FASCIST CORPORATISTS:
What should you call it, when a regime seeks to control oil and carbon dioxide so as to let us produce just enough to live, barely, so long as we give it what it wants? Suppose high rolling fascist-collectivists start betting they can bend Uncle Sam to their will, now that their political fronts have been elected? Fronts who are inclined: to disburse punishments by withholding the stuff of life (or national defense); to disburse rewards by shaking bonus money from the fiat tree for those they like; to choose which corporations to allow to live as they like; and to destroy such corporate competitors as they do not like? Sure, we now have some lower level, expendable pols sweating. But have Soros and his coalition’s frontman, Obama, changed their course in any major way? Anyone seen them sweating?
What’s so hard about suspecting that billionaires who have learned to play dirty may well be inclined to sniff one another out and form new world coalitions, sort of like a worldwide Quickening, in which traditional national boundaries are only diversionary opium for the masses? What do you call it when an extra-national wolf pack of amoral, billionaire corporatists finds its entertainment by uniting to buy and cannibalize entire governments, countries, and industries? Would that really be what the common folk consider to be "socialism?"
Bottom line: If all we do is toss out Dinos in order to replace them with Rinos, who thinks Corporatists will not continue merrily on their course? There is a vast difference between an arms length marketplace for competing free enterprisers and thug enforced corporate favoritism. Corporatism is not free enterprise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I reviewed some general sources that discuss political “Corporatism.” The term is ambiguous, so that comprehension necessitates a bit of contextual mind reading. It may have been better had Ron Paul called Obama a FASCIST COLLECTIVIST.
“Well Meaning Meddlesome Enabler” would have been interesting, but it leaves out half the description. That is, I think Obama means ill, not well, for a good part of America. And the results of his policies will be far from good.
“Statist” seems less than perfect, because Obama’s ambitions extend beyond America, to saving the planet. He does not particularly care about protecting our borders, much of his support comes from abroad, and his policies will probably undermine our borders. (Plus, anarcho-syndicalists regard the State as an anti-worker institution.)
“Socialist” is not quite adequate, insofar as Obama cares less about State ownership of the means of production than he cares about power to control the means of production. Plus, most of Obama’s “educated” base snigger and see the word as a badge of honor, not quite the slur some Conservatives imagine.
“Corporatist” seems to have a nice ring, since it stings Obama’s supporters to be called anything that sounds remotely profit based. And, it conveys a message that Corporatist Rinos are as dangerously progressive as Unionist Dinos. Bush certainly greased Obama’s way. However, given the comments, “Corporatist” seems simply too ambiguous or misunderstood a word.
Consider -- http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/breaking_the_obama_code_the_gr.html:
“Obama knew that he needed California to win, and green billionaires knew that they needed Obama. A new loophole, the Unauthorized Independent Expenditure (IE), could make it happen. IEs can spend and raise unlimited money as long as there is no coordination with the candidate. An IE at its most brazen is SEIU's Committee on Political Education (SEIU COPE), formed in order to raise $26,009,685.53 in support of Obama and $3,163,276.29 to oppose McCain.”
….
“CPA endorses the expansive policies of the U.N. General Assembly's 2009 "Global Green New Deal." CPA also advocates $1 trillion of green investments per year in order to "re-deploy assets" and solve "worldwide financial instability."”
See also http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/the_dems_election_day_aces_in.html (excerpts from Politico): “The Democracy Alliance is a major avenue to help them achieve their goals. The roster of its growing membership consists of a list of billionaires and mere multi-millionaires who collectively hope to give upwards of 500 million dollars each year to further promote a left-wing agenda.”
See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNcFKo8xxno.
****
From A.T. -- The message? "I'm your guy. Let me lie to the sucker masses, and we'll clean them out after I get into the White House." [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/sowing_acorns_to_reap_the_bigg.html]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nODyj8H68TA&NR=1
http://zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004045.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPnpSpXY9Ac&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxBqAw75Bpo&feature=related
AMBIGUITY ABOUT CORPORATISM: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism: “In the United States, Republican President Ronald Reagan echoed Republican President Herbert Hoover and others who claimed that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs represented a move in the direction of a corporatist state.”
….
“Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism: The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
SYNDICALISM (Government Motors?): From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism: “Syndicalism is an alternative co-operative economic system. Adherents view it as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society democratically self-managed by workers.”
….
“Additionally, anarcho-syndicalists regard the state as a profoundly anti-worker institution.”
***
Not Hair Splitting: In context, this thing about the definition of “socialist” versus “corporatist” seems to be about more than hair splitting. What is at issue is appreciating the difference between making grand socialistic promises that are not intended to be kept versus intending to reduce middle class influence in order to facilitate the unimpeded corporate (hierarchical, non-nation based, extra-legal) rule by those elites who are in the know. I do not know whether Obama is that kind of corporatist, but he often seems to be one. If the evidence strongly suggests that he is, then the public should be informed.
*****
Re: "He hates business, profits, and most of all, successful business that makes profit!"
Do The Billionaires For Obama Intend That Their Wealth Should Be Re- distributed: Clearly, Obama hates middle class white America having any say in "cleaning up" what he calls their mess. But I am not quite sure he is against profit making by GE, Goldman Sachs, or the various billionaires who helped underwrite his campaign. My instinct is to expect that those billionaire corporatists expect profits, Obama expects them to get profits, and they did not invent Obama just so he could spread their wealth. It’s hard to believe Obama is such a force of nature that all his billionaires lined up to support him just out of fear of being eaten first. Rather, I suspect they foresee gain behind the curtain. The issue seems important enough such that persons familiar with the psychologies and dealings of Immelt, Soros, et al, should perhaps be asked to shed more light.
Oil, food, and air: Obama will let us get enough to live, barely, so long as we give him what he wants. Some high rolling fascist collectivists are betting they can bend Uncle Sam to their will, now that their political fronts can disburse punishments by withholding the stuff of life, disburse rewards by channeling fiat money as bonuses as they like, choose which corporations to allow to live as they like, and destroy all corporate competitors as they like. Sure, some lower level, expendable pols are sweating. But have Obama and Soros changed their course in any major way? Anyone seen them sweating?
SERIOUS: What the article shows is why even an airhead like Pelosi could be so confident when she responded to a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare by asking, "Are you serious?" http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/55971 I suspect the Supreme Court may decide based not on tight legal logic, but on wet fingers to the wind. This is because “tight logic” is becoming alien to law.
LOSS OF GOOD FAITH: Insofar as our law becomes degraded of sensible distinctions, we become unable to use law to enforce sensible distinctions. This is what comes of trying to regulate too much with law. This is partly why unruly Progressives have come to prefer law to religion, when it comes to convincing people to behave. After all, for ruling the unruly, how can more sensible lines be found in reams of law than in morals of Progressives? At least religion used to have power to shame. But Progressives are mutinous against shame, whether legal or religious.
LOSS OF SUSTAINABLE GOOD WILL: Insofar as our debt has become unsustainable, what about our mounting monuments of nonsensical regulations? Can a system of laws be crafted that is fine enough to constrain an immoral people, or must an immoral people fall to an arbitrary hierarchy of despots? Can our Supreme Court save us from ourselves, by making unruly people confine themselves to laws that can be made sense of?
DELAYING ACTION: We have become so perverse; I see no simple fix that can be made by our Supreme Court. At most, finding pretext to strike down Obamacare may buy us time to repent. But once good faith and good will fail, there is no law, and no mere interpretation of law, that can fix us. If five on the Supreme Court think the facts of Obamacare are so extreme, and that the populace is so ready, then they may help us with a delaying action against Obama-ocracy. Our republic is hanging by threads.
******
People who are endowed or trained to be smart with math, symbols, and laws tend to look for solutions in similar terms. But I suspect most of our problems are primarily inspirational – beyond confinement to math, symbols, or laws.
SLEIGHTS OF WORDS: Each appearance of an “Elite-Idiot” is a common occurrence, not at all oxymoronic or odd. There is cyclical survival value in being an Elite-Idiot. (Maybe it has to do with Gaia’s need to thin herds?). In any event, Elite-Idiots are fond to “teach” grand delusions in terms of empirical certainty, such as global warming, gene of altruism, goodness of big government, functionality of Marxism, irresistibility of world governance, and greediness of free enterprisers. In that, they easily and often deceive themselves (and the rest of us) with “sleights of words,” merely by forgetting, or contriving to omit, to mark switches from singular to plural, from parts to wholes, from sub-contexts to more encompassing contexts, from subparts to fallacies of composition. Note: Adding mathematical tricks to notions built on foundational fallacies perpetuates trickery even to the point of self deceit; it does not deliver our moral rule to “science.” Progressives and educators accord far too much respect to “scientists” who conceit to know to “scientific” certitude what is in our moral best interest, even to the sacrifice of common sense.
Individualists tend to care more about producing than governing. Elitists can't produce, so they care more about governing. There's a reason elitists are called (Humpty Dumpty) eggheads:
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
Obviously, there is a good faith, commonsense place for government. But it is limited. It should regulate against abuses to preserve the market, not to replace the market. Obviously, the morally corrupt should not be given free rein to plunder the gullible, ignorant, elderly, infirm, or innocent. Just as obviously, those who make corrupt and addictive choices are not entitled to demand that society must support their habits.
Common sense evolves with changing contexts, so there is no absolute list of governmental regulations that can preserve common sense. Rather, common sense relies on a culture of good faith and good will. For a good while, Judeo-Christian values provided America with a basis for assimilating and propagating good faith values. Materialists, being unsatisfied without absolute answers in godless natural and artificial law, have spurned all contextually figurative values as set out in all sacred traditions. And so they would push everyone they can into a wilderness trek, to seek absolute, final answers to moral issues in pure empirical based, "scientific" reasoning.
The faith of elitist eggheads leads them to denigrate all receptivity to faith in meta, higher intuition and empathy. Believing God is dead, they seek to fill the vacancy. Until these eggheads study more of the "empiricism of history" and think more about the unknowable opportunity costs entailed in each and every moral choice, they will fail to repent or retrace their steps, to re-find their way. Meantime, follow these materially equalizing and equivocating collectivists only if you want to explore the land of depraved madness.
Must we forever alternate between empowering idiots or despots? We spent the first half of the 20th century digging out from depressions and wars. Had we sensible leadership, we had a window of opportunity whereby we could have made the 21st century a glory of enlightenment. Instead, we have now reactivated the same sort of insanity that prevailed in the first half of the 20th century -- but with bigger weapons. We keep getting idiots or despots, when what we need are common sense and sustainable moral values. Without sustainable moral values, going green and expecting to save the planet is bonkers. But that is what passes for leadership now in D.C. The world is aflame, and Pelosites want to open our borders, cripple our industry, and beg forgiveness of despots.
Look at who we kowtow to, versus who we insult; look at who we appoint to high office, versus who we investigate and threaten. The mindset is not that hard to understand, to anyone who has raised toddlers and adolescents. Almost all our leaders have been so sheltered and spoiled that they never had the kinds of experiences within the necessary windows of opportunity that are essential to developing practical, responsible, moral prefrontal lobes. We have put brats on the fast track. We have put the buttons of power under the fingers of the kids of Southpark. We have built their esteem with gold stars, and now they think they are elite. Somewhere along the line, adults began to fail to complete the difficult job of raising a responsible next generation.
The hellish thing is: multiple generations of derelicts and reprobates are now in charge. The good thing is, we are beginning to know it, so now we can make a noise fit to be heard in hell.
****
There’s glory in the words, “interstate commerce!”
http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm:
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
It is sad how easily we deceive and self deceive with sleights of words. Each appearance of an “Elite-Idiot” is a common occurrence, not at all oxymoronic or odd. There is cyclical survival value in being an Elite-Idiot. (Maybe it has to do with Gaia’s need to thin herds, or with barbarians' needs for apologists?) In any event, Elite-Idiots are promoted who are fond to “teach” grand delusions in terms of empirical certainty (such as global warming, gene of altruism, goodness of big government, functionality of Marxism, irresistibility of world governance, and greediness of free enterprisers).
In that, they easily and often deceive themselves (and the rest of us) with “sleights of words,” merely by forgetting, or contriving to omit, to mark switches from singular to plural, from parts to wholes, from sub-contexts to more encompassing contexts, from subparts to fallacies of composition. Note: Adding mathematical tricks to notions built on foundational fallacies perpetuates trickery even to the point of self deceit; it does not deliver our moral rule to “science.” Progressives and educators accord far too much respect to “scientists” who conceit to know to “scientific” certitude what is in our moral best interest, even to the sacrifice of common sense.
What is about to happen is a sinking and leveling of the middle and lower classes. Throughout, the barbarian rulers running this show and propping elite apologists for it will always take whatever measures they deem necessary to ensure their continued receipt of tribute. Unfortunately, those who are of talent, energy, and good will are surrounded, as always, by ignorant and easily bribed Dinos and by bi-political reprobates who seek short term rule over everyone else.
At one time, most American families consisted of a breadwinner, a homemaker, and two or more children. Now we have more broken families, unemployed, irresponsible, and doped up parents (many on welfare or in prison), kids farmed out to daycare or pre-K, "educators" teaching the value of having no values, government about to fund partial birth abortions, and filth being firehosed on our kids by all manner of media. This is the new liberal utopia. So now we have a lot of unpatriotic citizens who want to erase our borders, bust our government, disrespect assimilating family values, and re-weight words with so much p.c. as to blur all sustainable meaning. This is what we have inherited from Progressives. This is what has been delivered to America by the people who fear too much churchy influence on how we inculcate values. This is what has come of accepting moral instruction from libertines, who never tire of telling us their values are just as good as anyone's. Except for brief periods, we have not had conservative government for 55 years. We have had an unmitigated crap sandwich of irresponsible "progressivism" (aka, let your kid be Prez). Ain't it great!?
Every concerned Conservative may consider sending something like following questionnaire to every D.C. office holder and candidate, to wit:
Dear Representative,
I know you are smart enough to understand the temptation and competition among power mad, multinational corporations and investment groups to leverage inventive, under-the-table means for buying control of America, in order to cannibalize or reduce America to status of hand maiden.
I know you are smart enough to understand the bi-political advantage to such corrupt entities (aka “elites”), as they compete for power to rule over dupes by conferring opportunities to vote to every resident of the U.S. -- regardless of legality of entry, history of felonious violence or treasonous fraud, state of ignorance, vulnerability to cheap political bribes, or alliance with enemies of America.
I know you are smart enough to understand the advantages to such corrupt entities in: agglomerating and centralizing control by writing targeted executive orders; executive deeming of interpretations of statutes; controlling the propaganda and education agenda; controlling Pavlov media and academia (“Here boy, fetch!”) for disseminating the propaganda and education agenda; controlling and expanding the money supply; and writing regulations and orders for having the general public pay for the privilege of reducing itself to the control of a bonus-fed, international hierarchy of “those bi-political chameleons and power wielders who know best.”
I know you are smart enough to apprehend how that is easily justified to the masses, by dividing clan against clan (Louisiana Purchase and Nebraska Negotiation) and uniting all against a made up villain, i.e., European white males who have propagated cultures for respecting freedom of expression and enterprise.
I know you are smart enough to apprehend the need, for those who compete in the game of domination of others, to fast track those useful-idiots and true-believers who are committed: to reducing minds of targeted villains with political correctness; to infusing minds of activists with divisive grievances.
SO MY QUESTION IS THIS -- of those who are of the producing middle class, who retain capacity to think: Who do you think you’re fooling?
Decent civilization is possible only within mutually acceptable, police-able constraints. A civilized society does not avail nukes to felons, malignant narcissists, madmen, or lovers of reigning in the apocalypse. A police-able world cannot afford for crazy-loon reprobates, dictators, and pirates to have nukes at their fingertips. Somehow, The Won never got the memo. One may think that WWII should have taught us something. Somehow, we lost the lesson. Indeed, having wandered beyond acceptable constraints, mere logic will not likely help us. After all, we're the ones who allowed a malignant narcissist to get his fingers on the biggest arsenal of all. If we are not to blink out, so called Rationalists and Secular Humanists will have to grow up and learn to dig deeper than mere logic. That dig will not avail an answer based on redistributing material equality.
America has abundant resources to become energy independent. For what good reason are we failing to become so? Oil is fungible. Why do we want to remain dependent on outside oil in any way that is calculated to enrich regimes that want to destroy us? What corruption is going on under the table? What is D.C.'s excuse for the oil b.s.? Why do D.C. powers-that-be want to weaken both Israel and the U.S.? Who do these low lifes think they're fooling?
What is the source of the ethos for free expression and enterprise that defines American exceptionalism? Is it in unassimilated minorities? Why is America rapidly turning into Amerika? Is it because we have slow-tracked individualists and fast-tracked collectivists? Well, duh! That's what's happening on a group level.
So what's happening on the individual level? Well, if you're a Conservative white male, what are your chances of being fast tracked in any government program, unless you learn p.c. speak and celebrate affirmative action? Well, it's back to the re-education camp for training in cultural sensitivity. We are killing the goose.
Nod to lyrics of Paul Simon: “And if I was president / The minute congress call my name / I’d say "who do, / Who do you think you’re fooling? / I’ve got the presidential seal / I’m up on the presidential podium / My mama loves me / She loves me / She get down on her knees and hug me / Like she loves me like a rock.”
Learn it, know it, live it! Obama is a calculating liar and a passive-agressive appeaser. I'm unable to say that he is more truthful or insightful than Imageddon. His face on tv is salt in patriots' wounds. To be American is to be pro free expression and enterprise. Obama is pro collectivist control. There's about 180 degrees of difference.
This is what comes of justifying affirmative action as a basis for electing a president. This is what comes of committing individualists to reeducation camps (aka "college") to repent of their "sins" against collectivists who have imposed p.c. and sensitivity fences to put America on the fast track to Amerika. If to "be cowboy" is to admire protectors of individual expression and enterprise over p.c. sensitivities, then "let her rip."
There are two ways to deal with bullies. One way is to use deploy p.c., to try to shelter kids so they never have to confront bullies. The other way is to teach kids how to confront bullies. I doubt either way saves more lives or sensibilities. The first way may shelter kids awhile, but it will leave them unequipped, except to melt the first time they encounter an ahole. And aholes will be encountered.
If the cost of the first way is to reduce America to nothing but girly men, then that is too high a cost. But that is the cost of appeasing Imageddon. 2012 cannot come soon enough to rid ourselves of the sissygirls now running D.C.
Does it seem that American servicemen are, indirectly and unwittingly, being used as mercenaries, paid for by dirty Saudi money via under the table bribes in order to defend Sunnis against Shiite domination, while keeping America's nose tied to fungible Saudi oil so Saudis can continue to pay the under the table bribes? If so, Obama (and Bush?) may as well be Sunni Muslims.
Should we wipe away the idiotic idealism of both Progs and Rinos and simply follow the money? Do any leaders of consequence give a tinker's damn about saving the planet, jihad, spreading democracy, or spreading wealth? Or are those just talking points for misdirecting useful idiots and assorted true believers? To divide, feed, and thus rule various cults that are led by usefully idiotic mullahs, imams, and professors of elitism?
What’s going on? Are powers that be establishing bipartisan gangs that can tip “comprehensive solutions?” Is this tied to being hooked on dirty Saudi money? Are they promising Saudis with unwitting American servicemen, to fight proxy wars in exchange for dirty Saudi money?
Are powers that be simply fashioning different stories for different cults, depending on their ideologies? Are they telling “freedom idealists” this is to spread democracy? When that doesn’t work, are they telling “security idealists” it’s to provide stability against the spread of Shiite domination from Iran (which may be true, but should be manned by Saudis)? While powers that be are enjoying the Saudi money, are they enriching Saudis so they can keep the money flowing? Are they stopping energy development at home, so they can keep the rest of us paying for Saudi oil, so Saudis can keep piping them with corrupt money under the table? Are they telling “environmental idealists” we’re stopping home production of oil in order to go green and save the planet? Are they supporting idealists of atheism, sexual promiscuity, open borders, Muslims, and government raised children in order to undermine any possible interference from ordinary Americans? Are they undermining Israel in a corrupt bargain with Saudis, so Saudis do not begin buying nukes? Are Saudis feeding “Wahhabi idealists” just to keep the whole kettle boiling?
Well, does it seem various idealists are being kept stupid and divided? So the program can continue to be juggled, to keep the drug of money and power flowing?
Traditional Americans are not at risk just because of Dinos. There’s some bad pookey behind the Rino camp as well. There’s bad bi-political shenanigans going on. Ordinary Americans of good will need to take off the rose colored glasses and follow the money.
To quote Reagan, "Facts are stupid things." It's about image. Persona. Those who control image and persona. Those who control how information is squeezed into the 20 percent who decide elections but who are generally uninformed. You know -- the people who buy products because sports personalities recommend them. It's about competition between advertising marketeers. Get a candidate who's clean, articulate, well groomed, and appealing to the coalition that's funding the advertising campaign. Then sell out to raise money to beat the band. Master how to seem like you're for anything each group says, without really saying much of anything.
Seems we're stuck on stupid. But we can't "out stupid" Progs without becoming Progs. We have to figure out how to get more Americans unstuck from stupid.
Were Obama an unknown quantity, he would be a marketeer's dream. But that time is over. Obama has a record now. We know who he is, and we know who his friends are. Sure, the Prog Machine will be able to convince a portion of the ignorant, deciding 20 percent that we've never had it so good and that Obama is the best President ever. But it won't be enough. Problem is, that's for 2012.
For the coming midterms, it may not be so easy to tar Dems with Obama's economic record. Especially if their opponents are Rinos.
Isn’t economic fulfillment best pursued by allowing energies to organize according to naturally unfolding interests of citizens? Isn’t it nanny nattering to expect that roadblocks put in the way of economically assimilated societies will increase “headroom” to allow growth for societies that are simply not inclined to the pursuing of economic “progress?”
Wouldn’t catch-up be better facilitated by respecting impoverished nations’ choices for enhancing their economies in respect of their own interests? Not every society envies Western materialism. Dominant factions sometimes do NOT value material-based economic pursuits.
Those who pretend to want “progress” for masses, to “drag them into modernity,” mainly seek to advantage their own egotistical needs to command idolization. They need to see themselves as servants of Gaia, Higher Morality, or of Spreading the Wealth. Their object is to deceive others to believe (or at least to force others to profess) that lives are thus made better. I suppose this helps satisfy elite egoists’ narcissitic needs to see themselves as being of superior goodness (or godness). Having convinced themselves that God does not exist, Obamanots presume to fill the vacancy.
Insofar as America is built on freedom, the last thing ordinary Americans want is leadership that places unnecessary roadblocks in order to foist change upon the rest of the world -- which it may not even want.
Unfortunately, various “Sorosouls” have learned how to twist idealism of gullibles and idiots. Sorosouls have monopolized enough control of institutions of money, media, and mind-melding in order to package and sell evil as if it were good. Middle class Americans have been blindsided because of their own good faith and good will. Having unwisely allowed their best traits to be turned against them, they find themselves ensnared in an evil web, with lies storming down from nearly every direction.
*****
Sorosouls are Big Dan: "I don’t get it, Big Dan." (See middle of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDd_ryixqyA.)
If Progs prevail, the Constitution may as well be a mask for a masquerade. What the powers-that-be need to fear is this: What will happen to them once most of the people figure out they are being fed a steady diet of b.s.? That will be the point that will tip us, either to regain our senses or to embrace despotism. What the Progs need to ask themselves is this: "Are we yet strong enough and ready to impose despotism?"
The Dem-Prog party has always consisted of those-who-know-best "teaching" bigoted entitlement mongers, both being manipulated by those-who-would-replace-God. It has always needed a faux-villain. In the days of the KKK, the faux villain consisted of minorities. Now that the minorities compose an easily led and reliable voting base of its own bigoted entitlement mongers, the same equation remains in place, with one change: Now the faux villain is white Protestant males, aka "Wasps." The Dem party is bigoted demogoguery writ large. Almost always has been, and always will be.
Among egghead elitists who want to advance progressivism, socialism, collectivism, and communism wherever they can, I wonder how many of them have actually lived under a regime during a time when detailed collectivist solutions were enforced? You know, like the USSR, China, N. Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina. Like Ayn Rand. BTW -- if these eggheads are not communist wannabes, why do they adopt heroes like Mao, Che, and Fidel? Why do they not speak out against communism? Why do they facilitate weakness in the face of all manner of totalitarianism? Bottom line: these are spoiled adolescents of little real world experience who want to play dress up and audition to be God. Nothing a trip to the woodshed at age 9 would not have cured. Now that their stupidity has metastasized, it's too late to fix it. Now we have to kick it the curb and keep it under close watch.
Collectivists, seeing no God, seek a despot to fill the vacancy. During the Revolutionary War, Individualists saw they had to unite against despotic tyranny or die. Now, Collectivists want to unite to bring despotism back. Sure, they want to call it enlightened democracy under the guidance of those who know best. Well, if it's mere "guidance," why is so much of it crammed down?
Prog Rulers are interested in their own security, but falsely pretend to be providing for your security. They are not able to intend the greater good, because they have neither intuition nor insight for what the greater good could possibly be.
Once “The List” is accomplished, how will the result be different from Communism? Insofar as Obama, Hillary, and friends lie and say they are not socialists, how is it that accomplishing their list is not socialism?
Here’s the deal: The bigger the government, the more the taxation. The more the taxation, the more the opportunity for incumbents to spread political bribes. Thus, Big Gov becomes a one party rule of incumbents. Meaningful controversy becomes illusory, with representatives like Stupak pretending to be opposed to particular kinds of legislation, but in reality merely holding out to tear out their pieces of meat, like little piranhas. Democrats become Dinos, Republicans become Rinos. All become progressive Ainos. Since Reagan, we have been grafted with nothing but Progressives.
Given one party rule, lobbyists are quick to figure it out. So now we have a behind-the-curtain N.W.O. of lobbyists, coalescing to fund and control one-party rule by Progressives. The vacuum of leadership has filled with those who have cornered the lobby market, while politicians have been reduced to babbling front men. This filling of vacuums (bribe niches) is the modern mode of political evolution.
Many Conservatives believe all evolution is subject to guidance by a synchronizing, meta consciousness, aka, God. For those who so believe, the present state of affairs offers abundant challenges to participate in such guidance, by working to wrest control of politics away from the behind-the-curtain hierarchical rule under the one-party despotism that masquerades as Progressivism.
Progressives say they want to use bigger government to serve you. The reality is, they want to use bigger government to serve themselves. So who are the Progressives? Well, they are (1) the behind-the-curtain rulers, (2) their usefully idiotic elitists, and (3) their easily bribed entitlement-mongers. So, on whose backs is this “Progressivism” carried? Who works to pay for the medical marijuana that is enjoyed by California and Progressive dopers? Guess.
The organism that is America has opened itself to pirate parasites, and now it struggles to sustain itself. So how long can America live, given her accelerating infestation with grinning parasites, heretically proclaiming that the Gospel mandates that governments must spread wealth to parasites?
A quick mind tickle: Suppose Scotus were to reconsider and overturn Roe v. Wade. Suppose a Prog Congress “retaliated” by passing a national act, finding a need to preempt States in order to require that no State can outlaw a woman’s right to choose, finding also that protecting a woman’s right to choose is important to a fair regulation of interstate commerce. After all, a woman who is able or willing to travel or move out of State in order to get an abortion should not be availed an unfair advantage in interstate commerce over a woman who is not. And think of the impediment to managerial competition, were a woman who is on the corporate fast track not allowed to choose to obtain an abortion.
Question: Is Congress, under the Commerce Clause, entitled to regulate so as to require that no State can forbid abortions under certain conditions? If the Commerce Clause is that magical, would it even matter whether Scotus overturned Roe v. Wade? Compare http://article.nationalreview.com/269479/moral-federalism-and-hr-760/kimberly-hendrickson.
Racial minorities remain quick to cry racism, abhorring any badge of the peculiar institution of slavery under which despots ruled blacks. But what is socialism, if not a system to allow massa’s who know best to rule? Why do so many false liberals call Conservatives racists for simply wanting to protect everyone from a reversion to slave-like serfdom under a socialist system that is ruled by despots? It is the socialistic “liberals” who don’t know how to preserve lines of freedom, not Conservatives. It is Socialists, not Conservatives, who would enslave most of us to despots. How racist is that?
First, an amoral middle class cannot defeat a large class of greedy dupes led by practiced connivers with access to obscene amounts of money.
Second, given the way our banking system creates money out of debt and then directs obscene bonuses to the corporatist hierarchy, the fiat authority to keep the producing class as serfs to the corporatist conniving class is unbounded.
I see in Drudge that Ron Paul realizes Obama is NOT a SOCIALIST, but a CORPORATIST. Indeed, I doubt there has ever really been any such a thing as socialism. Indeed, within the Progressive Alliance of Dinos and Rinos, it is only the Greedy Gullibles who believe in socialism. The Practiced Connivers who align with them as “Progressives” are not Socialists, but Corporatists. They plan to rule based on media and banking fiat and deceit. Those who see through this shell game, if they become too irritating after the conniving hierarchy has become too strong, will simply be eliminated.
Anytime a semblance in balance appears regarding access to wealth and influence, the corporatist hierarchy will merely do another fiat dance, to shake more money and power out of the fiat tree.
The only significant redistributing going on is this: The Middle Class is being leveled, and the Conniving Class is consolidating fiat power.
Ironically, many among the producing middle class who disdain uniting under higher mindedness under God fail to see how we have been corralled under a kind of lower mindedness, i.e., a secular mind invention: the central banking and information propagating system. Whether it be under higher or lower mindedness, either way, we seem bound to live under self-fulfilling mentalisms.
If socialistic ideologues are really and primarily interested in social justice and saving the planet, then why have not Putin, Chavez, et al, cooperated with Obama to reign in the ambitions and terrorism of fascists such as Ahmadinejad? In that they have not, one begins to think the real goal of socialists is less about social justice than about riding the easy life on the backs of middle class producers. The rulers want to ride in style, and the layabouts just want to ride in leisure.
Post a Comment