Capital and labour
Greed. Fear. Intransigence. Dishonesty. Attitude.
Was it JD who said that the problem is people’s personal greed? Seven deadly sins but especially greed.
It is but it must also be seen in the context of what other forces are playing on the individual. While there is perma-greed in there, ofttimes the wage demand is fear driven, fear of falling behind in the race to oblivion – wages, prices, wages, prices. As you know, it’s fear of prices plus fear of the employer holding you back.
Most people around the middle want simple things – home, transport and enough coming in for a comfortable life for self and family. If the wage-price index is sufficiently weighted and immutable for that kind of job, it gives security. Where does greed end and security start or vice versa?
The unit cost of labour must surely be the amount someone will accept at a pinch, facing starvation, then some. The businessman must build his small or medium business on that basis. The worker wants security of tenure. The boss says it depends on how the business is running.. Excessive wage demand kills the business. Most businessmen are not professionals at getting it right.
The problem with State interference in establishing indices for each type of work is twofold – the nature of the labour changes and needs to be evaluated differently, plus it has to be linked also to house price and to a lesser extent, the other big ticket item – the car.
Another factor to add to JD’s one of greed is intransigence, especially intransigence in the hope of maintaining advantage in the contract, e.g. money coming in is not ploughed back to the workers or the fall in incomings means that either people’s wage must go down or they get laid off. So the index must be linked to that worker in that particular business at that time.
Which comes down to simple false accounting. So – greed, fear, intransigence, dishonesty. And to that we can add attitude – attitude towards the worker, a chattel to the boss and attitude towards the boss, a moneybags to rip off, steal from and give less than your best.
And the escalating, spiralling nature of that is corrosive. The instant one tries to trick the other to get ahead for a bit, the other does the same, only worse.
Union bosses are one of the worst problems – coercing workers to join and then living fatcat lives, representing one side of the equation only, not remotely interested in the health of the business. Union bosses were quite rightly smashed in the Thatcher era but then we got the other side of the coin.
There’s no mechanism and two parties – one of capital, one of labour. Neither wishes to see the other side and both develop this theatrical heritage and then become tribal.
You either believe there is a sentient Them or else you put it down to market and labour forces as something which just naturally occurs, not allowing the former using the latter to advantage. If you accept both, then it’s a short step to believing there’s a sentient devil somewhere at work.
Identified and formalized divisions – male/female, left/right, statist/free, drag people into them and once you start observing others through those lenses, all the destructive foibles of the other side, the PC narrative, all of it, become apparent.
It requires a uniform force, be it common external threat, religion or sheer necessity, which will set aside much of that, smooth out division and enable common cause again.
Wolfie draws attention to the legacy of the Boomers. As a person on the cusp of Boomer and Gen X, I believe I’m in a position to observe.
I saw the sheer excess of the Boomer yoof, the exuberance of the social revolution turning to ashes and replaced with the Religion of Greed, self-aspiration. The hymn was that song of the 80s: ‘I’ve never been to Me,’ when in fact she was constantly going to ‘Me,’ her whole life had been a paeon to Me.
The Boomers who rejected all their parents had given them, in doing so, also rejected sound values and failed to pass them down the line. Old fashioned values were passe.
We’ve come back to that again or else never left it.
Gen X began as the rejection of all that excess and adherence to real values, the grittiness of life, the dog-eat-dog. Gen X had acid house parties, tatts, hatred of those who had, when they did not – the Haves were the now rich Boomers and the Have-nots were Gen X. Boomers hogged all the good jobs.
Because it was played up by the pundits who always define and destroy things for a generation, from Kerouac to Popper to Voltaire, Gen X hated Boomers with a vengeance, Boomers simply despised the nose-boner Gen X of losers.
Gen X is Joy Division – joyless, lost, dark, tech-savvy, The Clash, the Sex Pistols, the loss of Christian terminology, even in the Boomers’ hypocrisy in employing such terminology.
Gen Y have no future, have no moral code – the Boomers failed to impart it, so they replace Feminazism with Slapperdom. They’re incredibly uneducated, less than literate and numerate and I’ve had many chances to test this out. Gen Z are the children of Gen X, heaven help them.
There really is a generation factor at work in the mix. Wolfie, clearly a Gen X, points to property prices in London and elsewhere – outrageous prices, driven by sheer greed. That’s the Boomers but it is also that other group almost everyone ignores – Them, playing up and playing on that greed of the Boomers.
We keep coming back to the same principles that began this post. The greed of the Boomers is the greed of those who have and want more and more and more … and the greed of Gen X, the Eternal Victims, who see the Boomers and say, ‘I want it, gimme, gimme, gimme.’
And wherever there is division and rancour between the divisions, that’s the portal for Them to get in and exploit.
Removal of traditional constraints
Vox Day, in the States, has a most interesting post up on a nation’s religious underpinning. He’s a conservative libertarian, science fiction writer, once of WND. He quotes:
The Cultural Collapse Progression
1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”
2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.
3. Delay or abst[ention from] family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.
4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.
5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.
6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.
7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.
He then adds:
However, I would note that economic and state collapse are very likely to follow as a consequence of the cultural collapse, particularly if the marginalized natives were historically more economically productive than their replacements.
I would argue that no nation is irreligious – they simply replace one with another or merge two of them or more, e.g. voodoo in Haiti, Christian and Pagan over here in the north. The notion of Godless or Man-centred is naive and dangerous, for it allows in something which is very much a religion, in terms of the way it operates, prescribes and proscribes, in its dogma.
The God Science which rules society today and has, as its High Priests, Them, the Royal Society or Scientific American, has most people by the short and curlies. Where once someone asked, ‘Is it Christian?’ now they ask, ‘Is it Scientifically Proven?’ Not understanding that real science is not a religion, it’s a finding out and being unsure until tests are run and even then remaining unsure, open to new data.
The human is always slave to something
Alcohol. Greed. Fear. Intransigence. Dishonesty. Attitude. Formal religious dogma. The Great God Prescribed Scientifik Truth, e.g. the climate scam.
The question is – which master does one choose? Which affords the greatest chance of personal freedom, constrained by nobility? Humans need constraints and Christianity is one such major constraint, a self-imposed one.
That’s one of the reasons it’s under such severe duress in this time of ours, subject to butchery and unfairness globally on a scale which is breathtaking.
It’s easy to understand why by looking at the analogy of UKIP. What is so detested about UKIP? It pays no deference to the establshment, it’s cavalier and attacks Shibboleths. That’s precisely what early Christianity did in the eyes of the Romans and the lies then were the lies today about UKIP.
It’s infiltrated, trolled, full of vocal false prophets. But more than that, its genuine followers, whilst still rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, refuse to be dictated to by Caesar on how to live, how to act, what to value, what to think.
That is clearly subversive because it substitutes a different codebook for the one handed down by the establishment. We have precisely the same situation today of the corrupt Pharisees and Saducees up top, ruled by the dark side but making noises about being The Light.
And the biggy, the numero uno – its supporters know an external, not a relativistic right and wrong, which cuts straight across the modernist narrative, the false constructs. The things which people are conned into embracing today, in the name of compassion and humanity but which are actually destructive, are given short shrift by people who know eternal right and wrong and still go by things such a love thy neighbour, faith, hope and charity, the family unit.
This is not only subversive but insurgent. The establishment needs to crush it. Thus we get the ludicrous situation of the State-Church ruling elite soon to be headed by a man titled Defender of the Faith but who wishes to be Defender of All Faiths, including those dedicated to bringing down the one he supposedly defends. The greatest treason is at the top, the greatest destruction, the white-anting of the very thing they claim to uphold.
Then along comes a populist movement and turns the cosy game on its head.
This is a treatise, not an act of proselytism. It’s thoughts. Would you ban those thoughts?
Thoughts are subversive.
People first need to either reaffirm in their minds or newly adopt the sorts of values in the Sermon on the Mount.
Then, ruled by those self-imposed values, a formula for indexing prices and deciding on a unit value of labour in each sphere needs to be thrashed out by those in the workplace. Price of homes needs to come into this, say five times a gross yearly earnings.
That index is backed by the State as a fallback for any party, not a coercive, inescapable law. Thus a boss and a group of workers can agree a different pay scale if they wish. As long as both agree, then it stands. Should one party disagree, then it automatically goes back to the State index.
Again – at any time, two parties can step outside of the index but should one party renege, it goes straight back to the fallback index.
And finally, the personal ethics of people can then ensure there is no cribbing, no cheating – whatever the agreement was is the agreement. Impossible to do? The Founding Fathers were able to thrash out such thing in 1776, no?
Of course it can be done by dint of sheer hard work.
Which immediately leads to the question of the interference of Them in this process, of govt, of the forces behind it. A people who have not formulated and thrashed out an agreement are led here, there, everywhere by Them who tell them what the agreement is.
A people who have gone through the process of constructing something like a wage-price index are far less likely to brook interference by Them.
Difference is – one of us means it and will adhere to it. Same question as before – do you trust Cameron to deliver? Will he con voters again?