The Evolution of the Ruling Class Managerial State:
James Burnham in his book, The Managerial Revolution published in 1941, had as a central thesis that as the size of government increased, the bureaucracy would develop its own managerial class identity and work to promote its own class interests. Being that Burnham was formerly a marxist and friend of Trotsky, he used marxist class analysis to formulate this concept. However, even if other predictions made in the book did not come to pass, this managerial class theory proved prescient.
Burnham's later book, The Machiavellians, published in 1943, further argued that an elite class (including the managerial class) would form and further coalesce power with only the trappings of democracy remaining. One thing Burnham failed to notice or disregarded was the importance of the New Deal. This would not only form the basis of today's managerial state but as Garret Garrett points out in The Revolution Was it was in fact the start of the managerial state's overthrowing of the constitution and principles on which the U.S. was originally founded.
Burnham's work was later expanded on by Samuel Francis to include the concept of anarcho-tyranny and explored the concept of managerial capitalism. What Francis did not foresee was that managerial capitalism and the managerial state, rather than conflict, would form a mutually beneficial cooperative relationship similar to that of feudal lords and their vassals. This relationship is how the present defenestration of the constitution takes place.
The Problem of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
The present managers and planners of our government policy find the constitution to be too restrictive for them to implement their organizational blueprint for a top down centrally planned and managed society. They believe this system is best and tend to conflate what is best for them as a class, is best for the country. The plebs will be taken care of through the noblesse oblige of a vast welfare state, low level civil service jobs or what jobs are still allowed them through managerial capitalism. The outlines of this blueprint was first sketched in the early 20th century and fleshed out in the 1930's in the wake of the great depression. Under FDR the "brain trust" and their think-tanks fellows concluded that a government modeled on the Soviet system, adjusted and better scientifically planned and managed was the wave of the future. However, parts of the New Deal were found by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and were struck down while other policies of the Roosevelt administration that were arguably unconstitutional were unchallenged and remained in place. But that is a story for another day.
The constitution and the bill of rights was an impediment to the planners that had to be removed or worked around in such a way as not to be challenged in the courts or to arouse public opposition. But if it were done by banks and corporations, whose actions are not constrained by the U.S. constitution, not even the government's fingerprints would be found. Then through these private entities closing bank accounts, refusing credit or loans, and the deplatforming on social media of dissidents on the right, at the government's behest, then the constitution's bill of rights could be de facto overthrown and the plebs would be none the wiser.
It would be the perfect crime.
When one considers the bailouts of the American auto manufacturers and the banks, one must realize that this government largess was not given without certain strings attached. As well the same goes for the Silicon Valley tech giants who have received government contracts. Also there is the wall of costly regulations and fees that are in place which favor and protect big businesses with the necessary capital and army of lawyers and consultants to help navigate byzantine local, state and federal laws and regulations.
One may wonder why popular conservative and dissident right content creators be deplatformed, forced out of bank accounts or banks would refuse loans or credit to businesses like firearm dealers when these content creators and businesses make money for all these entities. What business person in their right mind would kick money out of bed?
It must be noted that the government, as a model of power, always has the upper hand over private industry, which is a productive model that only has influence or persuasion. But where too big to fail bailouts, lucrative state and federal contracts and regulatory walls are the carrot, there is always the stick of unevenly applied anti-trust legislation and governmental investigations (legislative and law enforcement) that can be brought to bear. To fuel any legal investigations, there is much information to be found in the NSA databases and failing that, petty process crimes will do. Even the big players on Wall Street who pay the political establishment very well are not immune from prosecution.
Power always rules over wealth and influence. And power never lets wealth and influence forget this.
Nevertheless, the carrot is generously given and the stick used sparingly in return for banks and corporations playing the puppet villains by doing the dirty work of suppressing political dissidents on the right. Beguiling the angry plebs and diverting them from seeing the sly hand of the managerial puppeteers is the price to pay for influence. Contrary to all commonly held beliefs, as vassals unswervingly loyal to their lords' agenda, it is a match made in heaven. And the result is our post-constitutional soft tyranny managerial oligarchy of today.
Donald Cavaioli
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Monday, March 4, 2019
The Gulf Between the Political/Bureaucratic Class and the People They Govern
Summary:
For all the Jane Jacobs style power to the people protesting done, for all the complaints about any given policies the New York City government institutes, or that the city will not administer basic services to our satisfaction, the city will not change its positions and bow to what we the people want.
It does not matter how you vote, protest or post rant porn on local blogs because the political and bureaucratic establishment in New York City is a ruling class unto themselves with their own agenda and class interests. The ruling class does not care what you want or think. They are in charge and will make those decisions for you. The citizens who disagree or actively dissent are viewed by the city ruling class as little more than noisome pests.
In more detail:
I've previously noted in two earlier posts, here and here, that no matter which party is in charge, public policy does not change. But it's worse than that. Our managerial government has evolved into its own class which promotes its own class interests and seeks to pass on individual member's power and influence on to their chosen heirs. The managerial class, at least in its upper reaches, becomes more of a closed circle, with few newcomers admitted, and is thus isolated socially and culturally from the people over which they govern, the plebs. Simply put, your city government will implement whatever policies they want whether you like it or not and they do not care what you think about it.
Part of the task of the managerial class is administrating the vast social welfare system along with endless rules and regulations designed to protect the plebs from all harm including the harm the plebs may do to themselves. Then the top of the managerial pyramid begins to take a dim view of the pleb masses over which they govern as being too incompetent to chart the course of their own lives and would be hopelessly lost without the intervention of their more intelligent managerial betters. Further, in time, the managerial elite begin to hold a view of the general ignorance of the masses due to not being as educated as their betters and having lesser cognitive abilities. This implies that the plebs are incapable of understanding the complexities of modern politics and economics and it is then therefore necessary to lie to the plebs to placate them as one would do with children. So when enacting policies the plebs may not approve of, the managers disregard plebeian protests as irrelevant and foolish obstructionism of the implementation of needed and necessary policies.
What the irksome pest plebs want or do not want is irrelevant as the managers are in power and will not tolerate interference with their plans.
For further reading, there are three posts from clairmont.org here, here and here, they are somewhat long but well worth the time. And one post from the Z man blog here.
Donald Cavaioli
For all the Jane Jacobs style power to the people protesting done, for all the complaints about any given policies the New York City government institutes, or that the city will not administer basic services to our satisfaction, the city will not change its positions and bow to what we the people want.
It does not matter how you vote, protest or post rant porn on local blogs because the political and bureaucratic establishment in New York City is a ruling class unto themselves with their own agenda and class interests. The ruling class does not care what you want or think. They are in charge and will make those decisions for you. The citizens who disagree or actively dissent are viewed by the city ruling class as little more than noisome pests.
In more detail:
I've previously noted in two earlier posts, here and here, that no matter which party is in charge, public policy does not change. But it's worse than that. Our managerial government has evolved into its own class which promotes its own class interests and seeks to pass on individual member's power and influence on to their chosen heirs. The managerial class, at least in its upper reaches, becomes more of a closed circle, with few newcomers admitted, and is thus isolated socially and culturally from the people over which they govern, the plebs. Simply put, your city government will implement whatever policies they want whether you like it or not and they do not care what you think about it.
Part of the task of the managerial class is administrating the vast social welfare system along with endless rules and regulations designed to protect the plebs from all harm including the harm the plebs may do to themselves. Then the top of the managerial pyramid begins to take a dim view of the pleb masses over which they govern as being too incompetent to chart the course of their own lives and would be hopelessly lost without the intervention of their more intelligent managerial betters. Further, in time, the managerial elite begin to hold a view of the general ignorance of the masses due to not being as educated as their betters and having lesser cognitive abilities. This implies that the plebs are incapable of understanding the complexities of modern politics and economics and it is then therefore necessary to lie to the plebs to placate them as one would do with children. So when enacting policies the plebs may not approve of, the managers disregard plebeian protests as irrelevant and foolish obstructionism of the implementation of needed and necessary policies.
What the irksome pest plebs want or do not want is irrelevant as the managers are in power and will not tolerate interference with their plans.
For further reading, there are three posts from clairmont.org here, here and here, they are somewhat long but well worth the time. And one post from the Z man blog here.
Donald Cavaioli
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Covering One's Ass with Legislation
From The Times Ledger (QNS): In wake of Amazon collapse, Kim announces legislation to end company-specific subsidies
What is truly puzzling is if you really didn't want them here in the first place, why the continuous sniveling about it? You won so "Victory is ours! Strike the tents and let's go home!" End of story. Well, no. There's probably more here than meets the eye and I have an idea of what it might be.
In Summary:
Really, who knows. Maybe Amazon HQ2 would have been more trouble than they're worth and their job creation claims would have been grossly over-exaggerated, had been mostly Team Jeff transplants or H1-B imports. So good riddance. Lessons learned by all. Then there is elected accountability. If Governor Cuomo's actions really did piss off the voters, then they will vote him out next election cycle. No need for this legislative assholery. Just let it go.
On the other hand, some other state will see some jobs created and their coffers richer by more than $1 billion per year. So did we really win or lose? We'll never know for sure but if some feel we've lost, if there is legitimate polling data that supported Amazon HQ2, then this piece of legislative grandstanding serves to cover certain politicians' asses and get other states to agree to a non-aggression pact as to not take jobs away from hapless, tax crazy, New York.
The details
Let's unpack some of this (if your stomach is up to it):
“When municipalities and states bend over backwards for the chance to give billions to mega-companies, we all lose,” Kim said. “It is time to end the practice of subsidizing multinational corporations without transparency, accountability, or results under the guise of economic development, and to start investing in the working families and small businesses that represent the lifeblood of our country.”
No Ron, anybody with an IQ above room temperature can see a butthurt gamma male who either can't handle rejection or is just running scared. A schemer who overplayed his hand and got beat at his own game. Someone who is as clumsy as he is stupid. He trips over his own two feet as his pants drop around his ankles then falls face first into a large cake. Who then gets up, cake dripping from his face, to give an hour long dramatic oration about how great he really is. And further how he meant to trip like that in the name of some half-assed noble cause like saving some orphans from killer unicorns.
Yeah, it's that obvious.
By the way, what exactly does this practice of subsidizing multinational corporations and the rest of that blah, blah really mean? What is this subsidy thing or are you just mouthing word salad platitudes as feelz triggers for the benefit of liberal emoters?
Once again more questions than answers in this trigger laden diatribe. How does offering a tax break cost the taxpayers anything? How does paying some taxes equal a negative cash flow? Cover up your failures with lies, you sorry excuse for a bullshit artist.
So are you going to offer small businesses tax breaks and lift some of the regulatory burdens off them? Or will you just keep skinning them to pay off your crony capitalist pals, client voter blocks and favored pet identity groups with moar freestuff? My bet is on the latter. Progs never learn.
But there's more to this absurd piece of legislation, isn't there. A New York whose political and bureaucratic establishment is so bad controlling spending, at reducing taxes, fees and whatnot enough to where businesses can just survive let alone flourish. You're all nothing more than parasites who can't keep their collective paws out of other people's pockets. What business owner in his right mind would move into New York without any incentives offered if only in the form of ripping them off in taxes less than usual?
So, let's get other states to be as short-sighted and imbecilic with their economic policies as we are so we don't look so bad after all in comparison. Then also, maybe the voters will forgive us for this Amazon debacle because they'd be so stupid to as to be beguiled by all that insipid, boilerplate marxian rubbish. They'll be fooled into thinking that we did it for the voter's own good.
"...to end the costly Race to the Bottom..."
Yeah and New York is only going to race to the bottom of failed third world nation-states if we keep listening to progressive leftists.
Donald Cavaioli
What is truly puzzling is if you really didn't want them here in the first place, why the continuous sniveling about it? You won so "Victory is ours! Strike the tents and let's go home!" End of story. Well, no. There's probably more here than meets the eye and I have an idea of what it might be.
In Summary:
Really, who knows. Maybe Amazon HQ2 would have been more trouble than they're worth and their job creation claims would have been grossly over-exaggerated, had been mostly Team Jeff transplants or H1-B imports. So good riddance. Lessons learned by all. Then there is elected accountability. If Governor Cuomo's actions really did piss off the voters, then they will vote him out next election cycle. No need for this legislative assholery. Just let it go.
On the other hand, some other state will see some jobs created and their coffers richer by more than $1 billion per year. So did we really win or lose? We'll never know for sure but if some feel we've lost, if there is legitimate polling data that supported Amazon HQ2, then this piece of legislative grandstanding serves to cover certain politicians' asses and get other states to agree to a non-aggression pact as to not take jobs away from hapless, tax crazy, New York.
Let's unpack some of this (if your stomach is up to it):
“When municipalities and states bend over backwards for the chance to give billions to mega-companies, we all lose,” Kim said. “It is time to end the practice of subsidizing multinational corporations without transparency, accountability, or results under the guise of economic development, and to start investing in the working families and small businesses that represent the lifeblood of our country.”
No Ron, anybody with an IQ above room temperature can see a butthurt gamma male who either can't handle rejection or is just running scared. A schemer who overplayed his hand and got beat at his own game. Someone who is as clumsy as he is stupid. He trips over his own two feet as his pants drop around his ankles then falls face first into a large cake. Who then gets up, cake dripping from his face, to give an hour long dramatic oration about how great he really is. And further how he meant to trip like that in the name of some half-assed noble cause like saving some orphans from killer unicorns.
Yeah, it's that obvious.
By the way, what exactly does this practice of subsidizing multinational corporations and the rest of that blah, blah really mean? What is this subsidy thing or are you just mouthing word salad platitudes as feelz triggers for the benefit of liberal emoters?
"Kim and Brooklyn state Senator Julia Salazar have been communicating with state legislators across the country on ways to end the practice of offering company-specific subsidies, especially given that no studies have shown a correlation between such “economic development” programs and meaningful economic growth.
The bill would enact a collective agreement between all states that join, an interstate compact, to end the costly Race to the Bottom between different cities and states, which has cost many of them billions annually in taxpayers’ money for several decades."
[other states: *chuckle* yeah, sure NY, we'll join you in your little suicide pact. Go on and pass that legislation, pull the trigger, we'll be right behind you ! Hehehe]
So are you going to offer small businesses tax breaks and lift some of the regulatory burdens off them? Or will you just keep skinning them to pay off your crony capitalist pals, client voter blocks and favored pet identity groups with moar freestuff? My bet is on the latter. Progs never learn.
But there's more to this absurd piece of legislation, isn't there. A New York whose political and bureaucratic establishment is so bad controlling spending, at reducing taxes, fees and whatnot enough to where businesses can just survive let alone flourish. You're all nothing more than parasites who can't keep their collective paws out of other people's pockets. What business owner in his right mind would move into New York without any incentives offered if only in the form of ripping them off in taxes less than usual?
So, let's get other states to be as short-sighted and imbecilic with their economic policies as we are so we don't look so bad after all in comparison. Then also, maybe the voters will forgive us for this Amazon debacle because they'd be so stupid to as to be beguiled by all that insipid, boilerplate marxian rubbish. They'll be fooled into thinking that we did it for the voter's own good.
"...to end the costly Race to the Bottom..."
Yeah and New York is only going to race to the bottom of failed third world nation-states if we keep listening to progressive leftists.
Donald Cavaioli
Monday, February 25, 2019
The Crime of Success
In Summary:
I've noted before that criminalizing success was a useful tool for the old order ruling class to prevent challenges from upstarts and the nouveau riche who slipped past the gatekeepers to kick the ladder down behind them. I've also noted the price the nouveau riche agree to pay for admittance not only in their sworn loyalty to the ruling class's objectives but as well in the form of playing the villain for the disgruntled prole masses. The evil robber baron villain figure is a necessary mythos to maintain a rigid class caste system with a place for everyone and everyone kept firmly in his place. This is manipulation of the masses plain and simple to achieve whatever goals and agenda the ruling class wants. It is done with the cooperation of the billionaires and corporations who, as loyal vassals play the role of the malevolent robber barons as an example of what the peasantry must never aspire to.
The message here is stated loud and clear: Don't be like that evil rich guy, start a business, succeed and then morph into demonic entity to be publicly flayed as a plague upon mankind. Staying poor or in the lower middle and working class is far more virtuous. Boo the villains and cheer the managerial state, NGO and Social Justice Warrior heroes who wage a holy war against the amorphous crimes of corporations and billionaires all for the sake of you, the virtuous "little guys". Now don't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
Makes one proud to be an insignificant and utterly incompetent "little guy" who is not intelligent enough to make his own decisions or have his own opinions, doesn't it. Aren't you glad that your managerial betters along with self-appointed activist community leaders and NGOs are here to tell you what opinions to have and decide what is best for you? Master loves us and protects us from evil!
A Case in Point:
We can see this process at work with the recent Amazon HQ2 imbroglio with the heinous Jeff Bezos, although what evils he had done is not clear, being stopped in his wicked schemes to do some sort of bad stuff by our righteous local politicians, unions and self-appointed activist community leaders. In all of this, none of the aforementioned do-gooders focused on any real problems this Amazon HQ2 deal would have on the community. Oh, no. Instead they focused on incessant ad hominem attacks in the tired old cliches of mean, rich capitalists who by getting rich, somehow made everyone else poor and Amazon HQ2 would make us all poorer still somehow. That Amazon was some sort of 21st century version of a Dickensian slave labor sweatshop and torture chamber because no union. And the blatant lie of how a $3 billion tax cut was somehow the New York State treasury writing Bezos a $3 billion check from the taxpayers that Bezos would then put in his own pocket.
So why oppose Amazon on the basis of nonsense arguments, exaggerations and outright lies instead of actual issues? There are several reasons for this and chief among them is that the do-gooders did not really have the best interests of us, "the little guys" at heart. Theirs was tawdry self-interest cloaked in the mantle of the righteous champions of the common good. None of these actors gave a shit about the community because it was all about what they themselves wanted to get from the deal masked by a smarmy concern for the good of the community. This stifled legitimate debate and disregarded what we the people would have actually wanted. So aside from the elected politicians involved, who were the unions and malcontent left-wing activist to speak for the rest of us? Who elected these people? Nobody. However, they play a useful part as the cat's paw of the ruling class establishment and their goal was to shake Bezos down plain and simple.
Let's be clear. Jeff Bezos is a loyal vassal of the ruling class and its agenda as demonstrated in his Washington Post blog every day. If he has to play the malevolent billionaire in some leftist morality play once in a while, it's all good as he knows Phaemon's dog was right after all. In return for an occasional public beating, he gets to eat his fill. In the case of Amazon HQ2's location, the ruling class apparatchiks and their factotums were of low enough rank that he could safely conclude that New York needed him more than he needed New York so off he went. In the end, it was no skin off his ass but for us, maybe we shouldn't have been so hasty and let SJW activists talk for us and tell us what to think.
So despite the triumphal braying on a few other blogs, it was no awakening of the sleeping giant of 'we the people' speaking out here, Mitch. Just few demagogic politicians, union bosses and a gaggle of self-appointed "community leader" SJW leeches looking to wet their beaks in some corporation's wallet.
Absolutely nothing to be proud of and something to be ashamed of: Being led around by the nose for the benefit of others and possibly to our own detriment like a herd of dumb animals off to the abattoir.
In Conclusion:
In the end, whether the local political and activist establishment was right for all the wrong reasons or just plain wrong, it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that successful people are shown to be a maleficent force of greed and evil whose example of starting a business is one that the proles must never follow. Even without a big corporation for the ruling class to leech off of, life goes on and there are other sources of other people's money for them to feed on.
Even when our rulers lose, they win. An important lesson is still taught.
The ruling class and their minions will tell us what to think, give our opinions to us and we have no choice but to follow. Peasants must remain pure in their lowly station and live in the virtue of subservience or else face burning at the stake of negative public opinion. One is born a peasant whose life is dedicated to the state and one will die a peasant and the established social order is maintained.
Donald Cavaioli
I've noted before that criminalizing success was a useful tool for the old order ruling class to prevent challenges from upstarts and the nouveau riche who slipped past the gatekeepers to kick the ladder down behind them. I've also noted the price the nouveau riche agree to pay for admittance not only in their sworn loyalty to the ruling class's objectives but as well in the form of playing the villain for the disgruntled prole masses. The evil robber baron villain figure is a necessary mythos to maintain a rigid class caste system with a place for everyone and everyone kept firmly in his place. This is manipulation of the masses plain and simple to achieve whatever goals and agenda the ruling class wants. It is done with the cooperation of the billionaires and corporations who, as loyal vassals play the role of the malevolent robber barons as an example of what the peasantry must never aspire to.
The message here is stated loud and clear: Don't be like that evil rich guy, start a business, succeed and then morph into demonic entity to be publicly flayed as a plague upon mankind. Staying poor or in the lower middle and working class is far more virtuous. Boo the villains and cheer the managerial state, NGO and Social Justice Warrior heroes who wage a holy war against the amorphous crimes of corporations and billionaires all for the sake of you, the virtuous "little guys". Now don't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
Makes one proud to be an insignificant and utterly incompetent "little guy" who is not intelligent enough to make his own decisions or have his own opinions, doesn't it. Aren't you glad that your managerial betters along with self-appointed activist community leaders and NGOs are here to tell you what opinions to have and decide what is best for you? Master loves us and protects us from evil!
A Case in Point:
We can see this process at work with the recent Amazon HQ2 imbroglio with the heinous Jeff Bezos, although what evils he had done is not clear, being stopped in his wicked schemes to do some sort of bad stuff by our righteous local politicians, unions and self-appointed activist community leaders. In all of this, none of the aforementioned do-gooders focused on any real problems this Amazon HQ2 deal would have on the community. Oh, no. Instead they focused on incessant ad hominem attacks in the tired old cliches of mean, rich capitalists who by getting rich, somehow made everyone else poor and Amazon HQ2 would make us all poorer still somehow. That Amazon was some sort of 21st century version of a Dickensian slave labor sweatshop and torture chamber because no union. And the blatant lie of how a $3 billion tax cut was somehow the New York State treasury writing Bezos a $3 billion check from the taxpayers that Bezos would then put in his own pocket.
So why oppose Amazon on the basis of nonsense arguments, exaggerations and outright lies instead of actual issues? There are several reasons for this and chief among them is that the do-gooders did not really have the best interests of us, "the little guys" at heart. Theirs was tawdry self-interest cloaked in the mantle of the righteous champions of the common good. None of these actors gave a shit about the community because it was all about what they themselves wanted to get from the deal masked by a smarmy concern for the good of the community. This stifled legitimate debate and disregarded what we the people would have actually wanted. So aside from the elected politicians involved, who were the unions and malcontent left-wing activist to speak for the rest of us? Who elected these people? Nobody. However, they play a useful part as the cat's paw of the ruling class establishment and their goal was to shake Bezos down plain and simple.
Let's be clear. Jeff Bezos is a loyal vassal of the ruling class and its agenda as demonstrated in his Washington Post blog every day. If he has to play the malevolent billionaire in some leftist morality play once in a while, it's all good as he knows Phaemon's dog was right after all. In return for an occasional public beating, he gets to eat his fill. In the case of Amazon HQ2's location, the ruling class apparatchiks and their factotums were of low enough rank that he could safely conclude that New York needed him more than he needed New York so off he went. In the end, it was no skin off his ass but for us, maybe we shouldn't have been so hasty and let SJW activists talk for us and tell us what to think.
So despite the triumphal braying on a few other blogs, it was no awakening of the sleeping giant of 'we the people' speaking out here, Mitch. Just few demagogic politicians, union bosses and a gaggle of self-appointed "community leader" SJW leeches looking to wet their beaks in some corporation's wallet.
Absolutely nothing to be proud of and something to be ashamed of: Being led around by the nose for the benefit of others and possibly to our own detriment like a herd of dumb animals off to the abattoir.
In Conclusion:
In the end, whether the local political and activist establishment was right for all the wrong reasons or just plain wrong, it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that successful people are shown to be a maleficent force of greed and evil whose example of starting a business is one that the proles must never follow. Even without a big corporation for the ruling class to leech off of, life goes on and there are other sources of other people's money for them to feed on.
Even when our rulers lose, they win. An important lesson is still taught.
The ruling class and their minions will tell us what to think, give our opinions to us and we have no choice but to follow. Peasants must remain pure in their lowly station and live in the virtue of subservience or else face burning at the stake of negative public opinion. One is born a peasant whose life is dedicated to the state and one will die a peasant and the established social order is maintained.
Donald Cavaioli
Monday, February 18, 2019
The American Right: The Russian White Army Redux
I've written at some length about 'progressive liberalism', or rather the weird far left cargo cult that has co-opted the term and now wears it like a skin suit as they have done with and thoroughly polluted the term 'liberalism' before it. This is because the left is the ruling paradigm here in New York and there exists no version of the right here including non-neocon, right of center conservatives, at least not openly.
I do not count the Republican party to be on the right as their detractors allege as really, they are more of a mushy, moderate, "me too, I think what you think" bunch of sophists whose politics today, including neocons, would have been more a comfortable fit with the mainstream liberalism of the 1950's to 1970's. To call the red junior faction of the bi-factional uniparty, whose role it is to play the meanie bad guys who always somehow lose to the blue senior faction Democrats, a real opposition party is an insult to the legitimacy and honor of professional wrestling.
As an aside, neocons were in fact mainstream liberal Democrats until they were either purged from the party for being the warmongering, sophistic punks they were or opportunistically began larping as conservatives in the wake of the Reagan revolution in their classic tradition of me too-ism.
And why even bother talking about Republicans at all. Here in New York City as they are as rare as a bigfoot sighting and when seen, are little more than the walking dead and just as devoid of thoughts and ideas of their own as any zombie. These two sentences sum the New York City Republicans up for all intents and purposes so I needn't write any more about those mealy-mouthed finks.
Now that the palmy preliminaries have been dispensed with we can get on to the subject at hand, American right.
The primary problem with the right is the right itself. From Russel Kirk on rightwards through the libertarians, it is not really a formal ideology as much as a series of positions on issues, postures and critiques of the left and of each other.
This is a fundamental aspect of individualism that there is no formal dogma or canon to describe it beyond "leave me alone". Individuals usually will not gravitate to a single, central ideology as a collectivist leftist would but would be followers of a number of smaller factions and sub-factions such as libertarianism, the alt-right, the dissident right, et al. All these groups have differing philosophical focus, goals, and prescriptions for society including disagreeing whether there should be borders or not. In addition to this, the further rightists are often more often than not attacking each other and conservatives of any sort (their favorite targets in fact) than they will attack the left. In fact, libertarians and alt-righters will typically be openly sympathetic to the left when protesting wars, assorted government policies and any controversy with the police as both loath the very idea of government and all its functions.
Further, for the different groups within the right, each pundit, blogger, commentator, etc. who may use the same title such as alt-right, libertarian, dissident right and assorted conservatives, will each have his own interpretation of what that title is about and have his own courtier of followers. The right is so individualist that it doesn't even have a standard definition of each sect or title. This is what constitutes some of the infighting within the right. Who is who and who is, or is not what.
So how is the right side of the political spectrum going to field an effective opposition to the left if they can't agree with each other on much of anything other than they oppose (or sort of oppose) the left and refuse to outline what program or policy they would implement after the left is defeated? They decry the death of the U.S. Constitution and endlessly criticize it and rip conservatives (boomercons in tricorn hats) who support it for the mess we are in today. But they never offer any fixes or alternatives.
Much of the right either predicts or deeply desires the United States to fragment into smaller countries although, again, they have no idea along what lines they will split, what these countries will be let alone how they will be organized and run. "Let's win first then decide principles later" is all they have to say but unfortunately they have no coherent plan of how to win either.
Much of the further regions of the right have already decided that it is impossible to even try to vote our way out and mocks anyone else who offers plans to try and take the Republican party and turn it into a genuine opposition party. Their view is that the country will eventually suffer financial collapse and fall into civil war and then somehow, the right will come to the fore in the aftermath, clean the mess up and start again. Sort of like being on a runaway train and waiting until the train crashes and wrecks, then jumping out of the wreckage and building a new train from the debris. Let's decide how to rebuild the train, or if it should be a train or some other type of vehicle, after it crashes. What could possibly go wrong?
In summary, as the situation stands at present, the right will not be able to really unite around one leader or group of leaders to oppose the left. Any attempt to do so will be as ineffectual as herding cats. Even if some kind of coalition of the right could be built from its current constituencies, they would agree on little more than they oppose the left and would agree less on how they will do it or what will be done if they win.
Very much reminiscent of the Russian White Army opposing the Bolsheviks, yet spending more time fighting themselves, and at this point, just as likely to succeed. The White Army redux.
Donald Cavaioli
I do not count the Republican party to be on the right as their detractors allege as really, they are more of a mushy, moderate, "me too, I think what you think" bunch of sophists whose politics today, including neocons, would have been more a comfortable fit with the mainstream liberalism of the 1950's to 1970's. To call the red junior faction of the bi-factional uniparty, whose role it is to play the meanie bad guys who always somehow lose to the blue senior faction Democrats, a real opposition party is an insult to the legitimacy and honor of professional wrestling.
As an aside, neocons were in fact mainstream liberal Democrats until they were either purged from the party for being the warmongering, sophistic punks they were or opportunistically began larping as conservatives in the wake of the Reagan revolution in their classic tradition of me too-ism.
And why even bother talking about Republicans at all. Here in New York City as they are as rare as a bigfoot sighting and when seen, are little more than the walking dead and just as devoid of thoughts and ideas of their own as any zombie. These two sentences sum the New York City Republicans up for all intents and purposes so I needn't write any more about those mealy-mouthed finks.
Now that the palmy preliminaries have been dispensed with we can get on to the subject at hand, American right.
The primary problem with the right is the right itself. From Russel Kirk on rightwards through the libertarians, it is not really a formal ideology as much as a series of positions on issues, postures and critiques of the left and of each other.
This is a fundamental aspect of individualism that there is no formal dogma or canon to describe it beyond "leave me alone". Individuals usually will not gravitate to a single, central ideology as a collectivist leftist would but would be followers of a number of smaller factions and sub-factions such as libertarianism, the alt-right, the dissident right, et al. All these groups have differing philosophical focus, goals, and prescriptions for society including disagreeing whether there should be borders or not. In addition to this, the further rightists are often more often than not attacking each other and conservatives of any sort (their favorite targets in fact) than they will attack the left. In fact, libertarians and alt-righters will typically be openly sympathetic to the left when protesting wars, assorted government policies and any controversy with the police as both loath the very idea of government and all its functions.
Further, for the different groups within the right, each pundit, blogger, commentator, etc. who may use the same title such as alt-right, libertarian, dissident right and assorted conservatives, will each have his own interpretation of what that title is about and have his own courtier of followers. The right is so individualist that it doesn't even have a standard definition of each sect or title. This is what constitutes some of the infighting within the right. Who is who and who is, or is not what.
So how is the right side of the political spectrum going to field an effective opposition to the left if they can't agree with each other on much of anything other than they oppose (or sort of oppose) the left and refuse to outline what program or policy they would implement after the left is defeated? They decry the death of the U.S. Constitution and endlessly criticize it and rip conservatives (boomercons in tricorn hats) who support it for the mess we are in today. But they never offer any fixes or alternatives.
Much of the right either predicts or deeply desires the United States to fragment into smaller countries although, again, they have no idea along what lines they will split, what these countries will be let alone how they will be organized and run. "Let's win first then decide principles later" is all they have to say but unfortunately they have no coherent plan of how to win either.
Much of the further regions of the right have already decided that it is impossible to even try to vote our way out and mocks anyone else who offers plans to try and take the Republican party and turn it into a genuine opposition party. Their view is that the country will eventually suffer financial collapse and fall into civil war and then somehow, the right will come to the fore in the aftermath, clean the mess up and start again. Sort of like being on a runaway train and waiting until the train crashes and wrecks, then jumping out of the wreckage and building a new train from the debris. Let's decide how to rebuild the train, or if it should be a train or some other type of vehicle, after it crashes. What could possibly go wrong?
In summary, as the situation stands at present, the right will not be able to really unite around one leader or group of leaders to oppose the left. Any attempt to do so will be as ineffectual as herding cats. Even if some kind of coalition of the right could be built from its current constituencies, they would agree on little more than they oppose the left and would agree less on how they will do it or what will be done if they win.
Very much reminiscent of the Russian White Army opposing the Bolsheviks, yet spending more time fighting themselves, and at this point, just as likely to succeed. The White Army redux.
Donald Cavaioli
Sunday, February 17, 2019
The Tenth Man
I'm sure some readers would recognize the tenth man from either Max Brooks novel, World War Z or the movie of the same name. But this concept is a real thing developed by Israeli intelligence following the findings of the Agranat Commision, 1973-74, which established of a control unit known as 'the devil's advocate'. The purpose of this control unit is to question the consensus of a group to ensure that the group does not fall into the fallacies of group think and confirmation bias by overlooking information which would call into question the accuracy of the group's assessments.
The tenth man or devil's advocate's purpose is to be a contrarian to test any ideas, theories, concepts or assessments against falsification thus insuring these are either proven correct or shows that they must be either modified or discarded as incorrect. This is not to say the devil's advocate is always correct or never correct or the percentage of accuracy is necessarily the goal as the purpose is to question consensus to force its advocates to defend their position and prove it correct.
It is then necessary for the devil's advocate, in order to be effective, needs to be somewhat above average intelligence and be self-sufficient enough to not feel the need to be part of a group and to be able to consciously stand outside the group. The tenth man would have to be very much of an individualist and smart enough to hold his own as such.
I would submit that the Israelis noticed a certain type of personality trait, realized its utility, and simply formalized it as a methodology under the devil's advocate or tenth man concept.
Here I must emphasize that this is purely a speculative hypothesis based on my own observations and information that I have read. At this time, I have reason to believe I am correct in this but it may be that later on, I will come across new information that would negate this theory which I would then discard. So stay tuned.
Just as I've speculated on the inherent nature of human beings to exhibit what I called the peasant mindset, a natural tendency to follow established leaders and conform to group think. However, I further speculate that there is also a rather small percentage of the population which is the natural tenth man type that would approximate the sigma male personality. Perhaps not necessarily a male per se, and in this case, a general personality archetype rather than the posited socio sexual hierarchy from which the term was derived and whose purpose is to innovate and question consensus, not simply to get chicks.
I would postulate that this tenth man sigma type was through our evolution as hunter-gatherers, for one a check against mistakes in group think that would be potentially disastrous for the tribe. He would be more individualistic and prone to think differently than the group, curious about things the group may consider irrelevant or inconsequential. This would lead to a certain inventiveness and innovation, the primary driver of technological evolution that would benefit the tribe.
Perhaps that one time the devil's advocate would be right about the chief's bad decision, or be crazy enough to pick up a burning stick, invent the wheel or fashion a better spear tip would make up for all the other tumult and aggravation he would otherwise cause to the alpha male chief and make him worth keeping in the tribe. This allowed him to mate and pass his genes on to latter generations.
But the tribe could only afford one such type otherwise it would dissolve into pandemonium or simply stretch the patience of chief and tribe to the breaking point. So most likely, they would only keep the smarter one, the one crazy enough to pick up the burning stick, use it to chase away predators, then put it on the ground, use it to cook meat, and keep the tribe warm. The one who could at least be sometimes useful. The rest, well...
Expanding on this, it would also conform with my theory from an earlier post that the original ethnic Americans of the colonial era had a much higher than average percentage of these tenth man/sigma type people. Look at the tumult of the revolutionary war and early in U.S. history with the Articles of Confederation, Shays' rebellion and later the civil war for a brief example. This is counterbalanced by the inventiveness of individualism characteristic of American "git 'er done" ingenuity. But the tenth man/devil's advocate/sigma type was gradually diluted to their near normal percentage of the population through later waves of immigration.
So it seems that despite the frustrations to alpha leaders and the peasant masses the tenth man can cause, the American example would demonstrate that it is possible for devil's advocates en masse and at times to agree on an overall goal and cooperate in achieving it. Just because someone prefers to stand outside the group, it doesn't mean that he is a complete sociopath that has no interest in, or would not identify with the group or have no stake in the group's success. He just asks too many inconvenient questions of the leaders to their chagrin and challenges the leader's assumptions. A nuisance but a necessary and useful one. We could use a lot more of them today.
Donald Cavaioli
The tenth man or devil's advocate's purpose is to be a contrarian to test any ideas, theories, concepts or assessments against falsification thus insuring these are either proven correct or shows that they must be either modified or discarded as incorrect. This is not to say the devil's advocate is always correct or never correct or the percentage of accuracy is necessarily the goal as the purpose is to question consensus to force its advocates to defend their position and prove it correct.
It is then necessary for the devil's advocate, in order to be effective, needs to be somewhat above average intelligence and be self-sufficient enough to not feel the need to be part of a group and to be able to consciously stand outside the group. The tenth man would have to be very much of an individualist and smart enough to hold his own as such.
I would submit that the Israelis noticed a certain type of personality trait, realized its utility, and simply formalized it as a methodology under the devil's advocate or tenth man concept.
Here I must emphasize that this is purely a speculative hypothesis based on my own observations and information that I have read. At this time, I have reason to believe I am correct in this but it may be that later on, I will come across new information that would negate this theory which I would then discard. So stay tuned.
I would postulate that this tenth man sigma type was through our evolution as hunter-gatherers, for one a check against mistakes in group think that would be potentially disastrous for the tribe. He would be more individualistic and prone to think differently than the group, curious about things the group may consider irrelevant or inconsequential. This would lead to a certain inventiveness and innovation, the primary driver of technological evolution that would benefit the tribe.
Perhaps that one time the devil's advocate would be right about the chief's bad decision, or be crazy enough to pick up a burning stick, invent the wheel or fashion a better spear tip would make up for all the other tumult and aggravation he would otherwise cause to the alpha male chief and make him worth keeping in the tribe. This allowed him to mate and pass his genes on to latter generations.
But the tribe could only afford one such type otherwise it would dissolve into pandemonium or simply stretch the patience of chief and tribe to the breaking point. So most likely, they would only keep the smarter one, the one crazy enough to pick up the burning stick, use it to chase away predators, then put it on the ground, use it to cook meat, and keep the tribe warm. The one who could at least be sometimes useful. The rest, well...
Expanding on this, it would also conform with my theory from an earlier post that the original ethnic Americans of the colonial era had a much higher than average percentage of these tenth man/sigma type people. Look at the tumult of the revolutionary war and early in U.S. history with the Articles of Confederation, Shays' rebellion and later the civil war for a brief example. This is counterbalanced by the inventiveness of individualism characteristic of American "git 'er done" ingenuity. But the tenth man/devil's advocate/sigma type was gradually diluted to their near normal percentage of the population through later waves of immigration.
So it seems that despite the frustrations to alpha leaders and the peasant masses the tenth man can cause, the American example would demonstrate that it is possible for devil's advocates en masse and at times to agree on an overall goal and cooperate in achieving it. Just because someone prefers to stand outside the group, it doesn't mean that he is a complete sociopath that has no interest in, or would not identify with the group or have no stake in the group's success. He just asks too many inconvenient questions of the leaders to their chagrin and challenges the leader's assumptions. A nuisance but a necessary and useful one. We could use a lot more of them today.
Donald Cavaioli
Friday, February 15, 2019
Whither Amazon
From The Queens Chronicle, Amazon announces it will not come to Queens, Feb. 14, 2019
From The Queens Chronicle, Gianaris may be able to veto the HQ2 deal, Feb. 7 2019
I hadn't come to any conclusion as to whether I would support Amazon HQ2 in Long Island City or not but it no longer matters and so I never will.
Since Amazon has announced that they are pulling out of the Long Island City deal, this is all a moot point. But since I started writing this post (and just about had finished it) before the announcement, I may as well finish it as a postmortem examination of some of the reasons to support the plan and reasons to oppose it. But what stands out as most inexplicable is how the opposition, instead of sticking to the facts, which were persuasive enough, veered off into emotion laded diatribes, outright lies and downright nonsense to unnecessarily pad the opposition case.
In the case of the rank and file progressive NPCs, it's all emotion based on their conception of who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys". For an emoter, it cannot be lying because that implies first having reason and a knowledge of facts then to make a conscious effort to distort the facts and reason to knowingly manipulate others for one's own gain. The rank and file progressive emoter really gains nothing here and their reactions are all based on how they are triggered. Besides, it's not a lie if you really believe it.
But there are others with logical, if sordid reasons for lies and distortions.
Just spitballing here but it may have been that the opposition was designed to shake Amazon down for local political and special interests. This is New York, you know. You gotta pay to play and certain people have to get their beaks wet too. I have to wonder if the political opposition wasn't playing the "bad cop" to Governor Cuomo's "good cop" to attempt a shakedown. Lure the sucker in the door with a sweet deal then stick him with concessions and payouts. Like I said, I'm just spitballing here and maybe this scenario is totally wrong.
Whatever the case, Jeff Bezos knew that New York needed Amazon more than Amazon needed New York and he wasn't the dumb, easy to be played rube that the New York sharks thought he was. It's hard to imagine a New York politician kicking money out of bed so if the political establishment really wanted Amazon to set up shop in LIC, they very stupidly overplayed their hand.
End of this new post.
Anyway, Here is the original post as I was thinking the controversy through.
I haven't any firm opinion on the subject of the proposed Amazon HQ2 in Long Island City. There are positive aspects and some possible negative aspects. But much of what I have read in opposition is little more than boilerplate "big corporations bad, run by mean people" which goes to show how well the early 20th century demonization of successful entrepreneurs has worked. It was based on lies then and it is based on lies now.
But there are real reasons to question or oppose the Amazon HQ2 in Long Island City that are serious enough that it makes no sense to hide behind lies and leftist propaganda. But whoever said emoters made any kind of sense?
When NYC Councilman Van Bramer and NY State Senator Gianaris (who incidently supported Amazon HQ2 before they opposed it) claim that the people of New York are giving Amazon $3 billion in tax subsidies, they make it appear as if the money is coming directly from the state and city coffers going directly into Jeff Bezos pocket. This immediately sends bad feels triggers to all the bottom feeder liberal progressive parasites and associated activist groups, already in the public trough, who somehow think that they've lost $3 billion to some rich guy that otherwise would have somehow gone to them thus setting them off on mindless screeches of disapproval. Appealing to the basest of human instincts such as greed and envy still works wonders when manipulating the non-thinking emoter crowd.
Usually if a cadre of venal and rapacious leftist activist groups are against something, knowing them to be typically liars of such dismal character and low intelligence, I would tend to initially look favorably on it even knowing little or nothing else about the subject. On a closer look at the subject, this has proven to me over the years to be a good rule of thumb and to be usually a safe bet to take like assuming a politician is lying when making campaign promises.
However, to say Amazon will cost New York $3 billion is a blatant lie. The truth is that Amazon will still pay taxes but just not as much which as I understand would be about $1.2 billion per year instead of $3 billion per year for the next 10 years. So New York would see an extra $1.2 billion in its coffers that it did not have before instead of $3 billion. I'd say this is a positive thing about Amazon HQ as $1.2 billion and the income taxes from workers hired by Amazon (as well as the money they would spend in the local economy) is better than the nothing we would have without Amazon but I'm still not fully swayed to support Amazon HQ yet.
Some other issues I've heard (read actually) being bandied about are somehow Amazon HQ2 in LIC will threaten local mom and pop shops. This is utter nonsense as Amazon is an internet company which does business online and will continue to do so wherever Amazon locates its offices. It changes nothing as far as the local mom and pop shops are concerned.
Enough of the nonsense. Let's look at the real problems.
First up would be the additional traffic on the streets and increased ridership on the trains. Yes this is a problem that should be weighed against the benefits of more tax revenues and the number of employees that would be hired who in turn would spend money on the surrounding local businesses. Will the extra revenues be used to alleviate these problems, would the proposed solutions be real, practicable solutions that really solve problems rather than another dog and pony show. My issue here would be exactly how many people would be employed by Amazon HQ2, the real number, as the number being bandied about might well be exaggerated. Further, how many would be hired locally and not just imported Team Jeff people.
Next up would be the effect on real estate prices. Increased demand means increased price which usually has a ripple effect on surrounding neighborhoods. This deal works well for the lords of tower town and would pave the way for more towers to be built which as I see it, is a bad thing. High density populations need a lot more services like fire, police, ambulance, hospitals and schools then there already are. How good can the standard of living really be with people living packed in like sardines in big, glass boxes. This depends, of course, on how well paid Amazon employees will be to afford to live in tower town and how many of them in that income bracket will choose to live there.
Did anyone ever think what might happen with a Grenfell Tower event of how well a serious communicable disease would spread through such a densely packed mass of people into an epidemic?
I don't trust wing and a prayer plans. Too many assumptions that may not pan out with the possibility of unforeseen problems making an inconvenient appearance and no plan 'B' as a backup.
Finally there is the issue of the Amazon HQ2 deal being worked out behind closed doors with the governor and bureaucrats negotiating with Bezos. Even with the best of intentions, this is a bad look as it appears our executive and managerial ruling class betters believe the citizens are incapable of understanding the issues and are not competent to decide what is best for them. The citizenry, the local communities should have been asked their opinion and had some input into the plans as it is they who must live with the consequences of the decisions made in regards to Amazon's location.
Donald Cavaioli
From The Queens Chronicle, Gianaris may be able to veto the HQ2 deal, Feb. 7 2019
I hadn't come to any conclusion as to whether I would support Amazon HQ2 in Long Island City or not but it no longer matters and so I never will.
Since Amazon has announced that they are pulling out of the Long Island City deal, this is all a moot point. But since I started writing this post (and just about had finished it) before the announcement, I may as well finish it as a postmortem examination of some of the reasons to support the plan and reasons to oppose it. But what stands out as most inexplicable is how the opposition, instead of sticking to the facts, which were persuasive enough, veered off into emotion laded diatribes, outright lies and downright nonsense to unnecessarily pad the opposition case.
In the case of the rank and file progressive NPCs, it's all emotion based on their conception of who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys". For an emoter, it cannot be lying because that implies first having reason and a knowledge of facts then to make a conscious effort to distort the facts and reason to knowingly manipulate others for one's own gain. The rank and file progressive emoter really gains nothing here and their reactions are all based on how they are triggered. Besides, it's not a lie if you really believe it.
But there are others with logical, if sordid reasons for lies and distortions.
Just spitballing here but it may have been that the opposition was designed to shake Amazon down for local political and special interests. This is New York, you know. You gotta pay to play and certain people have to get their beaks wet too. I have to wonder if the political opposition wasn't playing the "bad cop" to Governor Cuomo's "good cop" to attempt a shakedown. Lure the sucker in the door with a sweet deal then stick him with concessions and payouts. Like I said, I'm just spitballing here and maybe this scenario is totally wrong.
Whatever the case, Jeff Bezos knew that New York needed Amazon more than Amazon needed New York and he wasn't the dumb, easy to be played rube that the New York sharks thought he was. It's hard to imagine a New York politician kicking money out of bed so if the political establishment really wanted Amazon to set up shop in LIC, they very stupidly overplayed their hand.
End of this new post.
Anyway, Here is the original post as I was thinking the controversy through.
I haven't any firm opinion on the subject of the proposed Amazon HQ2 in Long Island City. There are positive aspects and some possible negative aspects. But much of what I have read in opposition is little more than boilerplate "big corporations bad, run by mean people" which goes to show how well the early 20th century demonization of successful entrepreneurs has worked. It was based on lies then and it is based on lies now.
But there are real reasons to question or oppose the Amazon HQ2 in Long Island City that are serious enough that it makes no sense to hide behind lies and leftist propaganda. But whoever said emoters made any kind of sense?
Usually if a cadre of venal and rapacious leftist activist groups are against something, knowing them to be typically liars of such dismal character and low intelligence, I would tend to initially look favorably on it even knowing little or nothing else about the subject. On a closer look at the subject, this has proven to me over the years to be a good rule of thumb and to be usually a safe bet to take like assuming a politician is lying when making campaign promises.
However, to say Amazon will cost New York $3 billion is a blatant lie. The truth is that Amazon will still pay taxes but just not as much which as I understand would be about $1.2 billion per year instead of $3 billion per year for the next 10 years. So New York would see an extra $1.2 billion in its coffers that it did not have before instead of $3 billion. I'd say this is a positive thing about Amazon HQ as $1.2 billion and the income taxes from workers hired by Amazon (as well as the money they would spend in the local economy) is better than the nothing we would have without Amazon but I'm still not fully swayed to support Amazon HQ yet.
Some other issues I've heard (read actually) being bandied about are somehow Amazon HQ2 in LIC will threaten local mom and pop shops. This is utter nonsense as Amazon is an internet company which does business online and will continue to do so wherever Amazon locates its offices. It changes nothing as far as the local mom and pop shops are concerned.
Enough of the nonsense. Let's look at the real problems.
First up would be the additional traffic on the streets and increased ridership on the trains. Yes this is a problem that should be weighed against the benefits of more tax revenues and the number of employees that would be hired who in turn would spend money on the surrounding local businesses. Will the extra revenues be used to alleviate these problems, would the proposed solutions be real, practicable solutions that really solve problems rather than another dog and pony show. My issue here would be exactly how many people would be employed by Amazon HQ2, the real number, as the number being bandied about might well be exaggerated. Further, how many would be hired locally and not just imported Team Jeff people.
Next up would be the effect on real estate prices. Increased demand means increased price which usually has a ripple effect on surrounding neighborhoods. This deal works well for the lords of tower town and would pave the way for more towers to be built which as I see it, is a bad thing. High density populations need a lot more services like fire, police, ambulance, hospitals and schools then there already are. How good can the standard of living really be with people living packed in like sardines in big, glass boxes. This depends, of course, on how well paid Amazon employees will be to afford to live in tower town and how many of them in that income bracket will choose to live there.
Did anyone ever think what might happen with a Grenfell Tower event of how well a serious communicable disease would spread through such a densely packed mass of people into an epidemic?
I don't trust wing and a prayer plans. Too many assumptions that may not pan out with the possibility of unforeseen problems making an inconvenient appearance and no plan 'B' as a backup.
Donald Cavaioli
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)