don’t see the irony. There are central organizations in any endeavor. Not much can happen without them.

Blayne Really? Seriously? Read my explanation to Dan above…

JJ I still don’t get it.

Blayne Wow… So you don’t see people VOTING with their feet and wallets in a free market as having anything to do with democracy?

JJ People are voting with their feet in China as far as business goes but they do not have a democracy or close to it. Business is business and politics is politics – two different animals.

Blayne: The free market does not need to elect a congress it allows people to decide for themselves.

JJ No one said they needed to elect a Congress.

Quoting JJ Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.

Blayne You certainly have a strange view of a free market. There are no central authorities in an entirely free market.

JJ So are you saying that your version of the free market will have no bosses or owners who are the central authorities in their business??? It sounds like you think a free market will not create any business larger than one person.

As long as you allow the freedom for people to own their business and hire people you will have central authorities created. The central authority is called the “boss” or maybe just “the owner,” or “president.”

I am really curious about clarification here as I cannot imagine the existence of any substantial business without a central authority whether in or out of a free society.

The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

The problem that the debate has evolved into (as it often does) is that we have veered away from the original argument and Blayne and Larry are arguing against something I never said – something with which I agree.

Yes a free market where people vote with their feet loosely uses the democratic principle. That is not part of any argument. On this we agree.

However in order to communicate it is good to use words as they are currently defined and rarely would anyone call Walmart a democracy. They call it a business. Yes, people do make it successful by voting with their feet.

Here are three popular definitions of the word Democracy and a business doesn’t fit any of them:

▸ noun: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives ▸ noun: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them ▸ noun: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

That said let us get back to the real disagreement rather than arguing that with which we agree.

The problem started with Blayne quoting me as follows:

“The first problem Larry or others have to deal with is that I have not yet started the central organization here in Boise… I see the main purpose of the initiating group would be to promote direct democracy…”

It appeared to me that Blayne thought that any central organization or central authority was completely unnecessary for he responded:

“I see the free market as the ultimate direct democracy if you will but the majority of people still need some central authority and refuse to claim their full rights to individual self determination and self government as long as they are harming no one. Many people see this as chaos however it really does not preclude group work it just makes it all voluntary instead of coerced and forced by government or central authority.”

JJ This sounded like you disagreed with my plan to create a central authority in the planned political organization and I responded as follows:

“Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.”

Then in your responses following you seemed to disagree with this, bringing in the idea of businesses voting with their feet which had nothing to do with the disagreement.

So, here seems to be the point of disagreement.

I believe that it is unavoidable to have a central authority in almost any successful enterprise.

If you have a successful business with 30 employees that is participating in the free market then that business will have an owner/president that will be a central authority. If you have a crew of twelve then a manager will be a central authority to the twelve.

If you have a Masonic lodge, a church, a charity or anything organized you will have some presiding central authority giving it structure and purpose. It is as DK says – “All is hierarchy.”

You seem to disagree with me on this and think that if we just have a free-for-all then churches will not need pastors, business will not need managers or owners, lodges will not need presidents but everything will just move ahead with no organization necessary or central authorities at all.

I think the Second Key of Judgment is the key to understanding here. Strong central government governmental authority that strictly governs lives and does now allow any freedom to make decisions on levels below it are indeed terrible and tyrannical. This is one extreme. But the other extreme is also destructive where no central authority would exist in the various organizations.

Central authorities in organizations that people are free to reject by leaving or voting the guy out are essential and no civilization in the history of earth has been without them.

I am amazed that my stand on this obvious point has caused such disagreement.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011
I made a typo or two that needed correction. Disregard my previous post and read this.

The problem that the debate has evolved into (as it often does) is that we have veered away from the original argument and Blayne and Larry are arguing against something I never said – something with which I agree.

Yes a free market where people vote with their feet loosely uses the democratic principle. That is not part of any argument. On this we agree.

However in order to communicate it is good to use words as they are currently defined and rarely would anyone call Walmart a democracy. They call it a business. Yes, people do make it successful by voting with their feet.

Here are three popular definitions of the word Democracy and a business doesn’t fit any of them:

▸ noun: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives ▸ noun: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them ▸ noun: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

That said let us get back to the real disagreement rather than arguing that with which we agree.

The problem started with Blayne quoting me as follows:

“The first problem Larry or others have to deal with is that I have not yet started the central organization here in Boise… I see the main purpose of the initiating group would be to promote direct democracy…”

It appeared to me that Blayne thought that any central organization or central authority was completely unnecessary for he responded:

“I see the free market as the ultimate direct democracy if you will but the majority of people still need some central authority and refuse to claim their full rights to individual self determination and self government as long as they are harming no one. Many people see this as chaos however it really does not preclude group work it just makes it all voluntary instead of coerced and forced by government or central authority.”

JJ This sounded like you disagreed with my plan to create a central authority in the planned political organization and I responded as follows:

“Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.”

Then in your responses following you seemed to disagree with this, bringing in the idea of businesses voting with their feet which had nothing to do with the disagreement.

So, here seems to be the point of disagreement.

I believe that it is unavoidable to not have a central authority in almost any successful enterprise.

If you have a successful business with 30 employees that is participating in the free market then that business will have an owner/president that will be a central authority. If you have a crew of twelve then a manager will be a central authority to the twelve.

If you have a Masonic lodge, a church, a charity or anything organized you will have some presiding central authority giving it structure and purpose. It is as DK says – “All is hierarchy.”

You seem to disagree with me on this and think that if we just have a free-for-all then churches will not need pastors, business will not need managers or owners, lodges will not need presidents but everything will just move ahead with no organization necessary or central authorities at all.

I think the Second Key of Judgment is the key to understanding here. Strong central government governmental authority that strictly governs lives from which there is no escape and does now allow any freedom to make decisions on levels below it are indeed terrible and tyrannical. This is one extreme. But the other extreme is also destructive where no central authority would exist in the various organizations and you have a free-for-all instead.

Central authorities in organizations that people are free to reject by leaving that organization or voting the guy out are essential and no civilization in the history of earth has been without them.

I am amazed that my stand on this obvious point has caused such disagreement.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

Wow, Blayne, you have my head spinning. At first I thought you disagreed with me that a central authority was necessary for groups and organizations – now I am not sure so I do not know where to approach or clarify.

If you can point to any disagreement so I can understand then I will seek to clarify my position. If we agree then we can move on.

There is one specific thing you said to which I take issue. You say: “The definition of central authority is the anti-thesis to direct democracy.”

Now in a democracy as defined by the dictionary (not speaking of a loosely used principle) a leader is elected and then that leader becomes a central authority to the group. I see no irony here.

Even in a business where people vote with their feet a central authority exists within that business. This is something that just always happens so I do not see the irony if you’re thinking irony-odd. If you’re thinking irony because two opposites are involved in creation then I can see your point, but then a marriage would also be ironic.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

I don’t personally see the irony between democracy of any kind and central authority that develops in organizations that spring up in a free society because it makes sense to me but I see where you are coming from.

The irony thing alone would not have been enough to make me respond to your post. The reason I responded is because you said, “The definition of central authority is the anti-thesis to direct democracy.

My point was no matter whether you have a direct democracy, a representative democracy or any other type of government you will have various central authorities spring up. They will be created in business, groups, clubs churches – anything with an organization.

Even in the direct democracy I advocate there will be various central authorities spring up – “ironically” as you say, even in the group promoting such an endeavor. A Senator or Representative, even though he shares the vote, will be somewhat of a central authority as the manager to his co-legislators. He decides how to handle the committees he is in, what legislation he wants to introduce, what materials and information to make available and doesn’t have to take counsel as to how to do his job in mixing with the senate – except when it comes to voting on essential issues. He’s the central figure co-legislators look to for assistance and direction and has powers given to him by his office that voters do not have.

Blayne: Their (businesses) central authority is limited to their business and has nothing to do with the democracy of the free market.

JJ But these central authorities in business will spring from a free market and be stronger than in a dictatorship. In a dictatorship the power of the business owner is diminished or even shared by the state. In a free market the business has one strong central authority – the owner/president etc.

I don’t see how we can possibly disagree on something so basic. I think when I say “central, authority” you must visualize an omnipotent Big Brother controlling all things in the country and that was far from my mind.

I agree with what you said about business being little dictatorships and pointed that out in my treatise on the Molecular Business, which seeks to incorporate more democratic principles into business giving the employees more participation and to diminish the dictatorial powers of the bosses.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

Narrowing the Focus

This entry is part 29 of 31 in the series 2011B

Before we look at what will work in keeping our government responsible as far as creating and spending money is concerned let us first look at what will not work.

(1) Elect good fiscally responsible people to represent us.

The people have been attempting to do this ever since the beginning of the Republic but to little avail. Many a time we have sent someone to Congress, who promised to be responsible, sounded responsible, seemed to be responsible in his own life but as soon as he got a taste of the power of the unlimited spending resources of government he changed from Doctor Jekyll to Mr. Hyde, from Mr. Nice Guy to a werewolf howling at the moon, from a person of good works to a vampire sucking the life blood out of our economic system.

Many people look on our elected officials as a whole with utter disgust and contempt. For years now Congressional approval rating has often dipped below 20% sometimes reaching as low as 13% – by comparison making any president in history seem like Mr. Popularity.

Unfortunately, it is usually the “Other Guy” who is despised and wanted out of office whereas their own representative is viewed more sympathetically.

As evidence, take the situation in November of 1998. 401 of the 435 sitting members of the U.S. House of Representatives sought reelection. Of those 401, all but six were reelected. Those who rated Congress as a whole lot lower than pond scum sent their own guy back to office at a rate of 98%.

I guess we could say the local guy gets an approval rating of 98% whereas the whole body of Congress rates lower than a snake oil salesman.

If these statistics were not proven history then one would think they were fiction created by a lunatic but since they are factual we need to question why there is the great contrast.

I think that many will agree with this assessment. The local representative is re-elected not because he is Mr. Clean, but he spends a good deal time and money in convincing his constituents that he is on their side. He’s able to convince his voters that it’s the other guys who are the ones messing things up and their only chance of cleaning up the mess is to send him back to continue the fight.

The people thus send their guy back to Washington thinking he is one of the few that is not part of the problem. Unfortunately, they generally do not see correctly that their representative is just as big a problem as the other guys and the problem is all but a few get addicted to borrowing and spending. The few who do maintain some common sense in this area are demonized and rejected by their fellow representatives and this is followed by the media portraying them as Scrooges and hating all the wonderful things they refuse to spend money on.

On this point we conclude that, yes, we must send the best people we can find to Congress, but that is not enough for even many of the ones with good intentions become addicted to unlimited spending.

The adults in the room, the common people with common sense must step forward and discipline these addicts so they do not ruin us. More on this later.

(2) Pass legislation that will limit borrowing and overspending.

The idea that this can be done is as big of an illusion as the dream that all we need to do is vote for the best people and all will be well.

We have had many legal constraints in the past and our trusted representatives have overridden them all. A metallic standard was supposed to restrain Congress but that has been overridden by the stroke of a pen. Today we have a legal debt ceiling which has proven entirely useless. Congress just raises it routinely and its effect is as if it did not even exist.

(3) Pass a balanced budget amendment.

People think that this will surely work because an amendment to the Constitution has a lot more teeth than mere legislation passed by Congress such as the debt ceiling.

Wrong again. An amendment may produce some results for a time but they would be temporary and then our spendoholic representatives would find a way to subvert it – and sometimes with good reason. We may find ourselves in a war for survival and in that situation a balanced budget may be suicide.

Believe me, we would not have to be in a war of survival to tempt our spend-loving friends into bolting from a restrictive amendment. All it would take is a short period of time with no spending fix to assuage their addiction and a way would be found around such a nasty amendment.

If you don’t believe me just read the Constitution where it currently says in Article I, Section 10, that “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

When’s the last time you heard of a state giving or receiving payments in gold or silver? Indeed this became a very inconvenient restraint so a way was found to go around it by reading an implied meaning into the document. The same would happen with a balanced budget amendment. Our fearless leaders are creative enough to find a way around any law or amendment that is passed.

So… if all the commonly proposed solutions will not work what are we to do? Is there anything that can be done to move us toward sounder money management?

Yes, there is. Our problem is that we keep looking toward the governing body that created the problem to solve the problem. If your business partner borrows and spends the company into near bankruptcy do you continue to give him your full trust hoping he has the common sense to solve the problem?

No. Of course not. His lack of sense has taken you to the edge of a cliff. You cannot trust that he will now take you to safety.

Yes, it helps a little to get the best possible people in office and to make laws that attempt to restrain insanity but such steps are very insufficient to cure the disease. Outside help must be called in.

And where do we find such people? They are all over. They are called voters and most of these people do have the needed common sense.

•The average voter knows better than to borrow more money than he can pay back.

•The average voter knows better than to spend more money than he has available.

•The average voter knows that his family wants many things he cannot afford so he has to set priorities in spending – unlike Congress that thinks it has to borrow whatever it takes to give us all the things we want.

•The average voter is not a member of an elite club like Congress where he is under pressure to spend lots of money to be one of the group.

•The average voter does not have to raise large sums of money to be elected and is not beholden to pressure groups.

•Best of all, the average voter balances his budget and lives within his means.

We cannot trust those who created the problem to solve the problem. The employer of all branches of government, the voter, must step in and assume the ultimate responsibility.

The big question then is how is this to be accomplished?

The best long-term solution is described earlier in my chapter on Molecular Politics. This is a plan for the voters themselves to take charge and set the elected representatives in line with the will of the people. Even if this catches on it may take a significant period of time to be fully implemented. We may not have that much time to save our country from economic destruction. The question is – what can we do in the immediate future to turn our economy around and place it on a sound basis?

The rise of the Tea Party gives us evidence that the voice of the people can have a strong influence on our elected representatives and the legislation they support. Unfortunately, they have been portrayed as the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, but according to a Gallup poll taken April 5, 2010 only 49% of them identify themselves as Republicans of any stripe. 51% say they are either Independent or Democrat. Of that 51% 8% are Democrats and 43% are independents.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx

While it is true the Tea Party is more conservative than liberal its reach extends far beyond the conservative wing of the Republican Party, or the party itself. Because it is a threat to the status quo it is portrayed as fringe when its goal of cutting spending is very mainstream.

The idea of cutting spending is so mainstream that even the very liberal Daily Kos published this world wide problem on their site:

“Asked (in a Financial Times/Harris Poll) if public spending cuts were necessary to help long-term economic recovery, 84 per cent of French people, 71 per cent of Spaniards, 69 per cent of Britons, 67 per cent of Germans and 61 per cent of Italians answered Yes. In the US, 73 per cent of Americans agreed. …
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/14/884103/-Poll:-People-want-government-spending-cut,-but-

A Fox News poll asked participants if government spending was out of control and 78% answered yes.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/26/fox-news-poll-percent-say-government-spending-control/

It is not surprising then that since the Tea Party started out emphasizing the non partisan idea of controlling spending that they drew a lot of people from outside the Republican party.

Since its launch a number of Tea Partiers have placed emphasis on social issues, religion and various non economic issues and have drew fierce criticism from the Left and have lost some support.

This illustrates the truth that narrowing down the field to one major non-conflicting popular subject at a time creates the possibility of constructive political change. If an advocate tries to get support for cutting spending then he has a base of up to 78% to work with. BUT if he throws in something unrelated such as abortion then that support may be cut in half making his possibility of success with the masses almost nil.

The Tea Party’s influence has been significant but it has been limited by several factors:

(1) They are now identified with much more than economic issues and are seen as a conservative movement that also embraces social issues. This turns off many in the Middle and, of course, the Left.

(2) They do not have a well-defined mission that is spelled out with simplicity that all can understand.

(3) They do not have a step-by-step plan to accomplish specific goals.

(4) They are not unified. A Tea Party group in one area of the country may have different goals and priorities than in another part, even though many of their beliefs are similar.

On the positive side they have sprung from the grassroots of people concerned about the very real problem of overspending and this foot in reality and popular support gives them power, even though it may be somewhat scattered.

A problem in winning over independents to a political cause is any choice seems to involve a number of issues. The citizen may agree with eight points but be repulsed by two of them and thus his support is very tepid. Many do not want to identify with Republicans, Democrats, The Green Party or the Tea Party because there is something in each movement that rubs them the wrong way.

Those who are not highly polarized need selections available that are honed down to one non-conflicting category per choice. This is what we must do. Citizens must pick various categories and gather supporters around them.

The economy is the most pressing issue as I write this and thus the need follows for the creation of a major non partisan group that will push for common sense economic reform.

Eventually there could be dozens of such groups pushing for various changes that have majority support that, in the past, had been sabotaged by elected representatives who had sold out to pressure groups.

Read This entire series. Here are the links.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Predictions 2011, Part 3

This entry is part 3 of 50 in the series 2011A

Now let’s look at the new Republican Congress.

Overall the results of this will be predictable.  The Democrats will find them very frustrating as well as many on the Right who do not see as much reform as they desire.

Obama will try the divide and conquer approach by befriending some who he sees as cooperative to entice them to opposing those who he will label as far right.

On the other hand, there will be Democrats who will side with the Tea Party views in the hope this will secure re-election.  Then there are a handful who see that overspending must be curtailed.

The Left and the mainstream media will attempt to blame all that goes wrong on the new Congress but, even though this will have some effect, it will not take hold as it did in the days of Newt Gingrich.

The Economy
The greatest short term threats to the economy for this year will be from outside influences such as natural or manmade disaster and the threat of new conflict.  Outside of this the economy will actually show some improvement due to business optimism because of the new Republican Congress.  This will not produce a miracle but it will hold a shaky economy together for one more year.  Next year at this time we will have a lot better feel about where the near term economy seems to be going.

Possible Conflicts
North Korea and Iran will both rattle their sabers but we will not go to war this year.  One of the reasons is that China warns us against it and they are becoming so powerful that we are afraid to stir up a possible conflict with them.  There will be growing concern that they could turn aggressive, but on the positive side there is a growing number of Chinese who desire a peaceful Democracy.  We can only hope that this aspect of the people will prevail.

There will be a number of medical advances related to technology such as artificial eyesight, artificial limbs and nano technology.

UFO sightings will be up and one in particular will be difficult to explain away.

New particle discoveries will be made at the Large Hadron Collider at Cern but they will not find the Higgs particle this year.

Lady Gaga will make even stranger attempts to get attention causing some to think she is not stable.

Reality TV will finally begin to lose some of its popularity, thank God.

To be continued…

Copyright 2011 By J J Dewey