There is no such thing as Democratic Socialism as a stable form of government. The only stable choices for government are either oligarchy or republic. http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D2_21-CJy9I. But without an informed and decent electorate, not even a republic is stable. Eternal vigilance by a decent and informed citizenry is the price to preserve a republic. This is why despotism under oligarchies is the default position for the governance of mankind. This is why "socialism" is a one word oxymoron. It is oligarchy, not socialism. This is why converting America to socialism will necessarily convert America to oligarchy.
Indeed, behind the curtain, that is what is happening. But this is not nation based oligarchy. It is a cross borders, international, corporatist based oligarchy. United Nations is a two word oxymoron. Independent nations do not unite. And international law is not law. (Not reliable law, anyway. Not in times of crisis, when it is most needed.) Indeed, we have a person now nominated to our Supreme Court who does not even think much of Constitutional law. So who will run this new international, borderless society? Well, what's the default? We will be under a worldwide oligarchy, i.e., an oligarchy of corporatists. Indeed, their grip is quickening. Who owns and runs: media, banking, political parties, regulators? And soon, our Supreme Court?
Once America's electorate becomes indecent or uninformed, the republic for which American patriots sacrificed countless lives will perish. And with it will perish human dignity, freedom, even freedom of thought. We will revert to a state of being that is more like zombiehood than the potential of being human.
The question that needs to be put to American Dems, who are so fond to consider themselves to be victims and entitled children, is this: To forcibly take for ourselves an equal share of wealth (or poverty), are we willing to blow out the light of liberty?
If there is no freedom to negotiate and compete for your own wages and prices, because the government has preemptively taken those functions, then what becomes of your capacity to pursue happiness for yourself? And what does history teach about the capacity of collectivist government to spoon feed your happiness to you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Re: thinking about Obama's 47 percent.
Much of Obama's base is hard corps; it has been conditioned and driven to perceive itself as needing to be protected and as being entitled to be protected. Its members perceive those who "feel their pain" as being natural providers of that protection.
Much of what drives perceptions is not what is factually presented, but what is seen to be emotionally presented. Engineers tend to be more objective minded and fact based. That's why a personal-injury plaintiff's attorney will hardly ever fail to strike an engineer during jury selection. Because engineers are better able to keep sympathy at bay and decide cases based on facts. This is also why engineers tend to be Conservatives. But Obama’s sympathy-laden scripts will not be defeated with cold facts and logic.
Conservatives will have to tie in the valid and true stories that make their facts appealing. We will not salvage much of Obama's base without giving that base emotionally satisfying reasons to find the Conservative narrative appealing. We are not going to change feelings of victimhood and entitlement merely by reciting cold facts. We are going to have to facilitate an emotionally satisfying narrative, help the downtrodden see its power, and show them that we really do care about their opportunities to access its power.
When Obama's base sees that many Republican businesses want its poor only so cheap labor can be harvested, that is a much more counterproductive message than Obama's message, which is that he wants their voting power. This is why it is stupid for Republicans to advocate for lax border enforcement.
In any event, Conservatives will not win over Obama's base by calling their leaders' ideas stupid (at least, not in front of their base). Conservatives and Republicans will have to (1) really care, (2) show they care, (3) without bribing for votes. We are going to have to show Obama's base that they should vote for Conservatives because (1) it’s the right thing to do, (2) they will feel better about themselves and present a better example for their children for having done so, (3) we will respect them for doing so, and (4) we will heartily welcome them.
We must actually and actively invite them along paths that best lead to their success --- not in grifting for handouts, but in achieving self respect for having earned their way. Example: When a Conservative-operated small business does not find that an interviewee matches its needs, it may help at least to invite him to consult about compatible opportunities that may exist locally with other businesses. IOW, exercise human outreach; don't just close doors. IMHO.
As an American Conservative, regarding word-smithing and profiling:
Moral Boundaries and Spirituality -- I’m not anti-tolerance; I am anti-destruction of foundations of American freedom and dignity.
Diversity -- I’m not anti-minorities; I am anti-hyphenation among Americans.
Wealth -- I’m not anti-economic safety net; I am anti-sloth addiction.
Environment -- I’m not anti-environment; I am anti-political sabotage via abuse of environmental science.
Billionaire Societies -- I’m not anti-enterprise; I am anti-absolute corruption of absolute power.
Sabotage – I’m not anti-foreigners; I am anti-enemies of American liberty.
Wordcrafting -- I'm not anti-respect for sensibilities; I am anti-shell games.
Profiling – I’m not anti-profiling; I am anti-irrational profiling.
Is there a single influential Democrat who does not toe Pelosi's line and profile Conservatives and Libertarians as racist, hypocritical, abusers? Is there a single influential Democrat who is not "all in" in an effort to tie down the liberty of Americans in order to serve masters who wish to profit by selling off America's identity as an independent nation?
If not, how is it profiling, unfair, racist, or hypocritical to recognize the Democrat Party as the face of anti-Americanism? Does any reputable survey show that Obama has governed by seeking to legislate policies that are not opposed by the significant majority of Americans? If not, how is it astro-turfing, when citizens opposed to Obama make their presence known? Has any influential Conservative sought to reduce the equal opportunity of all Americans? Among Democrats, what percentage of blacks voted for McCain? Among Conservatives, what percentage voted for Obama, to try to heal racial tensions?
I believe there are Democrats who are decent people. But I also believe their party is under the control of indecent puppet masters. BTW, among puppet-mastering, billionaire investors in buying and controlling politicians and governments, what percentage invest most heavily in Democrats?
You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows; you don't have to be a mechanic to know which political persuasion is quickest to resort to "keying" cars displaying bumper stickers; and you don't have to be a psychologist to know which party produces and curries favor with the most adolescents, criminals, and narcissists.
Well, the Shadow Party is far enough out of the closet to show that the Shadow is a “Smart Alec Hoag” -- with the face of Obama. Narcissists of the world, unite! Oh what multi culti! The Smart Alec In Chief needs you. Come, let us plunder together. Dinos, Rinos, Progressives, Human Secularists, Godless Commies, and Woody Allen neurotics. And Liars, Cheaters and Swindlers, oh my! Murderers, Beheaders, and Mobsters, oh what high finance! Union thugs, Community organizers, and Entitlement mongers, come get in some faces! Science usurpers, Valor stealers, and Anti America sympathizers, come all who may! Billionaire opportunists are buying, so come sell out your country, your children, and freedom of conscience – forever -- for a few more bits of very elite bling.
Because they laugh at truth, they spit on justice. To top this, they tell us to get out of the way so they can "clean up." Whatever the reigning philosophy for rearing children, it's broken.
It's become too easy to blame corruption on the system. It's not the system that's corrupt. It's the people we have seated to run it. The people we have trusted to confer elite status have formed their own gate-guarding phalanx, and it's corrupt to the core. Consider committees for conferring Nobel prizes, Pulitzer prizes, honorary degrees, international society memberships, and investigatory responsibilities. A network of corruptocrats has interposed itself to require that we now allow the dishonorable to confer the honors. Our governance has become a travesty.
Break the elitist phalanx!
Until we break the elitist phalanx, it will keep recycling variations on Agent Smith as our "representatives." With each vote, letter, and protest, know that your enemy is a phalanx of corruptocrats ("Crime, Inc."). It doesn't give diddley about Uncle Sam, so the last thing we need is more representatives to "reach across the aisle" to these people.
Re: Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Charles Schumer, Alcee Hastings, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama
Why do we never see any of these kinds of bums on skid row? Well, their master, Crime Inc., takes care of them. The best thing for opponents of Crime Inc. would be if more of these bums did wind up on skid row. Maybe that's why Crime Inc. doesn't allow that to happen. It just keeps laughing, swallowing banks whole. The more you sell out, the more Crime Inc. rewards you. This is great for them, since nothing else in life has any point for them. They laugh at you because they consider virtue to be a sucker's game. Evil is good. Ignorance is strength. Narcissism rules. Scientific, doncha know?
Post a Comment