Saturday, May 7, 2011

Takers vs. Providers

As I compare various points of difference among friends and relatives who are Democrats or Republicans, one point keeps recurring to such an extent that I begin to believe it may carry discriminating worth. I begin to think that the base for Democrats consists largely of those who view political movements as means for taking from those who have, while the base for Republicans consists of those who view political movements as means for improving society in general. The basic Democrat is interested in how he can Take, in order to increase his short term share of wealth, power, pleasure, and esteem. He often couches this under a duplicitous concern for fairness.  The basic Republican is interested in how the general system can be improved, in order to Provide greater long term opportunities to an ever wider base, including his progeny. He often couches this under faith that society and the planet are best employed to service liberty and dignity.  Thus, as to their bases, Democrats promote Takers, while Republicans promote Providers.  Regardless, I am hardly confident that this point of discrimination extends to the actual and effective leaders and controllers of either party.  Rather, among America's leaders, Producers seem to be losing to Looters.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Although the info on Obama's birth certificate is probably mainly correct, I doubt the certificate itself is. I expect Obamanauts will say no original certificate can be had, because the records people have gone paperless.
However, that would not 'splain why the version as released appears to have 9 layers of modifications, nor why the "1" on the 1961 date shown for his (or his father's?) birthday shows on analysis to have been layered in last. Still, except as to the correct name of the hospital, I expect the info on the certificate is correct. However, I have little means to be sure, since, if we were playing poker, and I had a flush, Obama would show two pair and claim one was full, without showing his last card. As he hauled in the pot, he and his smirking cohort would ridicule me if I asked to see it.

Re Kenya: That plays into the method for ridiculing birthers. The British did not call it Kenya in 1961, but the Americans did.

Soon, all Obamanauts will be convinced that Der Leader never wanted to close Gitmo, stop enhanced interrogations, treat Osama, et al, as mere overseas contingency operations, or cease engaging in wars of choice. Yes, reality will intrude to require Obama to adopt most of Bush's overseas military tactics, but the controllers of the media he fronts will always couch such actions as nuanced when done by Obama, but dumb when done by Bush. That is, until the powers behind the throne decide to adopt a new front man. As Obama loses control of his message and begins to sound more like a garbling Hal and less like a powerful Big Bro, he will become an embarrassment to the NWO and will have to be replaced.

BTW --- when will Eric the Meister of Legal Principles be prosecuting Obama for giving the ok to "murder" Osama? After all, if Osama was unarmed, and it was a mere overseas contingency operation, then why was he killed? Given Eric's certainty that Osama would never be captured and would go down fighting, the 25 minutes of missing video rather smells, you think?

Actually, facts and thinking are irrelevant, since those who want the American enterprise to become more like the Chinese will find ways to rationalize why the Obama program is all for the best. Simply put, the path to getting ahead under the Chinese model is to put the old bean on autopilot and never buck the powers that be. Per Orwell, when Big Bro changes his message in mid-sentence to say we've always been at war with Eastasia, not Eurasia, all properly trained Obamanauts will ridicule those who say: Wait a minute, why do all our signs say we're at war with Eurasia? This phenomena for being conditioned to think with feelings may be artifactual of the world's (unavoidable?) drift from an American ideal of liberty-based enterprise to a Chinese ideal of management-based enterprise. Under the Chinese model, the feelings of the herd (as blown about by broadcast media controlled by those who pull the strings of party hacks and front men) always trump facts. If Obama wants not to be replaced, he had best figure out how to regain control over his message. Marxists do that by synchronizing blankets of lies and deploying ridicule-bots, not by uncovering truth. The only thing transparent about Obama is his calculating non-transparency. His opaqueness is required so that he can be whatever the powers that be want him to be. The more the inconsistencies and the less we really know about Obama, the more fodder his oz-bots will retain to ridicule everyone who wants to know more. This is how I stopped fearing the NWO and learned to love it.