Thursday, March 20, 2014

Aristo-Garchs

Debt Enslavement under Aristo-Garchs:  After Freud, elites considered it to be too dangerous to leave the masses under unsupervised control.  Elites deemed that only they could guide humanity to a system that would be based more on conservation of rational needs than on emotional passions and immediately gratifying desires.  In other words, only elites were to be considered rational.  Everyone else was to be pulled around by emotional feelings.  That is, the masses are to be conditioned to obey.  And to call all who wish only to be left alone by epithets, such as: racists, misogynists, bigots, and phobes of reason.

Nor did elites like religion, which was considered as too much dangerous mind opium for the masses.  So elites set about with science, experts, bankers, currency controllers, psychologists, advertisers, and professonal grifters to find ways to translate most people from being passion and pleasure slaves to being debt slaves.  The people are not to be trusted to know what to do with themselves.  They must be regulated. When they are not regulated, they must be doped.  When they are not regulated or doped, they must be tied to tasks --- regardless of how dreary, soul depleting, repetitive, paper churning, and useless.  Laws and taxes must be so complex that anyone, given enough searching, can be found to be a criminal.  The people must be monitored, so that, when needed, the gov that is operated by elites can threaten to charge any dangerous thinker with crimes against the State. This is why elites will never, never trust the thinking middle class to influence politics in any substantial way.  This is why kids are indoctrinated in scruels, why new priests of false sciences seek to displace religions, why kids are kept on ritalin and groomed early for dope and sex, why nations are being erased, why men are being encouraged to become like women, why women are being encouraged to become like men, why diversity is celebrated for keeping people divided, and why republics are being neutered.

This is the inhumane path to rationalize man's inhumanity to man. Elites do not run from the road to serfdom.  They embrace the idea of putting the masses onto the road to serfdom.  Such elites, by their cynicism, tend to be the worst of humanity to put in charge.  This is why Rinos suck.  Mature religion need not be dumbified.  Thinkers who are competent to look out for themselves need not be distrusted where they are encouraged to assimilate spiritual aspirations towards maturity.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem with consenting to be ruled by the international community is that it in effect constitutes consenting to be ruled by the biggest despots. The problem with free trade with international muggers is that it constitutes consent to be mugged by international muggers. The problem with a republic surrendering its rule to international elite corporatists is that it constitutes surrender of the republic. The problem with tolerating Islamists and despots who do not tolerate you is that it leads to your abject submission. Which is called the peace of the serfs and the dhimmis. The problem with Obama is that he is a despotic, islamic, mugger. He's not a free enterpriser. He's a godless criminal crony capitalizer who lies with communitarian fairy tales.

Anonymous said...

I think Inspector Clouseau's middle name was Hussein. His nephew is Clousein. Clousein now resides at the WH, but he lives in his own little world.

Anonymous said...

The Nobel Peace Prize seems to have become little more than a gimmick to encourage the people to trust those who wish to reduce them to debt slaves under aristo-garchs. After Freud, elites considered it to be too dangerous to leave the masses under unsupervised control. Elites deemed that only they could guide humanity to a system that would be based more on conservation of rational needs than on emotional passions and immediately gratifying desires. In other words, only elites were to be considered rational. Everyone else was to be pulled around by emotional feelings. That is, the masses are to be conditioned to obey. And to call all who wish only to be left alone by epithets, such as: racists, misogynists, bigots, and phobes of reason.

Nor did elites like religion, which was considered as too much dangerous mind opium for the masses. So elites set about with science, experts, bankers, currency controllers, psychologists, advertisers, and professonal grifters to find ways to translate most people from being passion and pleasure slaves to being debt slaves. The people are not to be trusted to know what to do with themselves. They must be regulated. When they are not regulated, they must be doped. When they are not regulated or doped, they must be tied to tasks --- regardless of how dreary, soul depleting, repetitive, paper churning, and useless. Laws and taxes must be so complex that anyone, given enough searching, can be found to be a criminal. The people must be monitored, so that, when needed, the gov that is operated by elites can threaten to charge any dangerous thinker with crimes against the State. This is why David Brooks like elitists will never, never trust the thinking middle class to influence politics in any substantial way. This is why kids are indoctrinated in scruels, why new priests of false sciences seek to displace all religions, why kids are kept on ritalin and groomed early for dope and sex, why nations are being erased, why men are being encouraged to become like women, why women are being encouraged to become like men, why diversity is celebrated for keeping people divided, and why republics are being neutered.

This is the inhumane path to rationalize man's inhumanity to man. Elites do not run from the road to serfdom. They embrace the idea of putting the masses onto the road to serfdom. Such elites, by their cynicism, tend to be the worst of humanity to put in charge. This is why Rinos suck. Mature religion need not be dumbified. Thinkers who are competent to look out for themselves need not be distrusted where they are encouraged to assimilate spiritual aspirations towards maturity.

Anonymous said...

Corporatists tend not to be loyal to republics. This is why they want borderless, open societies. Instead of competing against national armies, they want to compete against corporate herds. Every now and then, a mess of international corporatists runs into a nationalist who still believes in nations, if not representative republics. Then you get a fiasco, like Obama trying to face up to Putin. Being loyal to no nation, Obama corporatists have made the West vulnerable to despots of the East. This is like trying to face an army of thugs with a gaggle of flower haired unicorn riders. Might make a weird video game, but probably won't preserve a republic.

Anonymous said...

Example of misleading opinion: See opinion in The Daily Caller, by Peter Tucci, of 7/13/10, A Conservative Case For Gay Marriage. This kind of glib misrepresentation is how gullible minds are rolled. If there is a quote by Goldwater that says he was for gay marriage, then whoever says so should be called upon to give it. Regardless, a thinker should base his opinion on his own reasoning.

Anonymous said...

I don't like Putin. i just don't dislike him more than I dislike Obama. And I think he is more loyal to Russia than Obama is to the U.S. I think Obama feels less priority to hold back Russian collectivism than he feels to erase American liberty. Nor, given the loss of Western nerve and the sorry state of the US. Electorate, do I think it would be worthwhile to defend Euros who have lost the will to defend themselves. At this point, I just hope we preserve what can be preserved, get rid of Obama, and work on the long slog to restore adult responsibility in our own backyard. When the Euros grow up, maybe NATO can become real again. Meantime, the feminized West frolics naked among the unicorns feasting on the tulips. For nation building among open society unicorns gaily bedecked in tulips, no thanks.

Anonymous said...

The role of gov needs to be spare and general. I can see gov sometimes at some levels upon restricted permission from the people being availed with general tax powers to incent needed general demographics. I don't think detailed quotas should be used to try to make equal that which is inherently unequal. Let the people, marketplace, and non-gov charities make most specific decisions. Not gov death panels or eugenics specialists. The way to a smaller, more enlightened populace is through receptivity to the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. Inculcate receptivity to that, and it will lead, I believe, to receptivity to what is needed for a decent civilization to sustain, defend, and promote reasoned freedom and dignity

Anonymous said...

I have no pop scheme. That is my point. No gov force should enter into it. It should be a matter of respect for family values. Respect for people, which includes unborn infants. You want a large family, have it. You want a family size you can provide for responsibly, have it. To think choices about such matters are free of cultural influences would be delusional. The concern is, do we generally want to inculcate responsible cultural values, or do we want to remain victims of cycles of despotic gov abuse and catastrophe? I think a Source abides beyond gov that can help lead us to decent values, as we become more receptive to it.

Anonymous said...

We need to celebrate at least one day a month as National un-Law Day. All gov workers would be required to work, but every citizen would be encouraged to air grievances and demonstrate feats of strength. Everyone who had recently proposed legislation would be heckled to propose anti-legislation (repealing legislation). Instead of burning books, regulations would be burned. Instead of writing about useless eaters, students would be encouraged to write about useless regulations and useless regulators. Instead of extolling law, encouragement would be given to extolling assimilative, sustainable, and meaningful values.

Anonymous said...

If we want fewer rules, a better environment, and more freedom, then we need to move generally towards a smaller and more enlightened population. That can be done by gov despotism or by value assimilation. It can perhaps be helped along with a few general gov incentives for preserving sustainable demographics. That necessitates family values, wherewith each member assimilates to share generally sustainable and meaningful values, including eternal vigilance for preserving liberty. The alternative is a chaotic series of crises hedged by rampaging despots who have little loyalty to anything beyond their immediate pleasures. It necessitates assimilation to a commonly inspiring and more matured ideal of spiritual meaningfulness. I see few institutions that have developed for moving towards any such an assimilation in defense of freedom and dignity. Instead, I see a lot of youth whose main disappointment with Obama is that he was not stupid enough to actually keep his idiotic promises.

Anonymous said...

The more our labor force is reduced to producing services, paper products, and raw materials, the less our labor will be valued. We won't have much value to trade. Apart from math and accounting tricks, I don't see why the NWO would care to continue to fund or play three card monty on our gambling riverboat. Are jobs being added? Is our republic safer from oligarchs? How much longer will the financial system tolerate buying American lofo votes with cheap bribes for not doing productive work? Is the statist system making us financially safer or our activities freer?

Anonymous said...

There is no choice but to make choices. Every apprehension entails a choice, even a choice not to make a choice entails an opportunity cost. There is no principled way simply to stop espousing principles. The problem for a society that desires to remain a representative republic is how to sustain mores that will sustain it, or at least not to encourage mores that will destroy it. We will not be able to do that if we insist on foolishness of trying to legislate equalities among things that are inherently not equal. We will not be able to scale back gov despotism if we refuse to begin unless we can do so "comprehensively." We need to assimilate moral priorities: liberty or central command?

I wish the central gov could simply withdraw suddenly from much of it's interference. However, the militant prog agenda is now to use the central gov to force every state to give both de jure and de facto recognition to homosexual "marriage." They do this by appealing to fed judges in the name of "equality" arguments, by trying to make (judicially legislate) equal that which is not equal. To fail to resist this is to legislate by defaulting to the bench and to the powers that foist society-changing suits upon decent society.

Anonymous said...

How can an electorate learn from its choices if its pols always shift the cost downstream? Doesn't this eventually make all streams untenable? Doesn't the cost of moral pollution tend to be at least as high as the cost of environmental pollution?

Anonymous said...

It's community organizers who want their elites to rule the collective. The difference is that they promise to use the carrot and reserve the stick for only when it's necessary. But once they're in power and their expert solutions do not work, then they quickly go back to the stick. This is because most people do not deserve liberty in their eyes. Problem is, people who are downgraded to the status of not deserving liberty are soon downgraded to the status of not deserving to live if they get in the way of the regime's plans. Stalin wanted evolution to work through characteristics acquired through work, rather than genetic mutations. Nazis wanted to rid the gene pool of useless eaters. Both Hitler and Stalin wanted the State to create the new and improved socialist man. As to individual men, they hardly cared. So Stalin sought to arrest geneticists while he promoted Lysenko's fairy tale. When famine resulted, no one dared to blame Stalin. Obama wishes his pen had the backing of Stalin's thugs.

Anonymous said...

At least Charlie Chaplin, with his Hitler moustache and Napoleon hand in vest, was often funny. However, even Chaplin was more scary than funny when he mixed advocacy for socialist force with human liberty. As if socialism were liberty. Watch this speech, to see how easy people deceive themselves, to lure themselves into becoming advocates for socialism in the hope of replacing previous advocates for socialism. An international socialist who hated national socialists, who eventually self-exiled to Switzerland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Anonymous said...

It'd be grand to run Obama out of town after his having bilked the nation to trillions of debt. For chickenshifty, he puts the King and Duke of Huck Finn all to shame. Progs frog marched the nation to a heckuva show.

Like as not we got to be together a blamed long time on this h-yer
raft, Bilgewater, and so what's the use o' your bein' sour? It 'll only
make things on-comfortable. It ain't my fault I warn't born a duke, it
ain't your fault you warn't born a king—so what's the use to worry? Make
the best o' things the way you find 'em, says I—that's my motto. This
ain't no bad thing that we've struck here—plenty grub and an easy
life—come, give us your hand, duke, and le's all be friends. -- From The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

Anonymous said...

If I recall correctly, Carter had a program to turn out lights to conserve energy at the White House. He thought examples were important. Obama talks about carbon footprints and then jets wherever he pleases whenever he pleases. When he came to Austin on a fund raising trip, rush hour traffic was backed up for miles so the limo for His Wonness would not have to wait a minute. When Obama talks about carbon footprints, you get the distinct feeling he wishes more people not of his racial persuasion would drop dead and get the hell out of his way. The man is menacing.

Anonymous said...

The best and brightest do not tend to be attracted to gov in order to foster liberty. Gov regulation does not tend towards that path. The best and brightest tend not to be recruited or attracted to gov to reduce centralizing regulations. They tend to be attracted to help masters agglomerate wealth and influence, so they can do likewise. Gov for a representative republic is more in need of ways to defend the republic from the best and brightest who are attracted to it, rather than to facilitate them. Our "best and brightest" are erasing the borders that define us apart from a largely depraved world. They are facilitating the transfer of our resources, technologies, and knowledge to regimes that are even further down the road to serfdom. The effect is to empower such regimes to buy our politicians and resources through back doors, thus to plunder our nation from within and to wipe out the beacon for serfs to seek freedom. Americans need to formulate ways to defend their central gov from further empowering the "best and brightest" who seek to further collectivize and centralize power. Instead of defending our republic, our central "best and brightest" are empowering and emboldening the despotic enemies of liberty. What we need is not international anarchy, which is a pipe dream. What we need is a nation that will defend the liberty of its citizens within. To get that, we need to kick all the international, anarchic, enserfing, oligarchizing, demonic, self-godded, debt slavers out of D.C. They are not the best and brightest. They are the most corrupt and crappy.

Anonymous said...

Well, it may be interesting to see how many among those who control msm frequently attend church. And how many churchmen have not become disposed towards socialism. And what relations Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie had with the national socialists. I don't think we can look at our economy and say it is on the right path. Nor that it has been on the right path since Reagan. Nor that it is likely to be put on the right path by any candidates offered up by the billionaire class. I think there is an imbalance in political influence that is dangerous to the republic, and I don't see much being done that is likely to reduce that imbalance. Whoever may fund Boehner and McConnell, it's pretty clear they do not represent the interests of the Tea Party.

Anonymous said...

Human nature is easily corrupted by temptation, and access to opportunity to make a financial killing is a great temptation. The main factors seem to relate to security against loss versus opportunity to reap big. Money is easier to factor than morality. Especially when the moral philosophy reduces to something like, He who dies with the most expensive toys wins. I think oligarchs and their financial advisers are drawn to the easiest and relatively safest ways to make financial killings, weighing whatever the pot odds may seem to be. So if money can be made by selling out the nation, that is what monied interests tend to do. So it is very dangerous for a citizenry simply to rely on elite oligarchs to "do the right thing." If a republic is to sustain itself as a representative republic, its thinking citizenry needs to be vigilant to preserve checks adequate to protect itself from being sold into debt slavery by oligarchs whose mores have been blinded by materialistic temptations.

Anonymous said...

human nature is easily corrupted by temptation, and access to opportunity to make a financial killing is a great temptation. The main factors seem to relate to security against loss versus opportunity to reap big. Money is easier to factor than morality. Especially when the moral philosophy reduces to something like, He who dies with the most expensive toys wins. I think oligarchs and their financial advisers are drawn to the easiest and relatively safest ways to make financial killings, weighing whatever the pot odds may seem to be. So if money can be made by selling out the nation, that is what monied interests tend to do. So it is very dangerous for a citizenry simply to rely on elite oligarchs to "do the right thing." If a republic is to sustain itself as a representative republic, its thinking citizenry needs to be vigilant to preserve checks adequate to protect itself from being sold into debt slavery by oligarchs whose mores have been blinded by materialistic temptations.

Anonymous said...

It's hard for me to make sense of our corrupt tax system. I don't think any domestic business or charity should be taxed, whether incorporated or not, except under sales and property taxes. And possibly under a progressive consumption tax -- where the business income is used not for business but to purchase consumption items for owners or officers. I would not immunize political contributions or lobbying expenses. I would tax "political consumption," either by imputing it to the business owner or CEO, or by imposing some kind of general revenue matching fund tax. Otherwise nothing will slow the gravy kickback train between elected officials and un-American interests. I do not think a representative republic can survive if ordinary Americans do not get the kickback gravy train under control. Look at all the resources and jobs and debt that are now owned by despotic interests. How much longer before we wake up? The central gov needs to be given a severe haircut. But this will never happen so long as ordinary Americans who just want fair rules and less interference, for all, go so disproportionately without representation.

Why are lofos represented, but not the decent, thinking, productive class? Well, lofos have a deceiving sugar daddy. Billionaires deceive lofos by promising lofos all the good tasting poison they want. Lofos eat it up, then become the cheap labor debt slaves of the godless billionaire class --- in perpetuity. Why do representatives also eat this poison? Because (1) they feel powerless to fight the tide (everyone else is doing it, so get yours while the getting is good), and (2) because human nature is to fall for addictive candy. As a 3rd reason, I would add: Because decent thinking Americans are kept divided. And the forums to which they go to assimilate their values, i,e., churches, have been politically neutered much more so than the Constitution requires. Thanks, ACLU and knowitall college twits. Not

Anonymous said...

The willingness to take advantage of workers by turning them into desperate wage competitors and debt slaves is a common human trait. Checks are needed. I don't think gov checks are the most important part of that. I think public shame is more important. For example, men who leave families destitute should be shamed. Unfortunately, we seem to be generating more and more people who are beyond shame. These people are loyal to one thing: personal pleasure and greed. They are hollow, godless, country-less, doped up elitists. They mark great social sickness. Indeed, it has become "racist, bigoted, misogynist, and politically incorrect" to shame any depravity or indecency, so long as it is that of a member of the rainbow gang. It is gov beholden to rainbow thugs beholden to manipulators that shamelessly pushes shameful standards.

Anonymous said...

Corporations cannot be jailed, but they can be fined. I wonder: If the right to spend money to lobby to buy political influence is inherent to free speech, and if corporations can thus spend money to speak freely concerning their interests in keeping a decent society for conducting business, then what about churches? Apart from religious interests, don't congregations have legitimate interests in decent secular society? Should congregations sponsored in churches have free speech rights to collect and disburse money for secular lobbying purposes? I presume they do, but that such contributions would not be tax deductible (and might imperil the deductibility of all contributions made to such church?). I wonder what part of lobbying expenses paid by corporations may be deductible as business expenses? Yet, Tea Party groups seem to have difficulty getting recognized for tax deduction purposes. It seems the deck may be stacked for oligarchs and against people of good will and good faith.

Anonymous said...

A lot of conservatives believe corporate money is needed to restore balance against commie and union money. I don't think that restores a balance. I think it cinches a RinoDino alliance against ordinary Producing Americans. I don't know how a balance can be restored. My faith is that it can. But I don't see a simple or clear path to it. I do think the path begins by pulling down some masks. Show the simple minded collectivists who they're really working for. And show thinking conservatives why godless oligarchs are working to hobble them. Get good faith thinkers thinking. Expose the con artists, all the way to the top. And learn why toleration of depravity is neither fair nor enlightened. Unless and until people of good faith come together to apprehend the problem, mere simplistic law cannot restore a balance of decency. That is why the godless oligarchy and aclu twitdom deem it so important to drive all spiritual forums underground (excepting Islam, which helps promote collectivizing destruction of liberty).

The central gov needs to be massively trimmed. Restore power to states and state alliances. End the income tax. End tax deduction incentives for charitable deductions. Allow greater involvement by churches, without calling every spiritual action an encroaching "establishment" of religion. Allow congregations to set up funds for seeking political influence along dedicated lines, so long as not directed by the clergy and so long as not exempted from consumption taxes. Otherwise, how can ordinary, decent Americans hope to compete, in terms of representational funding, against the oligarchic funded alliance of demons and derelicts? Remember, it was the faith of the Pilgrims that was required to seed the American adventure. Being pushed away from faith, we cannot assimilate to defeat the demonics and their pet derelicts.

Anonymous said...

I am not suggesting wealth redistribution. I am suggesting representational distribution. And less oligopolizing and more Americanizing of it. I don't know any simple solution. I do know I don't care for the path we are on. I don't trust an argument that we should just trust the crony market. The crony marketeers were in bed trading with the Nazis. Now they're in bed trading away the freedom and dignity of Americans. I do not believe that just trusting to the crony market will save America. We need to think about what is needed to defend decency against those elitists who contrive to trade with Nazis, Commies, and impostors pretending to be looking out for the collective herd.

Anonymous said...

I think we need some honest appraisals of the challenges. What are the various factors, and how should they be checked and balanced? Every action entails a reaction, every road taken entails roads not taken. We need to think about where we want to go and what may be the paths to get there. Do we want personhood to be genetically, robotically, computationally redefined, and if so, towards what ends in sight? Do we want to preserve a decent republic that represents the interests of ordinary, thinking Americans?

Yes, developing corporations and technologists will be more familiar with their problems and what may be needed in the way of regulations to help guide their new industries, to protect consumers, as well as to allow consumers to be farmed long enough to ensure reasonable profits or to impose roadblocks against potential competitors. That is crony corporatism, and it funds politicians who are willing to assist in the farming of consumers and it enriches politicians who demand inventive payoffs for treating voters as farm animals. As money talks and bs walks, the ideal of representative republicanism becomes a rude farce.

Americans are not farm animals, but they may as well be, given how they are not represented in the regulation writing business. Who, primarily, is driving the ridiculous tsunami of regulations? Is it the people at large, the poor people, the criminals, or the corporatists themselves? Don't most regulations help ensure oligopolists against start up competitors? Who wants these carbon credit banks? I don't think it's the people at large. Who wants comprehensive immigration reform that keeps our borders porous? Who funds, agitates, and creates the demand for this?

Why should the system be contrived to make it so much more necessary for a Representative to talk to his corporate funders over his constituency? Instead of back door deals, why not impose progressive consumption taxes on those who consume political influence by lobbying? Why should not the costs associated with lobbying representatives be more representatively spread?

Anonymous said...

Once gov pays for health care, food, shelter, education, and medical marijuana, every derelict will be as equal as every worker. Choomer Paradise.

Anonymous said...

LibDims have no respect for God, so they promote rulers to whom to do their penance. Being unworthy of liberty, the first thing they do is round up all gays and illegals to parade them through streets under banners for destroying dignity. Demon Liberation Theology. Get them off our backs and let them make their own nation to destroy.

Anonymous said...

Evil has become proud of being evil. Satan is proud to masquerade as Jesus. Liars relish competition to be the biggest liars. A pride of demons is rampant. Kewl. Knot.

Anonymous said...

The Sum of Prog Thought: Foul is white and fair is black.

Anonymous said...

More frontal assault against the American Ideal of liberty by the oligarchic funded alliance of rulers and those who want to be ruled in exchange for cheap bribes. If this evil alliance can sink America, it can sink liberty worldwide. We are beset on all sides by a contagion that is devoid of morality, that denies the existence of morality, even the existence of meaningful purposefulness. Those who have surrendered to the contagion, without depraved sex and drugs and abuse, would not know what to do with themselves.

Anonymous said...

A corporation, itself, cannot speak. When the author says "corporate freedom of speech," he means freedom for CEO's to try to buy voters and pols. I agree that trying to forbid that is counterproductive. However, I would tax the hell out of it. It should be considered a form of comsumption, and consumption that does not relate directly to business should be taxed --- progressively. Indeed, no political monetary contribution by anyone should be tax deductible.

Corporate interests have given us the lofo voters. Their endowed profs have "educated" them. Their pols have made easy the way to illegal immigration. Their corporations brought them here to exploit cheap labor and to moderate it with cheap bribes. Now, to moderate further, they seek to expand citizenship rights for corporations. None of this has anything to do with incenting the American Ideal. It all has to do with burying the thinking, producing class of Tea Partiers.

Tea Partiers are not going to be able to rely purely on funding from godless, country-less, money-is-my-philosophy oligarchs. If Tea Partiers cannot assimilate the Will and funding to defeat oligarchic funded lofos, then they surely will not assimilate the Will and funding to defeat oligarchic funded corporatists.

It does not help the cause for conserving liberty to argue for ways to make the oligarchy more politically powerful. What is needed is some cogent thinking for ways to stop the oligarchy from expropriating the liberty of Americans in exchange for the security of serving foreign corporate masters.

Anonymous said...

The problem for Americans is how to defend the republic from becoming owned and operated by un-American corporatists. If the trend is not reversed, then decent freedom and dignity for ordinary thinking Americans will be destroyed. The problem has developed because of bad influences along various synchronized fronts, so it will not be resolved along any one front. We are at a spiritual nadir. We are drugged to frenzied diversions. Our culture has been unraveled. Families have been replaced by gov overseers. Marriage has been de-defined. Borders have been made ridiculous. The Constitution has been whored out. Law has been disgraced into rationalization. Science has been made a handmaiden to ruling interests. Currency has been turned over to wizards of smoke and mirrors. Youth are indoctrinated to think real Americans are the enemies of humanity. Economists have convinced visionless Americans that it is ok to sell out the future of our resources and jobs to foreign corporatists whose common goal is to put an end to Tea Partiers' illusions of individual liberty.

This contagion of demons will not be cleansed away by simplistic wand waving. It will require sturdy exposure of every kind of deceit and conceit. It will require a mature understanding of spirituality and faith and decency. And it will certainly require forms for beating back un-American corporatist gangsters. Some kinds of protectionism are essential to survival. Without them, America cannot survive the contagion of conspiratorial corporatists that wishes to enserf us in exchange for the security of a mess of pottage. We have to stop pretending every kind of national and self protection is a sin.

Anonymous said...

Notice how being against state sponsored gay marriage is now equated with bigotry. Actually, it is far more principled than gay marriage. What is bigoted is trying to force people to equate property contracts with marriage. What is bigoted is for gay marriage proponents to advocate for gay partnership contracts to be sponsored by the state, while declining to advocate for polyamory communal contracts to be sponsored by the state. What is stupid is to call someone a homophobe. About as stupid as calling someone a pink fairie phobe. Here's the thing: people who are not fond of public prancing pretensers do not tend to fear public prancers. It's like the nation has taken big gorging gulps of stupid. Can I get an un-like for that?

Anonymous said...

Carter was not a handmaiden to a corrupt oligarchy. Obama is. Instead of pointing out how the media is tilted "leftward," it would be more informative to point out how it is tilted by the oligarchy against free thinking, productive citizens. IOW, to point out how the media is used by the oligarchy to farm the general citizenry. Then more people might understand that the need is not to move from republic hating Dinos to republic hating Rinos. Rinos hate the Tea Party. The need is to move towards the Tea Party. Most media are owned and operated by godless, grubby, evil, competing oligarchs who are not Americans, nor are they fond of the American Ideal or its proponent, the Tea Party. The media does not bash Obama, because he serves the oligarchy by warring on the Tea Party. If Obama started championing thinking, producing, decent Americans, then ALL media that is significant and owned by oligarchs would turn against him. Indeed, he would probably be "neutralized." Since Obama is twisted in a way that keeps Americans divided, he is useful to the oligarchy. Much of the upset with him is because he has not done more to bury the republic. The rest is more like farcical wrestling entertainment. In this corner, weighing x rubles, Vlad the Bad. In this corner, weighing y dollars, Obomy Mommie Jeans. So long as the oligarchs have their private islands, it's a farce on the farm.

Anonymous said...

If society rationalizes rights based on a "social contract," it is hardly inconsistent to rationalize rights based on a biological contract. Civilized decency requires that parents not leave infants to starve or freeze or be mauled or abused in the wilderness. Those who don't want to live in civilization can go live permanently with the bears. Until then, there should be not even a suggestion of a right to give infants over to the bears. The fact that infants are being treated as contractual property, devoid of natural rights, is indicative of just how little the oligarchy, which is behind the destruction of family based society, cares about human decency, much less godliness. We are in a demonic age.

Anonymous said...

The militant gay agenda would never have taken off had not the oligarchic nwo decided to embrace it. Why do they embrace it? Because money and power are their gods, and undermining the family in order to divide society and bring in regulatory government is how they mean to establish the nwo and push ordinary decent and thinking Americans into serfdom. Meanwhile, the la la land hedonists and dopers think it's all about how caring the ruling class is. The rapidity with which the federal judge handmaidens for the nwo have brought this off should be considered a dozen shots across the bow and a dozen more delayed bombs put in stow. Dope diversions have kept the shots across the bow from being heard. Next targets: Mop up health care, border annihilation, carbon leases, currency savings, consolidation of industrial ownership in extra-national corporatists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Anonymous said...

It takes one set of skills to entertain and convince lofos to elect you. I suspect it takes a superior set of skills and ruthless cunning to learn how to agglomerate great wealth. I just don't think Obama is all that. I think he's more of a mess making pigeon who usually does as he's told. I think a consensus has been built among elitists that they rule and that they need to continue to rule. At present, they use pigeons like Obama. That may change, as we move further towards set sistemas of dynasties. I don't think Obamacare was primarily about utopian idealism. I suspect it was more about what ruse to use in order to master the masses. I don't disagree that gov officials are sources of abuse. I am just not convinced that they are superior to powers behind the thrones. Tolstoy gave little credit to the Great Man idea. He did not seem to credit all that much power or will to Napoleon. If anything, Tolstoy seemed to analyze cause and effect more as an unfolding murmuration, even though that precise concept was not current during his time. I think a key signifier to our present situation of seeming central consolidation of power lies in loss of faith in a Guide for each person for how to live. That is, fewer people consider a spiritual Guide to be higher than any personage of pretended elitism. Maybe that's why youth, in search of a guide, seem to grovel or faint at Obama's feet.

Anonymous said...

Elitist liberals, who believe the middle class should surrender its liberty in exchange for the security provided by elitists, are the problem. Their foul corruption is real, regardless of whether it is intentional. They would have it that the consensus is resolved. The science is settled. The mass of icky monkeys has been trained. The hated Tea Party is routed. God is dead. Morality is a laugh. Elitists must rule. The masses must be equally divided and kept in their proper place. Marriage is de-defined. The family is a relic. Non-elitists cannot be trusted to properly train their children. The masses must be subjugated, as test monkeys, to be controlled with double blind cheap drugs and sex on parade. Anyone who disagrees is a racist bagger. Elitists mean only for the best. On behalf of the planet, shut up, they explain. Learn your place. And say, Thank you.

As Rick Perry noted, it's time for a "little" rebellion.

Anonymous said...

From http://www.theatlantic.com/int...

From The Atlantic, April 2, 2013 -- Who Really Runs Russia

Can you tell us more specifically how the term (sistema) applies in Putin's Russia?
Ledeneva: I call it in the book "methods of informal governance." It is a situation when institutions do not work and the leadership has to do something. And what they do then, they use things that do work in that region: networks, relationships, informal power, informal negotiations, and bargaining. That's what works. And that is exactly what's been used as these forms of informal governance to achieve targets that otherwise could have been achieved through formal channels, but those do not work.

....

We can preach the power of institutions or the rule of law as much as we want, but if people don't see the effects of those things for themselves, they would always opt for something that works. And what works in Russia is informal governance.

....

And finally, Dmitry Medvedev has said in the past and said again last week that he thinks it will take 100 years before Russia has a functioning democracy that respects the rule of law. It seems to me that you are equally pessimistic.

Ledeneva: One of my respondents said 300! Medvedev is a very different man than Putin. He said that Putin actually solved problems -- he finds instruments that works and uses them to get things sorted and to fix things. Whereas Medvedev is very legalistic and he actually saw for himself that things are very hard to change in Russia.

....
Profoky (a commenter on the online article) said: Recently I asked a prominent Russian, "Who really rules Russia? The oligarchs or the KGB?" Without hesitation, this famous person said "The KGB". And that's exactly the issue with the "sistema" -- it's a question of *whose* sistema, and while it's the KGB's sistema, it will be especially brutal and nasty and mean at every turn.

****

FOR MYSELF: I have no expertise on Russia, but I am educable. I have only what I read, and my trial experience regarding human nature. I agree that powerful officials and pols will be more able to push their agendas. I also believe they will find it in their interests to promote and align with a "sistema." People of a "sistema" may often be corrupted or assimilated in respect of concerns that are far from freedom and dignity. Such as concerns for acquiring power (aristocrats), wealth (oligarchs), or restoration of empire (despots). When the people and their sistema are corrupted, the effect of formal rules of government may be little more than as masks. According to Radio Free Europe, http://www.rferl.org/content/r...,
"Russia now has the highest level of wealth inequality in the world -- with the exception of a few small Caribbean nations where billionaires have taken up residency." And, "... what is most striking about Russia's richest citizens is that most have made their money by controlling companies in the natural-resources sector -- like gas giant Gazprom, oil companies, or metals firms -- and use their political connections with the Kremlin to maintain their fortunes." "So there does seem to be more political connections between the billionaires in Russia than there are in other countries."

Anonymous said...

FOR MYSELF: Whatever their source of influence, it seems to me that Putin and a few influential members of the Russian "sistema" are who run Russia -- regardless of whomever is elected.

*****

FOR MYSELF: I also claim no expertise on China, but I am educable about it, also. I looked at http://www.businessweek.com/ar.... Bloomberg BusinessWeek, September 26, 2012: China's Leaders: Who Holds the Real Power? According to it: "All Standing Committee members have patrons whom they have in effect promised never to harm." "First is the princelings faction, children of former top officials. Princelings have often used the positions of their parents to their advantage. They—or their family members—have frequently been enriched either through formal positions in large state enterprises ...." "If the new Standing Committee does try serious reform, it will face a stiff challenge from the establishment of which it is a part." From
http://www.businessinsider.com... "The government and the Communist Party are intimately entwined with the managers of China’s financial institutions. Working out who is really incharge is almost impossible."

From http://freebeacon.com/the-cast..., The Washington Free Beacon, June 7, 2013: "... serious commitments, passionately held, that signify membership in the political-financial-media caste that profits from mortgaging the American future, piece by piece."

*****
FOR MYSELF: Whatever their source of influence, I admit I do start from an assumption, that a few influential members of each "sistema" run each important government -- regardless of whomever is elected. However, I considerablly value your experience and insights. So, I will try to watch for developments concenring this important issue: Who runs the most influential govennments of today -- is it officials, elected officials, oligarchs, princes, criminals, or demons? (Given the unconscionable sell off of America, bit by bit, I am not prepared to say that it is not demons. ULOL --uneasy laugh out loud.)

Anonymous said...

Gay marriage sanctioned by gov uses gov to force people to pretend that that which is inherently unequal is equal. If it is ok for gov to force absurdity in the name of equality, then the idea of a line between negative and positive rights becomes de-defined meaninglessness.

Anonymous said...

Until Rinos do something effective to curtail corporate welfare, it is unlikely that Dinos will be convinced to do anything about lofo welfare. Until decent middle class Americans have a party that represents them, it will remain unlikely that anything will be done to stop the runaway welfare train. Evidently, both anarchists and NWO types see the coming breakdown as an opportunity. Time to find an ark.

Anonymous said...

I think it's more like a murmuration, where the central organizing faith has been distorted. Our political choices are limited to candidates who are not too antagonistic to the developing oligarchy. Competing thugs are represented. An ethos for assimilating freedom and dignity for the people at large is no longer represented. Little loyalty to it is carried in the hearts of most voters. Rather, voters are loyal to the corporate communities that are most proficient at deceiving them. They are easily deceived because they have abandoned a reconciling faith. Thus, they are easily pushed as fish into malignant schools, to be harvested by alliances of sharks below and birds of prey above. Under pretense of organizing the masses, the predators have organized and taken over every significant institution of control. They mean to do to us what is best for their interests, and we had best like it. Or else. Red line. Period. Say thank you.

Anonymous said...

The point of the NWO, I think, is to move on and beyond nations towards an open society or world nation. Given the wide variety of cultures, such a world could not be ruled by central laws, equally enforced. It will have to let subalterns among oligarchs rule alliances of local plunderers, as "make-up-the-rules-as-they-go-along" gangs within crime syndicates operating under cults of selfie-poster personalities. Ambassadorships are handed out as rewards for cronyism, as will ever more appointments be handed out. In China, is not the corporate princedom essentially the government? Was not Medvedev essentially Putin's puppet? Is Obama really smart or energetic or committed enough to be more than a puppet for thug oligarchs? Could Obama, by himself, without very invested oligarchs, have given us such a dishonest msm? Who really runs the FED?

Anonymous said...

Moral rights are absolute. Legal rights are contingent -- on respect for law. They become nonsense as law becomes widely disrespected. Much as the Monroe Doctrine becomes nonsense as Obama becomes widely disrespected. Then, might makes right, and gangs contend. If law is not based on good (moral) foundations, it soon becomes widely disrespected. Then the nation slips away from us, like sand. Only plunderers will assimilate to defend thug laws, whose legal foundation is based on nothing more than thug legalism. Which is what happens when "rspect" for a moral Reconciler dissolves. When that happens, laws become as inflated and worthless as the Weimar mark. Obama legalism sucks.

Anonymous said...

Re: occurring on many different fronts and on many different levels simultaneously

Indeed! Just look at the roles Hollywood actors seek out when they want to contend for awards and Oscars. Few roles for non-gay non-slave saints or heroes. How many slave, gay, knave movies do we need? Django, The Butler, WinfreyPurseGate, 12 Years a Slave, Capote, J. Edgar Hoover, Milk, Dallas Buyers Club. All these movies about victims of opperssion by "Whiteys." Blame game. The message: "See how I've oppressed myself? And you, Whitey, are guilty for having made me do it. For which I am not guilty. Because guilt does not exist. Except for you."

Without Whitey, there would be no guilt. The State needs to tie up Whitey. Then everyone else will be free, and there will be peace and happiness and security and crystal blue persuasion. /sarc.

Cognition for the masses is not just being kept dissonant. It is being dissolved.