Throughout history, the same kind of dupes have been abused by the same kind of elitists. Nowadays, we have international corporatists like Soros who gain by tipping every other person and nation into impoverished, new world order. In years past, we had nationalist types who, with state-based support, sought to impose colonial systems of mercantilism on less developed countries. But international corporatists and national mercantilists tend to be the same kind of people: Both are set on getting ahead by climbing on shoulders of dupes. In each age, elitists feign to be rescuing dupes from depredations of similar elites of the past. But the game is always the same: reduce the middle class, incite divisions among lower classes or less industrialized nations, and therewith acquire means to rule, not to serve.
Until recently, the middle class in America was not static; it had always been open to the energetic and the imaginative. Until made impotent by welfare, the poor did not tend to remain poor. Sadly, once the middle class is leveled, so that the only ones with influence of wealth or connections will be elites, the rite of initiation into elitism will come to depend upon feeling entitled and justified in reducing all others to a collectivist herd, to be administered.
Bottom line: Soros and his cohort bribe and dupe support from the lower class in order to reduce the middle class by blaming the middle class for depredations that have always been the province of cynical elitists such as Soros. How does he get away with this kind of blatant, cynical abuse? By being shameless and by bribing us with our own sweat. So long as he and his cohort rule, why should they care whether the system is called communism, fascism, corporatism, socialism, progressivism, or environmentalism? Answer: They don’t. The threat imposed by the evil, cynical, abusive kind of personality that Soros and Obama embody is more deadly than the evil the founders faced. Americans must unite or liberty will die.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
From A.T. -- Re: "new drilling regulations will probably drive all but the largest companies out of the Gulf"
The Regime's fascist corporatism is built on driving out all middle class business and erasing national boundaries. The main competition of the future, to the extent centered around fascist corporatism, will be in how to divide up corporatist crime territories. "Merit" will consist in sociopathy, i.e., pleasing the boss, beguiling the gullibles, and rubbing out the competition. Elites will loathe the middle class for its weakness and its gullibility. The poor will loathe the middle class because elitist monopolization of media and academia will teach that those of the middle class are the source of the oppression of the poor. This loathing of the middle class will translate readily into a need by elites to rule it and a need by the lower class to see it humbled. Kill Ivan's goat! It's only fitting that this has been delivered to us by the Chicago Machine. Somehow, "Remember the Kulaks!" doesn't quite have a stirring ring to it.
Under what faith do collectivists play footsie with evil? A Conserver of Liberty conceptualizes that everyone should proceed towards his/her own Individual, spiritual, subjective worldview, in respect of a loose framework of laws and traditions that facilitate continuous progress for everyone. But a Liberal Utilitarian (or Progressive Re-distributer of material means of happiness) conceptualizes that everyone must accede to a worldview imposed as scientific, objective fact upon the Collective. Society has upended language: freedom-loving Individualists are called stale conservatives of the status quo, rather than exponents of liberty, but re-trenchers of hive-minded Collectivism are called Liberal agents of hope. Usurpers, having acquired means to convince men that happiness depends upon collective subservience, seek to convince us that whims of an elitist hierarchy are objective fact. While a Conservative Individualist will desire representative governance of a decently informed electorate that consists of responsible, free thinkers, a Progressive Collectivist will desire rule by elites for the “benefit” of masses, who are to be diverted and indoctrinated with mind blowing cookies and circuses.
It seems odd that John Stuart Mill, a troubled genius, spoke so highly of Liberty, yet advocated collectivist Utilitarianism. See http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/LtrLbrty/gryMTR1.html. The rub comes in whether to value Liberty or Pleasure as paramount. If one sees respect for free will as paramount, one may sympathize with Jesus. If one sees pleasure and collectivist utilitarianism as paramount, one may sympathize with Mohammed or Marx.
All have a worldview. The rift is between those who see the proper source for reconciling the individual with the collective as consisting in idealized consciousness (or God) versus elite mortals. Fundamental questions are: What purpose does God apprehend, that each of us should constitute an incomplete perspective of the whole? To what extent should any mortal presume principled authority to assert power to force the soul or mind set of another? IOW, what sort of cold-blooded, Stalinoid evil lurks in any individual’s presuming to usurp God in order to dictate utilitarian utopia to the collective?
Under what faith do collectivists play footsie with evil? A Conserver of Liberty conceptualizes that everyone should proceed towards his/her own Individual, spiritual, subjective worldview, in respect of a loose framework of laws and traditions that facilitate continuous progress for everyone. But a Liberal Utilitarian (or Progressive Re-distributer of material means of happiness) conceptualizes that everyone must accede to a worldview imposed as scientific, objective fact upon the Collective. Society has upended language: freedom-loving Individualists are called stale conservatives of the status quo, rather than exponents of liberty, but re-trenchers of hive-minded Collectivism are called Liberal agents of hope. Usurpers, having acquired means to convince men that happiness depends upon collective subservience, seek to convince us that whims of an elitist hierarchy are objective fact. While a Conservative Individualist will desire representative governance of a decently informed electorate that consists of responsible, free thinkers, a Progressive Collectivist will desire rule by elites for the “benefit” of masses, who are to be diverted and indoctrinated with mind blowing cookies and circuses.
It seems odd that John Stuart Mill, a troubled genius, spoke so highly of Liberty, yet advocated collectivist Utilitarianism. See http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/LtrLbrty/gryMTR1.html. The rub comes in whether to value Liberty or Pleasure as paramount. If one sees respect for free will as paramount, one may sympathize with Jesus. If one sees pleasure and collectivist utilitarianism as paramount, one may sympathize with Mohammed or Marx.
All have a worldview. The rift is between those who see the proper source for reconciling the individual with the collective as consisting in idealized consciousness (or God) versus elite mortals. Fundamental questions are: What purpose does God apprehend, that each of us should constitute an incomplete perspective of the whole? To what extent should any mortal presume principled authority to assert power to force the soul or mind set of another? IOW, what sort of cold-blooded, Stalinoid evil lurks in any individual’s presuming to usurp God in order to dictate utilitarian utopia to the collective?
See http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/LtrLbrty/gryMTR1.html: “… Stephen argues against Mill: if the only thing that has intrinsic value for utilitarians is happiness, and we are bound to promote happiness by the most efficacious means, then a consistent utilitarian policy of social betterment will not be especially tender toward individual liberty.”
ELITE DUMBNESS: I wonder: Do you need to be really smart to be as dumb as an elitist? Or do you need to have been raised as a codependent momma's boy, who grows anxious upon yo-yo'ing too far from the sustaining security of the snob hierarchy? Is that why codependent momma's boys band together as corporatists to sustain a smug mindset that they are "superior" to independent "cowboys" and small business operators? Corporatist yo-yos vs. cowboys, mind-submitting collectivists vs. higher-cause independents, morality deniers vs. morality respecters: that seems to be the perennial struggle, does it not?
Post a Comment