Psychology of Totalitarianism:
Obama cannot reasonably be said to be merely stupid or shallow. More fundamentally, he is viciously stubborn. To comprehensively change or reduce America to his satisfaction, he can be EXPECTED to go so far as to hold our national security hostage. Is that not his message, repeatedly written in subtext, as he represses our energy independence, helps to enrich Arabs, declines to take effective measures to neutralize Iranian nuclear ambitions, doles out military information, etc. etc. etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Are (Libertarian?) billionaires supportive of Obama? Obama believes we need to be led (ruled) by our betters, and who better than cohorts of billionaires? Obama displays no particular affection for freedom or dignity of lesser people. Nor does he display fidelity to a higher Consciousness that may delight in expressions of freedom and dignity among individual perspectives of consciousness. Obama displays affection for why America, as a beacon for liberty, should be changed. For that purpose, Obama and billionaires who support him are deceptive and ruthless. They have learned.
Obama’s cohort has learned how easy it is to lead ignorant Dinos into willing serfdom, merely by affecting sincere promises, which they know will not be kept. Obama’s cohort has also learned how easy it is to lead trusting Rinos into the same serfdom, by affecting sincere concern for dissolving limits on personal influence and wealth … and by recruiting minstrels for singing praises for “free trade,” a euphemism for reshaping America and the world by neutering republics and nations, thus transitioning us to be divided and ruled by international cohorts of billionaires.
Dinos are deceived to believe Obama is working to effect Statism, and Rinos are deceived to believe the most wealthy are working to effect representative Republicanism. Dino’s are working for faux-Statism, and Rino’s are working for faux-Republicanism, which will in any case be run by a fluxing cohort of billionaires. If we do not get the cohort under control, both Statism and Libertarian Republicanism will become delusions.
“Free trade” means we no longer protect values under which we assimilated as a nation. It means we are to be made tolerant of whatever multi-culti flavors our rulers decide should be used to divide, reduce, and rule us. An international cohort, having bedazzled both Rinos and Dinos, is now at the doorstep for reducing America to become its tool. To the extent it succeeds, there will be no middle class of merit or relevant influence. There will be ruling class and ruled class. Fair? Free?
At A.T. -- Re: “We could impose a tariff proportional to the trade deficit on all Chinese imports. From then on, any actions taken by the Chinese government to exclude American products from Chinese markets would also exclude Chinese products from American markets. If the Chinese government were to reduce their imports of American products, the tariff rate would go up. If the Chinese government were to increase their imports of American products, the tariff rate would go down. When trade would reach approximate balance, the tariff would disappear.”
Well, whatever we’ve been doing, and whatever the economic dogma that has been rationalizing it, it has greased the way for far too much American industry to be shipped overseas, and it has made us too dependent on nations whose values are contrary to our own. In short, I do not much trust the conventional wisdom that has accompanied us to our present condition. I suspect abusers try to lull liberals with pie in sky bribes, even as they try to lull conservatives with notions of “free trade” that have greased us to where we are.
Did not Warren Buffet at one time propose a related concept, based on Import Certificates? See http: //en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_Certificates.
******
From A.T. -- Cedarhill said, “I have a trade imbalance with my grocer - should I impose a tariff on my home grown tomatoes which the grocer doesn't buy anyway? Good luck.”
I stake no claim to be an economist, nor am I aware that the “science” of economics is that much of a science. But I suspect the grocer analogy is a bit farfetched. After all, compared to your grocer’s general business, your purchases probably hardly make a blip on his radar. Moreover, most folks your grocer sells to don’t grow their own groceries, nor does your grocer likely buy anything he needs to run his grocery from his customers. Nor is your grocer’s economic health much tied to your economic health.
I understand the article to be suggesting that the U.S. should charge a proportionate import tax before goods from China are sold in the U.S., with the tax to go to America’s coffers, not to China’s coffers. If this causes more Americans to buy American, that would seem to be a good thing.
If your analogy were sound, it should apply also to China. Yet, China is flourishing, so I would want to find out whether China tends to charge higher import taxes on our products than we charge on its products.
Regarding “free trade,” I suspect Conservatives should be wary that they can be targets to be misled by selfish abusers, every bit as much as DimocRats.
Bottom line: I’m no economist, but I’m suspicious enough to ask a question: If U.S. style free trade is so great, why is it that our industry and trade balance are where they are?
See http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/hwlongfellow/bl-hwl-miless.htm:
"Brought out his snow-white bull, obeying the hand of its master,
Led by a cord that was tied to an iron ring in its nostrils,
Covered with crimson cloth, and a cushion placed for a saddle."
This "beast" cannot be killed (except maybe with a wooden stake through the heart). It has money, it owns or has infiltrated most institutions for leveraging trust and power (banks, media, academia), it owns or controls quite a number of lobbyists and pols, it has found ways to launder what used to be done only under the table, as bribes, and it laughs at our Constitution and at the concept of treason. It also has its grip on choke points that used to feed institutions for inculcating functional values. Small wonder the concept of families is becoming defunct. This beast sees America as weak prey, i.e., the next to be brought down by the wolf pack, to be sold, eaten, and shredded asunder.
It remains to be seen whether Conservatives yet retain heart to find and use the wooden stake. Presently, we tend to scatter at first whiff of p.c. We are learning, but still not enough of us apprehend the true evil of this beast. What we are talking about is a force that may quite likely wipe human freedom and dignity from the face of the earth for a millennium.
Every Congress person who supports this beast needs to be pasted with shame.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Eastern_Roman_Empire”
“None of his immediate successors had any particular military or political talent and the administration of the Empire increasingly fell into the hands of the civil service. Efforts to revive the Byzantine economy only resulted in inflation and a debased gold coinage. The army was now seen as both an unnecessary expense and a political threat. Therefore, native troops were cashiered and replaced by foreign mercenaries on specific contract.”
There is gross, contested, speculative (paranoid?), psycho history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jew_of_Linz:
“While Hitler was just six days older than Wittgenstein, they were two grades apart at the Realschule — Hitler was repeating a year and Wittgenstein had been advanced a year.
… Schopenhauer's account of the Unicity of the Will, in which despite appearances, there is only a single Will acting through the bodies of all creatures.
…. shows the methodical inadequacy of amassing a large quantity of almost-evidence in support of a hypothesis for which no evidence exists.”
From A.T., Re –IQ:
I believe in an actively engaged, higher source of Consciousness, even though I don't take IT to be saddled in perpetuity with but a single name or predestined agenda. That is, I don't take IT necessarily to be bound to just one system of natural laws. But when we measure IQ, don't we take a built in bias and assume there are correct answers that control reality, above God?
Doesn't the "nature of IQ tests" presume reality is ruled not by God but by Nature? For goodness sakes, why, then, should anyone be surprised that a test so biased may favor atheists? I have "evolved" back and forth during my life between theism and atheism. Regardless, those have been stances based on beliefs, not knowledge. No mortal "knows" the truth about God. Is NG presuming that those whose preferred stance is to doubt, rather than to believe, tend to have higher IQ's? If so, first off, is not the distinction between doubt and belief based more in subjective psychology than in hard empiricism? Second off, are not those who search out how hard God's design is reflected in Nature predisposed to expect to find "objective" answers, just as if God were not lurking in the background, quite amused?
To become proficient in a narrow field of science, must not one's researching and thinking eventually habituate one to act as if (i.e., believe) all events are wrapped up in a materialistic chain of cause and effect? Indeed, to end a scientific paper with an expression of awe towards God would likely doom it to the non-published heap. Bottom line: The NG analysis of IQ as discussed in the main article is, at best, adolescent, and certainly not "scientific."
Regarding (1) private Capitalism with charity versus (2) governmental Collectivism with enforced wealth spreading: Were we more united in good faith and good will, could either work as well as the other? No! If force were used, it would be because force was required. By definition, force is not required for charity. By historical experience with the human element, collectivism spreads poverty and misery, not wealth and health.
It seems Aristotle made much sense, perhaps in a two dimensional way. There are, however, more than two dimensions. We are not presently engaged in a simple, two-dimensional political game between haves and have nots.
To get a sense of what I am suggesting, ask: What billionaire does not support Obama? That should lead you to ask: How much divisive, entitlement-mongering is being stirred up by billionaires who support Obama? Ask: How much of the increased tax burden that will follow “spreading the wealth” actually be paid for by any such billionaires? Ask: How many thugs stirring up union strife are encouraged by billionaires?
What is going on has now passed beyond two dimensions, into a dimension of calculated, underhanded, cynicism. We are moving on, to reduce the middle class, so that there can never again be a war between haves and have nots. Rather, the haves will have a complete and irremovable chokehold against the wealth and health of all others.
If we were in a simple two-dimensional contest between haves and have nots, there would be more conservative billionaires. So, where are they?
Post a Comment