The way I see it, Elites tend to be serial meddlers. This especially concerns Obamites, Reidites, and Pelosites. But the tendency afflicts everyone whose sense of self worth depends upon concept of eliteness of self. Voters went for one of their own, who wants to rein in elitist governance. No doubt, there are better candidates, but they did not run. So now we get behind one of our own, or we sniff.
We must stop serial meddlers before they meddle further. Look to El Rushbo (no college degree, no less). He is the bane of valuephobes, normphobes, heterophobes, and everyone who devalues the dignity of each adult's independent accountability before God or Nature-- free of tyrannical, "redistributing" force and intrusive meddling of any mosque, church, or state. Cuddly Rush seeks to empower volunteers and individuals; non-cuddly, race-baiting Progressives (Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow) and resume-baiting Elitists seek to empower elite secular and sectarian agents and gangs of the state, operating under pretense that their in-your-face exertions of gang style force are all for the good of the (gullible) masses. America-hating acts often belie their speech.
65% of Americans want little more from their government than that it behave decently and no more intrusively than needed. Problem is, their voices get only lip service, as they are divided by corrupt elites who rule ignorant Dinos as well as elite Rinos. IOW, we are surrounded and beset by an unholy alliance of ignorance and greed. The ignorant probably comprise about 50%. Of them, the default position for perhaps 2/5 is one of gullibility; for 3/5, the default position appears to be one of political ADD. They prefer to delegate their care to seemingly caring or professing elites. This is the propensity upon which collectivizing elites capitalize and seek to build their spheres of influence and petty empires in all institutions – news, education, politics, religion, even science.
In their care and feeding of the Ignorants, Elites (though not usually Krauthammer) often soothingly propagate a message, by express and subliminal rationalization, which consists in the following: We are superior; we care; we know, based on science, what is best; you can trust us; in most significant respects, you are not able to care for yourselves; you are entitled to better care; centralized power facilitates efficiency; we are imbued with such ideals that you need not worry about us being corrupted by power; people who are not closely regulated by us will befoul the common environment; most of those who have more wealth and power did not meritoriously earn it; all religious metaphors and cultural traditions that encourage self reliance are for losers; America is fundamentally flawed and must be opened to being populated by a majority of voting anti-capitialists and values atheists; any group or cult that can immigrate and undermine the American notion of liberty for individuals should be welcomed; freedom’s just another word for being kept down by the white man; and white men who fail to repent of their individualism are devils, bigots, racists, misogynists, and plain boobs.
Among those Ignorants most easily divided are those who buy into the message that no coherent value system need be assimilated under traditional institutions for promoting the decency among individuals that is requisite to sustaining a society -- even if government were to be made smaller. They imagine that infants need little in terms of assimilating moral inculcation which would not be availed under a virtual state of nature. They imagine that they would have unconsciously assimilated behaviors that comport with common decency, even without having been nurtured within a common culture that itself was nurtured under traditional religious metaphors and cultural values that encourage self reliance and individual accountability.
Being divided and losing faith in American individualism, we have lapsed into grave danger of being reduced, to be ruled under an unholy alliance of elite, godless Marxists and ignorant, despotic Islamists. In this state of affairs, why should any pretended leader of conservative opinion lecture the American people that they should have nominated a more elitist candidate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
We are now close to having an electorate that is top heavy with ignorance, confusion, and retreat into collectivist codependency. With vision, we should have seen the need for the "Rules for Individualists" long ago. Now, only because we are at a tipping point, do we begin to see their import. Even now, the tolerant Rinos among us fail to see the evil that is growing every day. The spirit of this could be summed up in one phrase: don't think you're smart or quick enough to dither with the devil.
Clearly, the alliance of ignorant Dinos and greedy Rinos is the natural playground for evil. You only think rinos are better than dinos because rinos are more prone to be more circumspect. Sort of like Hank hiring Octavian on King of the Hill to do his dirty work. But rino rot simply goes on behind the wallboard. For goodness sakes, why should anyone who does not intend to represent the best interests of his country seek or be elected to political office?
*****
I'm not looking for a comparison in terms of Quantity, but in terms of Quality. I'm looking to the candidate's focus. Is the focus to cut central government to no more than is necessary to sustain decent society that avails respect for individualism? Or is the focus to centralize planning for the efficient deployment of resources, especially to grease collectivizing comrades? Is the focus to sustain a land of the free within a world of depravity, or is the focus to grease the way to a new world order, to be run by well connected elites, whose main value consists in fidelity and power to the ruling oligarchy, nomenklatura, mullahthood, and priesthood of religious and secular collectivizers?
I'm not looking to More or Less in Promises of government. I'm looking to Committment and Competency in rolling back and redelegating centralized authority to such lower levels as are more conducive to the decent exertion of power. I'm looking to get The Man off my back.
I'm looking to end spurious notions of "equal rights" and entitlements to force me into a collective and then to collect against that collective in order to force the payment of affirmative reparations, which are usually fronts for forcing the funding of depravities and abuses by taxpayer resources. I can appreciate a valid and common interest among individuals in wishing to preclude governmental favoritism for existing members of particular races or genders. I loathe the use of central government to force taxpayers to "equally fund" all manner of particular behavioral orientations, depending only on whatever the general orientation of the gang then in power.
For a deist to choose to believe that a higher Consciousness designed the Big Bang is not scientific, because it is beyond the empirical demonstration of mere mortals. However, such a belief is far from irrational. I saw where Roger Penrose, an early collaborator with Hawking, posed a concern: Granted that all of matter is accelerating outward towards a state of increasing entropy or disorganization, what happens when you conceptualize a rewinding of the tape? If disorganization is increasing, yet yields all that we presently experience, then what does that suggest about the mind boggling amount of organization that was present at the beginning? Going further, what does that suggest about the likelihood of our particular Big Bang having arisen out of "nothingness" (whatever that is)? It is self evident that a deist and an empiricist can reasonably believe in a Deity, or in an Intelligent Design, which may be appropriate for philosophical discussion, even if not appropriate for scientific discussion (except perhaps to help illustrate limits of science's capacity).
However, Intelligent Design does not in itself suggest that a Designer continues to have a caring relationship or interest in mere mortals. That is, a deist need not be a theist. But I think also that a theist need not be a deist. That is, one may believe in "conscious participation in unfolding design" (Conscious Design), without necessarily believing in Intelligent Design. That is, one may reasonably believe in an encompassing and common Field of Consciousness, of which each of us is but a perspective, leveraged out of empathetic feedback and entanglement with that which is unmeasurable with organizations of that ultimate aspect of matter which is measurable ... at least in respect of how it relates to our observation.
REGARDLESS: To advocate that a society or collective "Should" come to agree on or promote any values is to beg the question, Why? This is the question with which everyone grapples, even atheists. For examples: Why should one be an atheist, or an anarchist, or a Marxist, or an Obamanite, or an oligarchist, or even a jungle survivalist? What values "should" adherents of such mindsets advocate, and what values can they "reasonably" advocate?
I would begin with this: We are endowed with minds of incredible capacities, which, intuitively, seek truly and honestly to understand, express, and communicate themselves. To force such highly powered minds to kow tow to forced collective dogma aids them hardly at all in their quest to apprehend their role in relation to whatever may be the reality of our common situation. The force of collectivization merely punishes honesty and rewards connivery, even to the extent of rewarding capacity for self deception. Has there ever been a collective dogma that was enforced by governmental or cultural legalisms that did not eventually find it necessary to resort to the power of fear? Has there ever been a long prevailing, collective dogma that did not begin with fairy promises and eventually come to prop itself up with tyrannical despair? Has there ever been a collective dogma that empowered Individuals in their honest search for their own happiness and fulfillment?
I think the height of civilization is to provide a defensible, sustainable society, wherein infants can be nourished, inculcated with the need eventually and largely to be responsible for themselves, and to be loyal to the country that so avails. To my belief, the test for every enactment of the central authority of such a country should ask: Does "this" promote a sustainable civilization that avails decent respect for free individuals? Every particular act by the central authority that temporally and disproportionately rewards some behavioral orientation over all others should be subjected to that test. Except upon passing that test before a decent and informed electorate, there need be little respect shown to childish, irrational, selfish, and ganglike arguments for central enforcement of "equal treatment" (as in centrally enforced equality of treatment for felons, layabouts, dopers, illegals, pedophiles, polygamists, abortionists, con artists, traitors, etc.).
As things stand, it appears the mass of Marxists, atheists, Islamists, liberation theologists, and advocates of equal rights of behavioral orientation to be enforced by central authorities have no clue how to formulate any synthesizing test for how to assimilate a decent society or civilization.
Re: "This is about a revolution in thinking inside the Republican Party leadership. If that doesn't happen, none of the rest matters."
Well, no such a revolution in thinking will happen unless and until the middle majority of thinking, decent Americans comes to a collective realization about the dire threat to their individual freedom -- a realization that has apparently not yet dawned on various among faux conservative pundits. Given the stranglehold over media, academia, and the present political process, that won't happen without a cataclysmic catalyst ... like Obysmalism. Rinos are collectivizers; Dinos are the wannabe collectivized. They are two arms of the same monster. Together, they mean to take down, castrate, and reduce to third-world debt-enslavement the entire independent-minded American middle class. Rinos and Dinos both want to render individual accountability obsolete. After all, what is the moral worth of a mere slave to the collective?
We access vision by being humble enough, in constant and continuous good faith, to be receptive to such wisdom and truth as are unfolded before us, in feedback from a higher Power. One who believes he embodies virtue and encompasses the higher power will feel little need either to be humble or receptive. To the extent Obama questions himself, it is less to change his fundamental opinions than to recalibrate his tactics. For Obama, going to church is a tactic. Consulting experts is a tactic. Obama does not need God to tell him he is the messiah; Obama tells himself. He is the messiah-elite. It is right that we should have no say except to listen to him and learn. Thus speaketh Barry. Whatever he deems is rightfully so. So get out of the way while he cleans up.
Much depends on how you define middle class, i.e., in terms of wealth or in terms of political influence. In terms of political influence, Prog Rinos and Dinos are united in an unholy alliance of greed and ignorance and, as long as they preserve their entitlements to private estates and diversionary drugs, don't much care whether America or any other place is preserved as a land that empowers freedom of expression and enterprise among the general populace. That care is for the middle class. Until the Tea Party outbreak, the middle class was not much listened to, except for pretense and lip service. Now, many score years after Lincoln, we are met together at a great cataclysm: the election of a deceiving Marxist and Muslim sympathizer ... an errant collectivizer. Now, we will test whether N.W.O. Progs' grasping of central power and state sponsored media and academia are enough to forever bury the political influence of middle class Americans. If Progs can, they indeed will strangle and make to disappear all significant political influence of the middle class.
Clearly, political power is being grabbed away from the middle class and centralized into corrupt gangs that thrive on alliances of ignorance and greed. The more that power is centralized to the national level, the less the influence that ordinary people will have (excepting influence to command lip service and false promises). The more that power is centralized in the name of efficiency, the less competent the connection it will have to the lower levels upon which it falls. How many 35 year old naif czars trained mainly in collectivist philosophy do we really need? Eventually, overly centralized power must become so insulated against any kind of profit motive or corrective influence as to need to rely for its preservation upon the indecent deployment of fear.
In a decent society, power ought not be aggrandized to levels beyond which it can reasonably be exercised. When power is continuously and needlessly siphoned up, it is because power is so intoxicating, corrupting, and tempting to sell. How many, having acquired great power, have willingly given it up? Or deemed it better for the general populace to delegate it to lower levels?
Ordinary middle class people tend generally to lack both wealth and hubris to compete for buying influence at the national level. The forte for middle class people tends to be at more local levels. The more the political power that is suctioned into D.C., the more the middle class is rendered impotent and the more our corruptible national "representatives" are treated to temptations that dissolve their integrity. Now, as the Obamites -- Rinos and Dinos alike -- approacheth, do we at long last finally apprehend that which is aligned against us? Have we apprehended in time?
Haven't Rino regimes always been "small l" about social values? A power monger is a power monger. Does anyone think social conservatives are going to thrill or flock to otherwise valueless fund seekers, or that those who are entranced only by fiscal values will be able to lead an assimilated society? Power-mongers always know, once they lead us into a dissolution of assimilating values, that we will have little choice if we are to avoid anarchy but to submit to their rule. They also learn that anarchy will thereafter soon transpire to their toppling unless they inculcate an assimilating fear. Power mongers mean to monger power. Rulers mean to rule. Without assimilating values, they soon learn they can only rule by instilling fear. This is the law of the jungle, reduced to fiscal management of greed glorifying lords of flies. In failing to respect higher, common values, this is what civilization sinks to: rule under fiscally cool and detached lords of flies. In a depraved world of fiscal sell outs, how in heaven's name do fiscal entranced people expect to raise consciousness for preserving America as a land of free expression? Every republic whose electorate lapses into attitudes of ignorance, entitlement, greed, and disloyalty seems soon to fall under sociopathy.
Obama's empathy is thus: Collectivist elites know best. Everyone else is inferior and cannot be trusted to accord proper respect to our shared planet, nor to know how to look out for themselves. By all means necessary, they should be bent to the elitist will. They should be verbally appeased, but practically ruled. Their wants can be safely ignored, for they have no clue what is best for themselves. They live best when they live vicariously through their rulers. It is good that their rulers should live well. Selah.
Why would it be "self evident" to a natural law atheist that all men are endowed with equal or unalienable rights? How could an elitist-who-knows-best say such a thing without his tongue splitting? Given that most have not, why "should" any civilization accord equal rights to all inhabitants? I can appreciate how one who believes the consciousness of each of us is but a variant, incomplete, and particular expression of one common field of consciousness may consider that each of us has as much natural and self-evident right to be accorded opportunity to compete as any other. Even that person would balk at considering that his country must erase its borders in order to confer rights to inhabitants of far less tolerant lands. However, apart from pandering, how does an elitist who believes the "author of creation" is only random interaction of dumb bits of matter that arose out of nothing worth signifying rationalize such an expression ... with a straight face?
There was lengthy discussion some time ago on A.T., to the effect that Conservatives ought to unite by voting in the general election against Democrats and by voting in primaries for Conservatives. What happened to respect for that paradigm? People are people, even in Blue States. They will be led by good, principled leaders, representing true values. So long as we represent true and decent values, why should we fear? And why should we pretend ability to measure that which is not measurable? I suspect the pretended math, because I don't think polls can measure either truth or hearts of people. When the choice is whether to stand for what one believes to be true, as God gives light to see the truth, versus calculations based on polls based on front loaded questions addressed to unled people ... what to do, what to do. Hmm.
Overt racism ended some time ago in America. Yet the race card is played on and on and on. No doubt, colonialists' cards will be played as long as that can entice collectivist followers. Consequently, in the face of Obama’s centralized collectivization, now is not the time for American producers to exercise economic initiative, simply because Government will likely be regulating to such an extent that it may as well coopt, nationalize, and rule industry. Obama’s increasingly radical, progressive collectivism has producers anticipating the effect on market forces. Result: They are withdrawing like turtles into their shells, like producers into Galt’s Gulch. In that respect, Ayn Rand may have been prescient. However, we need to translate that withdrawal into effective political use, to reset America’s path. If the electorate is not motivated to translate the economic constriction to help us conserve American values, then the constriction will just speed our collapse into economic anarchy as precursor to Big Brother collectivism. Unfortunately, that may be precisely what N.W.O. collectivists want.
From A.T. -- Re: "We live in a linguistic Wonderland"
Somehow, our minds abstract and put funscapes before us, consisting of representations of representations. Soon, we abstract to play among representations of representations of abstractions. Often, a pea will get lost in a shuffle and somehow be replaced by a berry. A fundamental challenge is to appreciate limits of logic, a logic that is not self executing. I doubt "logic" created our universe, set it in motion, or monopolizes how that motion is directed or chosen. If the territory of our universe "proves" itself, I don't think it does so with mere logic or math. One may get definitional triviality or rigorous consistency out of math or dumb matter. But from intelligent creatures, I don't see how a mortal can get absolute "ought" from "is" in any particularly shared situation. What I think I can see is this: each mortal participates in empathetic regard for others. Apparently, empathy often migrates into foolery.
In the name of power, there is nothing elitists will not do to divide and rule. Don't look for any one coherent message from them, apart from division. Instead, look for outbreaks of cognitive dissonance, viz: We are led to believe we can have freedom to engage in political and economic advocacy, so long as the advocacy is not hateful to the collective. We are led to constrict freedom to engage in advocacy of values that have religious connections, except when the religion is zealously collectivist and engages in triumphalism over free enterprise and small business. We are led to believe enterprise can remain free, without regulating hierarchical corporatism, even as corporatism goes international to the point of undermining politics at home. In the name of “free trade,” we are led to believe we can preserve America’s borders, without enforcing them, even as we invite existential threats to our values. In order that international powers and corporatists can buy and sell governments as commodities, we are led to believe we can achieve smaller government and draw down the centralized and elitist power that is exercised in the beltway, even as we are diverted from noticing any connection between disproportionate political power and disproportionate accumulation of wealth.
By pushing masses into moral anarchy, elitists would make themselves their own versions of God. There is a higher power, or higher values, in respect of which we could loosely assimilate and reduce these villains to more adult supervision. But the way we have allowed ourselves to be led into being preoccupied with being divided and put at one another's throats, with Islamofascism being invited in every now and then to provide cover and crisis that will not be "wasted," it will be a miracle if we manage to put elitist villains down. Unless we remember that neither they nor we are “God,” and unless we come together to remember the worthwhile values that are common to us, above our rulers and above our individual greed, then elitist power mongers will yoke us to anarchic evil, and they will confiscate "Rocky's" opportunity ever again freely to pursue individual interests.
Regarding Obama's penchant for secular authoritarianism in his religious preferences: Does Obama have anything going for him, apart from his appeal to collectivist security, to spread wealth and health coverage? Yes, that appeals to entitlement minded Progressives. But what does that implicate in connection with other concerns of Liberals and Libertarians? To fund and ration universal health care, Obama's regulators may have to regulate or penalize the use of certain kinds of drugs. I wonder if benefits will eventually have to be rationed among those who abuse drugs? How many times a year will overdosers be entitlted to free de-tox treatment? How will rationing be enforced without souring both Liberals and Libertarians? Obama has an obvioius authoritarian streak, and Libertarians obviously do not care for big regulatory tendencies. I wonder whether most Libs will begin to fear that Obama's authoritarianism will implicate the delegation of massive, invasive regulatory powers to bureaucratic drones? Is Obama's kind of religious preference really the kind of free spiritism that is copasetic to Lib vibes?
Post a Comment