Thursday, August 5, 2010

BEING AN AMERICAN

BEING AN AMERICAN: What does it mean, in one’s heart, to be an American? If ODSTR (“Obama the Duckspeaking Totus Reader”) has any clue, it’s only about what it takes to overcome being an American. This man does not seek to advance American ideals. He seeks to replace them. And what are his tools? What does Obama mean when he extols “diversity?” What kind of diversity? Does he admire the black, brown, red, or yellow person who admires traditional American values? Really? Forget race. What Obama really means is he wants to flood America with anti-independent, anti-free-thinking, anti-god-fearing, co-dependent, easily gulled, entitlement-minded collectivists and progressives. Since ghetto cultures he needs in order to drown America consist largely of contiguous cultures that largely happen not to share values of WASPs, Obama promotes “diversity” and “open society.” But notice: Few of the diversity folks Obama extols are of a background that admires the values that define traditional Americans. Speaking of diversity, when in the name of diversity did his Party welcome conservative-minded minorities? The “change” Obama wants is to “dhimminize” American style individual freedom of conscience. Does Obama “profile” in a belief that whites largely oppose him? If not, why is it so important to him to keep America’s borders wide open? If Obama’s programs are reasonable, decent, and appropriate, then why does he assume they cannot be justified to the present citizenry, without erasing our borders? How can any real American, of whatever race, find Obama’s goals to be anything other than evil?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

COLLECTIVIST MASKS: Except for masks, I don't see a lot of difference between modern hegemonists, whether they are collectivist nomenklatura or capitalist cronies. Both are out to own and control government and to rule the rest of us. Both put on election charades. But behind the scenes, neither really listens much to the people at large. Somehow, I doubt a Republic as G. Washington envisioned can defend its defining principles once it becomes inextricably intertwined with international corporatists. How these people can laugh at us even while telling their lies, without busting a gut, is amazing. Well, Obama only pulls it off with help of Totus. The talking point is that the rich will be taxed to spread wealth to the poor. But the behind-the-curtain point is that the pockets of the middle class will be picked in order to consolidate the wealth and power of the crony rich. Thus, the aristocracy is restored under international crony corporatism, the middle class is leveled, the poor are ruined, the republic is lost ... but drugs, vodka, and Pravda reign! Moral: Washington was right. A republic that tolerates entanglements with collectivists and international crony capitalists in the idiotic name of "diversity" is imperiled from that moment on.

Anonymous said...

@joebatters said, "The elite are taking over because of the idiotic masses."

True enough! We did not have to dumb down education of the masses. We did not have to confer the vote to every politically-illiterate entitlement-monger. Now that we have an easily manipulated, mal-educated electorate, no system of mere law can save us. Those who like to rule others saw to it that even the dumbest and easiest to corrupt got the vote. Now, they continue to lead us to vote for our own collective enslavement.

The mistake of responsible members of the middle class, who just want to be left alone, was to accept the "fairness" argument, as if it were only "fair" that the vote should be extended to all those who do not finish high school, never served in the military, have shown no loyalty to America, do not have any history of responsible employment, hardly meet any civic responsibilities, do not refrain from crime, do not own property, and do not pay taxes.

All along, power mongers have known they could ally with entitlement mongers to sell the lower and middle classes into collective political and economic enslavement. You can give an idiot freedom, but if you give him the right to vote, he will soon sell both himself and you into servitude. You can't fix stupid, you can't make outlaws responsible, and you can't trust wise-guy cynics. Given the stupidity that is doled out as education, and the media that are now invested in perpetuating control over the stupid, it should be no great surprise that we now find ourselves in quicksand up to our necks.

Moral: Absent a decently educated electorate, a representative republic is unlikely to last. IOW, the right to vote should not be freely given away to everyone just because they breathe.

Anonymous said...

From A.T. -- @Dr. Dave noted, "In reality political party ideology and career politicians are more dangerous than a stupid electorate."

I hope you're right. If so, education and commitment may yet make a difference. As to the effect of party ideology, I suspect ideology may sing background to the flow of money. For enough money, practiced progressives can buy advocates who can opine and sing beautifully for just about anything. Apart from pretense, I doubt political campaigns run very far on ideological idealism. I rather suspect they run more on kickbacks, contingency fees, booty of conquest, cheap bribes, and promises to gullible grass roots. I suspect winking and nodding are not uncommon among contestants, sort of like one sees among professional wrestlers – except that wrestlers usually only play at being evil. I suspect this kind of cynicism has been taken more to heart by the Obama Chicago Machine than by any other. The Chicago Machine is probably not nearly as radical in its idealism as it is in its avarice and practiced animosity. There is money and power to be made behind the radical pose. Orwell’s Big Brother Machine would barely be a match. So, how can decent middle class people compete to get reasonable representation in such a system of progressively practiced pickpockets? I suspect the only hope decent folk have is to nurture and preserve an educated, morally faithful, committed electorate. Like a “Country Party.”

Anonymous said...

Regarding the collectivizing invasion of America: I love how American Thinker restores coherence to political thought! This is necessary in order to combat “quackspeak.” Although Orwell had a similar notion about duckspeak, his idea was that collectivist regimes would begin to fashion language that could elicit approval from all competing classes of society, just by modifying one’s tone of expression. So duckspeak reduced the capacity of people to communicate much beyond simplistic ideas that were politically correct. But that is not what I see happening today. English is too rich a language for that.

Instead, what I see now is what I would call quackspeak. This is a way to say little, but with high sounding words. If you flood a society with inappropriate modeling and with verbiage for an excess of laws of grammar and 2000 page enactments, it becomes easy to use high sounding words in a way that will communicate little more than incoherent duck quacks. Quackspeak replaces the impoverished vocabulary of duckspeak with the language of incoherent sloganeering. I have in mind such slogans as “immigration reform,” “hope and change,” “social justice,” “free trade,”“nature’s morals,” and “comprehensive solutions.”

Our entire educational system pounds a variety of sloganeering verbiage into our “little nippers,” but most of it is for inculcating respect for an elitist, so-called scientific model that is indecent, inappropriate, unscientific, and incoherent as applied to human relations; it is a model for rationalizing the rule by collectivizers over the easily collectivized. What American Thinker does is to take the rich English language and actually relate it to ideas that are coherent.

Our challenge is this: In the face of International Corporatists’ and Collectivizers’ stranglehold on education and media, how do we get anyone under 30 to take notice? How do we get invaders and their abettors to realize, once America is flooded with quackspeaking, sloganeering collectivists, that the chance for human freedom and dignity to flourish anywhere on earth will be nil for a millennium?