Oh. He 'as another blog, eh?

There is a certain type person who is very angry because you have questioned his ideas. These are ideas that often involve the centrality of money and contracts and it could, as well, be some kind of putative “individualism” -- or else it's about property lines: the famous theory of their private property. Yeah. That's a big one. They have dome up with a kind of theory of modern capitalism. But theirs isn't the only one. Many books today do in fact discuss the way that the economic views of the Right took over, starting with Reagan in the 80's. Too bad we let them push us around, but, to tell the truth, I am not sure how to stop it. Of course, we saw what happened in Germany in the thirties when you put morons in charge.

They characteristically are not open to criticism but rather they believe that they can push all other ideas right out the window. Everyone else is obliged to think their way. So they think. And they succeed!

So, if one has even the basic uppityness or the temerity to suggest they may be wrong they bristle, and will not accept the cricism: nor will they regard these interlocutions as particularly valid or sincere. In short, they bristle when their opinions are challenged. You see them on Television. The bigshots do not want to hear new information: they do not need it -- they are the experts. The reason these types exist at all is because there has been an ongoing effort for a hundred or two hundred years to enact just this particular framework. It is a very focused effort to bring certain ideas to the forefront. The ideas fail. Where are all the free-market genius pundits, now that there is an alteration in the economic reality? I discovered only the other day a Britisher name of Mary Midgely, one of the few who bothers to carefully writes about all this. If she is alive she is about 90.
When I crossed the border on a car trip I was surprised. I found the American culture not to be the only way of culture, after all, or only way to do things right. Right, in fact, exists as "derecho" in Spanish. It's interesting. There's a Rubik's language cube there. On that trip I was at our southern border. I could see right away Mexico to be another culture. No one had told me the place even existed. Really they are on their own plan. We have no definitive clue as to why the American view is hegemonic. Linguistically, it is already odd that we say "American," so how far can you even get with this when the language seems not to work properly, since what we mean by "American view" is really the North American or Anglo-American or even European view. But this is the common pattern for speech. Americanism is a bit like our the bullying opaque bristler we met above. A final comment, one that becomes obvious as I write: in the final analysis "America" (whatever that is) and Mexico are both a combination of democracy and fascism.

This is the man who bristles if unable to have his way. It seems that he must have his view be correct.

His view must be correct it seems. But why should one thing be more important than the other --- in the first place? (Of course, it might be, but I'm not sure why it "should" be.) I do not know why his special world view "should" be more important but to him it seems to be. In the cultural aspect, it is usually one view that predominates wherever we are --- and this is one of the ways that we use the word "culture," itself perhaps the most uniquely difficult-to-pin-down term of all the useful, nuanced or profound terms we use in general discourse and discussion. The person that belives in contract theory tenaciously holds his own ground. These fuckers want to fight to the end, don't they?

Usually, though when you can put the contract theory people in their place they become civilized. Oh. So then they tame nicely. The Wall Street Journal (the American king of this view, perhaps compared to England's magazine "the Economist," which could be England's queen of this view --- but that's relative and therefore parenthetical) recently put Thomas Frank on its roster of columnists. That sort of thing always amazes me. What are they going to do, hire me next? Pleeeze no.

I said "contract," as you well know. I did not, of course, mean those who specialise in a particular branch of the law. I mean the proponents of the current system of commerical capitalism that which trades between "individuals" (some of whom employ 20,000 workers, none of whom are individuals at all, with regard to the discipline of their working lives) in the situation we refer to as a --or the --"market." They construct a certain scaffolding around this, and this constitutes the world view that they defend as rational and correct against any freaks or swashbucklers daring to challenge them in their ubiquity, their sense of entitlement. Yet, as mentioned just above the truth is that they tame out rather well once disciplined. Just be careful, if you can, not to give them too much power. But, they always somehow do seem to get too much.
Somehow we do in fact give them too much power. And then they get weird. And this always culminates in something like Hitler or Stalin --- or what is called the St. Bartholemew's Day Massacre. Here, Paris lost an estimated fifteen per cent of its population, who died because they were protestants -- as opposed to Catholics, you know. That was it, though and for the next three hundred years (i.e. to date)Paris was on the liberal tolerance system --- which means, and rather simply and concisely in my opinion that we simply let more than just one view or culture exist at one time: in the same place. Like planet earth, maybe?