Friday, September 16, 2011

National Hygiene

Increasing taxes in order for government to spend more, which depletes business investment, which opposes business investment in order to stimulate business investment, makes no sense. On the other hand, for government to cut expenditures in order to free businesses for investing overseas makes no sense, either. We have binged to a predicament such that our fat government cannot now expect to get lean and clean overnight. Government needs to go on a responsible diet. We need to cut way back on the sugar. To do that, we will have to rudely awaken our electorate and the politicians it elects. Our system has grown fat and complacent by spreading ignorance, immorality, corruption, and utter disloyalty to the American ideal. Common sense has by and large left earth. With idiocy, lies, affronts to reason, and treason (aka free trade, green energy, gay marriage, and illegal immigration), swindlers are hamstringing Americans and sickening our electorate, while cannibalizing and selling out our infrastructure, industry, and jobs. For too long, we have given too much credence to sociopathic libertines and their academic apologists and media lickspittles. America will die of sugar diabetes if we do not soon and in earnest go on a diet of smart trade, fewer regulations, fewer governmental quick fixes, moral hygiene, and restoration of sound ideals.


In Obamaland, fairness means communism.  And communism is fantasyland idiocy.  The brains and profs of Obamulism have a vested interest in arguing for social entitlement mindedness.  After all, guaranteed student loans encourage more students, which encourages universities to raise tuition to amounts far beyond what the market otherwise would support.  For a prof to advocate tuition and monetary entitlements is simply a way of feathering his nest.  Thus, the student loan program morphs into a major weapon in the socialist arsenal.  Taxpayers pay for the privilege of inculcating the next generation with unsustainable idiocy.  Few dare to tell the parade of idiots they have learned nearly nothing.  After all, who can stand against a parade of idiocy?  Most non-fox networks still think they dare not, and ought not, suffer it to be said that the social security program is being run as a pyramid scheme for corrupt politicians.

For much the same reason, socialist profs have a vested interest in grading  one another with higher esteem.  Thus, it should come as no surprise that radicalism correlates high with the highest peer rated universities.  And, the higher the peer rating, the greater the esteem for the sheepskin.  Round and round the idiocy goes.  Is it any wonder that liberal arts students worldwide are being educated for fantasyland?  Most profs, like most other non-thinkers among the common folk, tend to want to be popular, go-along get-along types, not pariahs or iconoclasts.  They seek first to obtain tenure.  Only then might they dare question socialist idiocy.  Thus, common sense and moral truth are first to be sacrificed to many modern universities.  Meanwhile, fiscal conservatives remain convinced there is no problem that economic tinkering cannot fix.  Indeed, the gods must have gone mad.


Anonymous said...

Lifestyles of Middle Easterners are diametrically opposed to WesternCiv. Where Islam contacts us, "muscular diplomacy" is unavoidable. Extreme toleration is not an option, for Islamists are far more willing to infest us than we are to return the favor. We don't have an option to civilize, re-educate, or democratize Islamists. We have no resources to fix that kind of stupid. The better course is: (1) Forget about nation building; (2) do not enrich Islamists; (3) when they get belligerant, take their belligerant's out. Recycle to (1). Some Middle Easterners may find their way to bedrock ideals of WesternCiv. For Islamic culture as a whole, forget about fixing it.

WesternCiv won't say the truth: Religion pertains to what a free mind freely, actually, authentically believes. Islam is forced mind enslavement, not religion. No system of social force that promotes Shariah law, that rigidly abuses more than half its population, can in any decent sense be considered a "religion." We play the charade that the Islam meme is a "religion" because it's a dangerous meme that has infested a quarter of human minds on planet Earth. This would be understandable if our playing along did not lead to mindless recitals that Islam means peace.

Ron Paul is wrong about tolerating Iranian nukes. It's not hubristic to take an intolerant stance. History shows we have to confront the Islam meme. Would Paul advocate "live and let live" in regard to a plague? The plague doesn't give a da*n how "enlightened" Paulies are.

Best is to resist where we can. However, WesternCiv no longer runs by common sense. It's run for another agenda, by operatives who use everyone else, including Paulies, as dupes or mules. As Americans sleep, this continues. Islam continues to rot us from within. We continue, stupidly, nation building. Why? Because real operatives don't give a da*n about nation building. A different agenda's afoot, beyond nations. That agenda puts WesternCiv under new management. Behind masks, Rinos and Dinos both serve that management.

Anonymous said...

How can Obama claim to worship a reconciling God, while having blinkered his approach (for 20 years!) through a prism of race liberation theology? To me, that reduces respect for a notion of a reconciling Higher Power to a meme that is convenient only to a narrow, race serving purpose. It's a putting on of robes of pretense of higher authority in order to "justify" narrow interests. If White Liberation Theology would not be Christian, it's hard to see why Black Liberation Theology should be viewed as other than a front for a Marxist agenda to dupe the populace into serf equality. Adherents don't want to be free of the plantation; they want to put everyone into the plantation. Everyone, that is, except those noble few acolytes of Mussolini who are to run things, who are "more equal."

Anonymous said...

How can Obama possibly go from "yes we can" to "government is the problem?" We have allowed derelicts to push us to a far and sad point. The road back will not be short, nor will it be sped by governmental intervention. Increasing taxes in order for government to spend more would just deplete business investment. Depleting business investment in order to stimulate business investment makes no sense. Duh. Neither, in an age of big government, does it make sense for government to suddenly cut expenditures. There is no quick fix "peace dividend" in bringing troops home to a jobless economy. There is no stimulus in returning money to corporations that will simply spend and invest it overseas.

No; getting back to good sense will require will, discipline, and dedication. Not "yes we are entitled to handouts." The electorate must be rudely awakened. It is spaced out on ignorance, immorality, corruption, and utter disloyalty to the American ideal. It is overdosed on free trade, green energy, gay marriage, and illegal immigration. It is abetting the cannibalizing and selling out of our infrastructure, industry, and jobs. We have too long given too much credence to apologists for false communism (I know, a redundancy), i.e., to apologists for a new world order in which everyone except a corrupt elite is to be made equally servile to an elite that postures as if it were looking out for us. We need individually and in earnest to go on a diet of smart trade, fewer regulations, fewer governmental quick fixes, moral hygiene, and restoration of sound ideals. More governmental gimmickery will just put us deeper in quicksand. The best Obama-ilk can do is just to shut the hell up and get the hell out of the way. We need a President who can explain to Americans, in a way they will appreciate, that it's time to grow up and get out of mommy and daddy's basement.

Anonymous said...

How does government do charity, when it pushes charities aside? A charity is guided by a desire to reconcile to values that are higher than base materialism. An intrusive government is owned and guided by morally stunted materialists and social darwinists, but masked behind lies that "we just want to look out for what's best for you." The superman of social darwinism is the best snake oil salesman. He can't rule a City of God, so he fosters a City of Hell.

Anonymous said...

"Believe" is a tricky word. In materialistic terms, belief is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. In materialism, one feigns to "know." That is, to test and verify. In moral consciousness, one models concepts, which one accords aspects of respect. That respect is felt in qualitative sense, not entirely reducible to measurable sense. In qualitative sense, a believer is also, necessarily, a doubter. To represent that one is a believer, doubter, agnostic, or atheist doesn't convey much that is quantitatively meaningful. It only conveys general orientation. Depending on purpose at hand, I can as easily pose as believer as I can pose as agnostic. When my purpose is moral, I'm a believer (or, at least a believer in a basis for morality --- regardless of whether I refer to that basis by some term other than "god"). When my purpose is scientific, I'm agnostic, looking for material confirmation. Confusion reigns as people try to "measure" that which is meant to be meaningful only in a qualitative sense, i.e., when they conflate philosphies of morality and science, as if one concept should unify and explicate both.

Re: "Darwin decisively rejected the idea that there is a plan or purpose behind the evolutionary process." One can agree that God abides, without a set and detailed plan, yet rationally intuit that God interposes guidance based on appreciation of unfolding feedback --- back and forth between the holistic field and its particular expressions. No mortal can materially prove the contrary to such intuition --- not in fact, nor in probability. One can respect science and evolution, without surrendering one's soul to nothing more than the best snake oil salesman in the jungle. For scientific purposes, Darwin verbalized (properly so), that he was agnostic; for moral purposes, the "logos of his actions" often may have signified a more believing orientation. Indeed, it's hard to see how a self aware being could possibly avoid representing an orientation for reconciling moral choices and beliefs. To reconcile is to unify. How does one "unify" the purely qualitative, except in intuitions of a Unifier beyond materialism?

Anonymous said...

The Higgs boson is a concept. It's a concept that tries to wrap up reality in a bow that is complete, consistent, and coherent. However, if that cannot be done, then that which the Higgs is meant to conceptualize, for accomplishing what is desired for it to accomplish, cannot exist. No more so than the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If Godel is right, that we cannot mathematically map reality in a way that is complete, consistent, and coherent, then how can the Higgs possibly be found? Now, if the goal is something less than tying up a theory of everything into a nice bow, that surely can and will continue to be done. For that, however, there will always recede the next undeveloped and unfolding aspect, will there not?

Anonymous said...

Reparations claimed in the name of higher moral right are just one more way to punish any middle class person for having the audacity to selfishly strive after his personal interests, without making appropriate sacrifice to layabouts and their elite handlers. Reparations are not sought from slavers or wannabe slaves. Rather, reparations are sought from those who strive not to be slaves or slavers. Purpose: To turn everyone into a community organized communitarian. This is a cultural thing, not a racial minority thing. To the extent Americans continue to tolerate the collectivizing, communitarian, Obama way of thinking, that way of thinking will bury us. For Obama, the prettiest sound on earth is the adhān/azam, i.e., the subjugation and crushing of middle class will, i.e., the return to a worldwide caliphate of serfdom to "elite" madness. When can we call unsanity for what it is?