CRONY CAPITALISM – CRASS OR NOBLE:
That Americans are now saturated with crony capitalism is obvious. But is there debate about whether the usual purpose of crony capitalists is crass or noble? Do our crony rulers mean well for us, or do they primarily mean well for themselves? Well, insofar as they believe in no higher value than their own promotions by whatever means possible, why should anyone be hoodwinked to believe they mean well for anyone apart from themselves? That they are often practiced liars, even to themselves, is obvious. But how can any well meaning, reasonably capable person fail to see the worst among them for the monsters that they are?
If the law of the jungle is the only force that drives evolution (or even if one only believes such is so), why should anyone respect any scruple higher than the desire to replicate and perpetuate the most vicious aspects of oneself against all with whom one has not been conditioned to identify? Why in the world should anyone not among the favored gang expect any treatment that is other than marginally cynical, abusive, or ruthless? Once billionaires acquire means to own governments and politicians, or to compete to acquire such ownership, what in each crony’s life-journey should cause anyone but a fool to doubt that cronies will so compete?
Arms-length capitalism is great. But when the gulf in political and economic influence between haves and have-nots is allowed to become a chasm wide enough to harden opposing empathies, then what manner of political checks and balances can possibly protect any well-meaning masses? Certainly not collectivism! After all, collectivism is just differently masked crony capitalism, i.e., pillaging rule under the most practiced of pretended benefactors.
The idea of America has been ruthlessly infected from within. To have any hope to combat the raging infection, Americans need to re-kindle a civilizing notion of evolving mores, superior to the stunted notion of evolution that is now popular among crony elites and used by them to rationalize cynical rule. We need continuously to consider: What is the character of the Source of evolution, persistence, and replication? What is the character of the Source of consciously appreciable forms and patterns, which appear to be secondary to a system of mathematical parameters for regulating a generally directional force in space-time? Does the Source prefer that its individuated perspectives of moral expression should evolve to choose to communicate in respect of “do unto others before they do unto you,” or in respect of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you?” The dignity of each American, as being responsible for his or her own moral conscience, is at stake.
FACE OF COLLECTIVIST SOLIPSISM:
Obama is a petty little man who has taken grievance mongering to heights not recently scaled. He could teach an entire course, "Polypsych," i.e., "the science of becoming a political celebrity by constantly lying to the body politic." In "1984," George Orwell wrote: "There is a word in Newspeak.... duckspeak.... Applied to an opponent, it is abuse. Applied to someone you agree with, it is praise." When Bush took from you, it was a tax. When Obama takes from you, it's a doubleplusgood redistribution.
Obama promised he would spread wealth by taking only from the rich. What he omitted to say was that he would actually increase the wealth of the corrupt cronies among the rich who support the regime that fronts him. How? By indirectly taxing and impoverishing the mass of middle class producers. In Newspeak, that's actually doubleplusungood.
What is fronting Obama? A cynical, lying, corrupt regime that is built on entitlement and hatred. Those are the feelings that constitute its "higher values."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
SCIENCE OF MORALITY: For one to become conditioned not to be skeptical that science can answer all concerns that are worth answering is, perhaps by definition, to have become educated beyond one's intellect.
REVEILLE: It is sad how the race card is so routinely played to divide us, for no better reason than short term political gain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te-cKxsBapM
COMMUNICATION VS. CON-ARTISTRY: I think there are two kinds of people: Duckspeak people and Independent people. Independents tend to be middle class in their values, wishing that everyone should have decent opportunity to express himself, both in words and work. But Duckspeakers are more animated by suspicion, envy, and feelings of personal inadequacy. Duckspeakers crave big government, to make them secure in their codependency. Duckspeakers consist of everyone who wants to be in a duckline, whether near the head or the tail. They detest that anyone should be able to spurn their duckline.
For a Duckspeaker, whatever an Independent does will be wrong. When Independents wish to organize means for monitoring borders in order to preserve freedom of expression and work, that cannot be right to a Duckspeaker. When Duckspeakers wish to organize means for monitoring communications among Independents in order to regulate the spreading of wealth and to reduce the influence of Independents, that cannot be wrong to a Duckspeaker. This is because, apart from their insatiable need for one big duckline, Duckspeakers have no real values. That is, Duckspeakers have no principle greater than the principle that Independence cannot be allowed.
Regardless of whether their worldviews result from genetics or from conditioning, there tends to be no such thing as harmony in principles, reasoning, or multi-culti peace between Duckspeakers and Independents. There is no reasoning with Duckspeakers; they simply need their own separate countries. In no event should they be invited or welcomed into lands of Independents. The Diversity Slogan of Duckspeakers is a trojan horse for the destruction of individual freedom and dignity.
PROGRESSIVE AGENDA: Before our eyes, America is being reduced to a wide casket, being pulled sideways into a collectivist grave. When Dem Commie Progs are in power, one side is pulled; when Repub Crony Capitalist Progs are in power, the other side is pulled. Always, both sides are being pulled into progressive collectivism. We have one party: Progressives. Except in delusion, this is not a a party of beneficent collectivists. This is the sort of one party collectivism one finds in Venezuela, Cuba, China, Russia, and, eventually, North Korea. Once this one party system is firmly ensconced in America, it will prevail everywhere. Those are the stakes.
This Progressivism, regardless of whether considered from the view of Rino Crony Capitalists or Dino Nomenklatura Politicians, means to deliver its daily dose of pravda, slop, drugs, vodka, free sex, neo-values, and collectivist morality to the great collectivized mass of "happy" proles.
Consider the worldwide drift towards the rule of the collectivized by the collectivizers. What does it matter, whether the collectivizers are called Nomenklatura Commies, Ainos, or International Crony Capitalists? Re-read Orwell's 1984. This one party system, once it has a death grip on every institution of control, will never waver in its purpose of preserving power and control. There are those whose primary goal is projection of power over the collective. Regardless of label applied to the political system, if the collectivizing power network manages to prevail over those whose primary goal is empathetic appreciation among the free, then the result will be the same: A boot on the face of humanity, forever.
Post a Comment