.
I just watched "When Romney Came To Town." For a hit piece, it may be effective if its inaccuracies are fixed. Coming as it does as everyone knows America is being hollowed out, it's timely. Now we hear how Republican Vultures are more wholesome than Democrat Parasites, and I tend to agree with that. Republicans play the competition card; Democrats play the empathy card. Neither pays much respect to Enlightened Empathy.
I just watched "When Romney Came To Town." For a hit piece, it may be effective if its inaccuracies are fixed. Coming as it does as everyone knows America is being hollowed out, it's timely. Now we hear how Republican Vultures are more wholesome than Democrat Parasites, and I tend to agree with that. Republicans play the competition card; Democrats play the empathy card. Neither pays much respect to Enlightened Empathy.
.
No doubt, When Alexander and Caesar were capitalizing with force of arms, their soldiers would grow wounded and aged over time. To thin the soldier herd and make them hardier, it seemed only right to require that they get well and get younger. When borders are invaded, there's little alternative, except in wars of choice. So why are America's borders being invaded, infrastructure being rotted, and industry being sent abroad? Is it because America had no choice, or is it because our leaders became corrupt and ratted us out?
.
Where did/does Bain get its seed money? Are its profits going to loyal Americans or to foreigners and NWO types? Are the jobs Bain "saves or creates" going to Americans and people of dignity or to cheap, third-world laborers working under whips of necessity? Is it a good day for American freedom and dignity to reduce our laborers to compete with Chicoms and nations that deal in selling children and human organs? Is Bain the apex of good vultures, or will foreign venture capitalists create a Bain of Bains? More for capitalists is always better, right ???
.
It's educational to study how alliances have been entered into over the years
between crony opportunists and divided minorities. Simply choose a minority target, freeze it, and then excite dupes to believe you're on their side and against the target. So we cycle through Jews, Blacks, Catholics, Indians, Irish, etc. So it goes. Now, we come to white middle class men, whose turn it is to pay. Coincidentally, this comes as the middle class in general is being hollowed out and almost all significant institutions and means of persuasion are now in the hands of crony owners.
.
It's suggested that Bain revived a lot of dying jobs and businesses. Maybe so. If so, let Romney explain. He's a data guy, so let's see the data. Let's also see who owns Bain and who provides the seed money. Cui bono? Who is Bain making stronger: the American economy or the crony alliance for a worldwide "Open Society," to be managed by people who "understand business" and "free trade?"
.
************
.
Freedom's a friend of mine. But I suspect so-called free-traders tend to be friends of cronies who care more about their material economy than their children's opportunity to live in a free America. Freedom's one of those interesting personalities who're addressed under various concepts that shape-shift to convenience of hustlers. Context is important to the concept of Freedom. Is "freedom" meant as power to defy laws-of-nature? As a stand-in word for degrees-of-uncertainty that prevail while science remains incomplete for controlling beyond the trivial? Does freedom pertain to the participation of a perspective of Meta-Will, relating to mental state, not as mind-in-itself, but as precursor to measurable effects? As felt intentions, versus power to effect intentions? As an independent good-in-itself? As head-locus of power-of-choice over corporate bodies? As power in one to enforce servitude in another? As power to buy-and-sell politicians, people, and jobs? As entitlement to kickbacks elicited with winks-and-nods about hope-and-change? As entitlement to direct neighbors' children into reeducation or drug-addiction camps? As entitlement to dilute the full-faith-and-credit of American citizens by siphoning fiat money to fast-talking kickback artists? As entitlement to buy eminent power of politicians and government to remake whole districts into projects for repackaging and selling to foreign investors? As entitlement not to be forced or cajoled while making economic choices? Yet, in the real world, where do free people make rational, independent choices, uncajoled by conditioning?
.
To converse about freedom and "free trade," relatively coherent or consistent notions about freedom need to be shared. Appreciation is needed concerning the interdependent roles of perspective, context, and purpose, i.e., assimilated culture. Such appreciation is neither much proved nor much advanced by resort to contrived statistics or concepts that shape-shift to convenience. For freedom on Earth, advance a quality of enlightened empathy among all who seek it. Don't regulate advantages that reduce common folk to commodities to be bought and sold. Especially to non-Americans, and especially to foreigners with no acculturation for appreciating human freedom, dignity, or empathy. In dogmas of Freetraders, Chicoms, Jihadis, and Materialists, what is meant by "freedom"?
.
8 comments:
The Establishment Team, both Democrat and Republican, will pursue open-society free-trade, even with regimes that're not open, but that're inclined for undermining societies that are. To preserve freetrade with despots and at the same time to defend against being undermined by despots, it will remain necessary for the Establishment, regardless of promises of faction in vogue, to preserve military bases and capabilities abroad. Thus abides a grand Kipling game, or race. West races to soften ruling classes of East to luxuries and pleasures derivative of capitalism, while East races to undermine or buy out political control over West, before West can overcome mind control East has over its citizens. Corruption and mind control proceed from both directions. Both sides propagandize materialism as trump over immaterial empathies and values. Sharia law is much concerned with regulation of material values and observances, even undertaking to promise heavenly rewards in detailed, material terms. West also pushes material faith in hierarchical organizations of collectives and corporations. East pushes materialsm via secular and religious faith in hierarchical organizations of collectives. West tends to separate elite cronies from drones by deploying technologies for eliminating middle management. East tends to separate cronies from masses by restricting membership to roles of parties and priests (mullahs and imams). Both sides seek world rule under one prevailing dogma: either freetrade and pleasure for elites, or regimented rule and wealth for elites. Both would eliminate political influence in any middle class, apart from lip service or fake promises, and both would organize and regiment masses --- either in collectives or corporates. Neither wing of the Establishment means to tolerate any increase in influence in any independently thinking middle class. Nor can a divided middle class much hope to reassimilate its thinking or retake its independence. As the gulf between deciders and workers widens, so also will regimentation increase and human empathy wan. Ordinary people and politicians will be treated as commodities. No political team or candidate expresses vision to alter this forecast. In due time, workers of West will be harnessed with workers of East.
Suppose corporate decisions could be reduced to a computer game, with consult-bots. No doubt, the program would sometimes favor the churn value in extracting quick profits in order to churn more quick profits. There would sometimes be cold incentives to cannibalize and cash in a going concern, regardless of whether it may be able in itself to be made viable in the longterm. If better opportunities appear and require quick cash, then quick profits will be taken. When the program is called by a computer-bot, the profits just go into an account. When the bot-mind is run by a part-human, the part-human will own the account. The eventual accumulation of profits from cannibalizing jobs may go to the luxury of the human investor, or may be re-invested to create more jobs. The point is: venture capital is not necessarily benign and is fully amenable of being deployed by cannibals.
The libertine project is to normalize the abnormal, mean the extreme, blur all meaning, and undermine all sustainable culture. This is why conservatives get questions such as: What should Congress do if individual States were to outlaw contraceptives? Should hermaphrodites be eligible to marry? Should bestiality be publicly acceptable if the critter enjoys it? And so on. Of course, there are various indirect, general, less coercive ways such value-driven, subjective questions can be "answered," without undermining that which assimilates society. My "answer" would be that, absent good reason, Congress should distance itself from such issues. That's not to say that there could never be good, socially-assimilative reason, nor is it to say that individual States should not be allowed to make their own choices. However, folks who ask such questions tend not to have visions of assimilation in mind. They actually believe it's possible to have "small government" by requiring society to celebrate everything, and they have the support of a load of stoner profs. Maybe logic works best when one is stoned, to give such a one insight always to know what is "objectively" best for everyone else, and to think up faux-objective questions to "prove" it.
A bully who believes he deserves dominion will seek appeasers, and he absolutely will not stop until he is made, in no uncertain terms, to perceive that he must stop. His mis-shaped mindset has dominion over him, and he cannot be changed without extensive intervention. When he's in power, no one has power to conduct any such an intervention. Obama's mind is shaped to be an appeasing satrap for bullies seeking to authenticate revenge (to push some targets down a few pegs). (Guess who's the target?) How do Obamanites calculate the chances for earning both love and respect from bullies, and how much of America are these fine smarties willing to gamble?
I expect Obama or an establishment Dorian Gray image will plague us until we grow up. The question is, how many hard knocks does it take to get through America's skull and the skullduggery of the establishment? I see little sign that common sense is assimilating among any effective middle class. I see clowns on the left thinking open borders is a good thing and jokers on the right thinking free trade with despotic societies is free. The establishment pulls strings on both sides, while ordinary Americans are yanked back and forth between clowns and jokers. This does not bode relief. Even so, I hope you're right, that we at least replace Obama. However, I'm having a tough time between yanks discerning any leader who can, or even wants to, reassimilate common sense. What kind of rot or ignorance could possibly entice any gullible to try to convince his children to enrich, train, and trade with the head of a household across the street, whose own children were being steadily read bed time stories to plan and celebrate the demise of gullibles? Hamlet would fret that something quite rotten is being hatched. The American electorate, having proved it can be hearken to sirens of sympathizers with sociopaths, does not fill me with great expectations of any immediate return from an odyssey against decent, common sense.
As a high school sophomore, my impression was that MLK was a very brave man being harassed by bigots and the FBI. Seemed to me they wanted to mark him as a womanizer. It was hard to understand why that was so important to some of the so-called responsible adults of the day, given the context of obvious violent oppression. We were being taught about freedom in America, but against this backdrop of insane oppression. I soon learned we're all rather grossly imperfect and that even ordinary people often live in incredible blind spots. I always considered MLK a much greater person than anyone in the smelly hippy doper crowd that followed a few years after. If his politics were leftist, I can forgive him that, given the times. At the time, school was teaching us that 1963 was a modern, enlightened time, and science would soon take us into the far reaches of space. Yet, the nation was still awash in racists. In comparison, the people who play the race card today seem like morons. Things changed as if in slow motion, but still, given the level of mass stupidity, far faster than I expected. Not, however, without a lot of brave souls making incredible sacrifices. I never considered ridiculous doper libertines as coming anywhere near MLK's standard for putting his neck on the line for what he believed in. Nor, in any way, do poverty pimps of today stack up to MLK.
From A.T. --
Jon+W, Re: "The republican establishment is an example of political nepotism, not a plantation populated by slaves."
Speaking of nepotism, what of cousin marriage, which seems quite common among nepotists? We know cousin marriage has been common among royalty, tribalists, and muslims. But it also was not uncommon, according to Margaret Mitchell, among plantation owners. Claims of merit seem often found among nepotists after they have first been "received" (as Rhett Butler was not) or at least tested and found loyal and palatable to the clan. I'm not sure plantation managers are so independent a category from a more encompassing category of establishment nepotists. What do the following have in common: crony, plantaton clan, interlocking corporatist, cannibal capitalist, czar collectivist, and country colonialist? A commonality is that they reward loyalty to clan establishment above merit. Not that there's anything controversial about that. However, it does promote clan loyalty above pretensions of "merit" (not to be confused with IQ, although Romney may bend that curve). I'm concerned with an implicated issue: how strongly does competition among clans push the establishment towards central collectivization or corporatization of control? In that it's easier to hate than to love, how strong would remain the binding, once a NWO were established? Wouldn't central controllers perpetually have to create new groups to blame, to preserve or tighten fetters? History seems storied about tightening fetters. A new story is possible, but it requires an electorate enlightened enough to fight to preserve empathetic respect for each citizen's liberty and dignity, against established collectivizers and corporatists of the rest of the world. This would require all clans and minorities to transcend MLK's dream, to promote individual liberty above fettered equality. When the dream is transmogrified, to promote equality of servitude over liberty, then we begin falling for the French Terror, the Animal Farm, Big Brother, and the Company Man.
Some of the Founders preferred non-governmental catalysts towards moral assimilation, which they likely saw in increased appreciation for such spiritual traditions as supported individual freedom and dignity. I suspect they had more faith that we would assimilate together towards enlightening faith than that any form of government could impose it. The form of Constitution was calculated not to render government impotent, but to restrain government from running roughshod over the conscience of each individual citizen, and to rely on the conscience of each citizen as a check against the pull of centralizing government. However, our embrace of entanglement with foreign nations and with materialism to the exclusion of spirituality has all but neutered that check. Now, material-financed liars easily find platforms and figures for supporting every conceivable insult to individual liberty and human empathy. Problem is, as the conscience of each citizen is marginalized and as the collective unconscious, or Yeats' Spiritus Mundi, becomes more technologically empowered: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
Post a Comment