Of Tools and Cronies
(and of sheep, sheep dogs, black sheep, shepards, and wolves):
One may model at least five ways of approaching problems: (1) popular (sheep), (2) traditional (sheep dog), (3) prodigal (black sheep), (4) principled (shepard), and (5) crony (wolf).
Popular is exemplified by the herd (baa) approach: that which the herd is presently approving or thinking is in fashionable good taste. Traditional is exemplified by those who seek safety not in numbers but in the tried and true. Prodigal is exemplified by those who test and find limits (empiricists). Principled is exemplified by those who care more for consistency and truth (science and higher values), who have faith that principled thinking can best lead them or society to new and better insights for approaching unfolding problems. Crony is exemplified by opportunists who stand for nothing higher than their own immediate gratification.
These five categories often sort themselves out among several political persuasions: Dino, Conserver of Liberty, and Rino. Insofar as their political approaches, Collectivists would be most attracted to the Popular approach, Isolationists to the Traditional approach, and Independents to the Principled approach.
A Populist who is independent of principles and still a leader would be an elite manipulator of easily balked or stampeded baa sheep. Think of comedian cows (sinister clarabelles, aka dupes to make noise and cut opportunities from the herd for wolfish hedge fund artists). Populists are uncomfortable with principles independent of the herd fashion of the day, and thus avail every opportunity to get high while castigating Principalists for hypocrisy. They are very insecure without the approval of a support group and tend quickly to throw anyone who threatens the support group into the fiery pit (Madow was nearly overcome with tears upon hearing Stewart approve of her). A Traditionalist is independent of change and slow to be manipulated or to receive insights; he will resist leaders except to help control minds of a similar bent. A Principalist, who is independent of the herd and not slow to sense need or advantage in change, will seek to increase learning and opportunity among similarly inclined thinkers.
Herd minded feelers (baa sheep, moo cows, rap lovers, and other Populists) and Collectivists tend to comprise the base for Dinos; Principle minded thinkers and Independents tend to comprise the base for Conservers of Liberty; Tradition minded, slow to change Isolationists tend to sway back and forth between Dinos and Conservatives. So, then, who are the Rinos? The Rinos are the crony wolves and international bankers and corporatists --- who have no loyalty to the herd, to tradition, or to principles. Their loyalty is to the NWO --- so long as they expect it will reward fellow cronies and mafiosi. As things stand, Principle minded Conservers of Liberty tend to be marginalized and unrepresented. This is because Dinos and Rinos have perfected the financing and propaganda to keep the pretense going that they represent principled thinkers.
For Crony Capitalism to impose a new world syndicate, two things are needed: (1) an institution run by cronies for controlling worldwide banking, and (2) a culture for mentoring each succeeding generation of replacement cronies. The U.S. provides (1) in the form of the Fed; China provides (2) in the form of a nationwide hierarchy of corrupt cronyism. Nearly everything that is happening in the world politically is about rebalancing the relations between (1) and (2). Ask: In every significant venture and rebalancing, who benefits more than China? The NWO is not allowing American pols to look after American interests. Everything is about creating vacuums to allow Chinese cronies to fill. Reducing Iraq helped China, not America. Choking American energy production helps China, not America. Free trade helps China, not America. Flooding America's borders helps China, not America. In many cases, Western tolerance of Islam helps China, not America. When it becomes necessary to put the Islamic spider back in its bottle, that will be readily done by China, not America.
This game is so far down the road that not even real Americans are likely to be able to reverse it, even when they finally wake up to it. At most, we will go down in glory, if not in whimpers. If government of, by, and for the people must temporarily perish from earth, we will at least preserve it in our ideals.
******
NOTE: Is not a feeler, in his empathy, an effective thinker? Moreover, is he not principled, in respect of his empathy for the collective, i.e., his culture or country? So, in respect of what forms or ways of thinking should principles of empathy and of law or mores best be RECONCILED? One ought not say that all feelers of the weal of the collective fail to think or lead, nor that all thinkers regarding the best principles for the collective fail to feel. How then ought instinctive feelers and articulate thinkers reconcile, in a bipartisan way, so as to combine the best of the principled and the empathetic? How ought a liberty loving nation find common ground with the rest of the world order? Why should any particular nation lay down, to allow itself to be replaced by any other less-than-holistic nation? Why should any particular way of living allow itself to be replaced by “progress”? Why should conservers of liberty lay down to allow themselves to be replaced by elitist managers of collectives?
Our philosophies, formulas, and urgings regarding substance, empiricism, logic, and math seem always, when restricted to themselves, to lead to an UNRECONCILED incompleteness. Indeed, one begins to suspect that --- for every conscious event and experience --- the potential, unfolding shapeliness, context, desireability, and quality of interpretation depends upon how each Independent perspective happens to interfunction as it seeks its reconciliation with the Collective. Bottom line: Absent inculcation of respect for a caring and reconciling Meta Source, we seem less likely to sustain hope and inclination for pursuing meaningful reconciliation and cooperation among competing perspectives.
(and of sheep, sheep dogs, black sheep, shepards, and wolves):
One may model at least five ways of approaching problems: (1) popular (sheep), (2) traditional (sheep dog), (3) prodigal (black sheep), (4) principled (shepard), and (5) crony (wolf).
Popular is exemplified by the herd (baa) approach: that which the herd is presently approving or thinking is in fashionable good taste. Traditional is exemplified by those who seek safety not in numbers but in the tried and true. Prodigal is exemplified by those who test and find limits (empiricists). Principled is exemplified by those who care more for consistency and truth (science and higher values), who have faith that principled thinking can best lead them or society to new and better insights for approaching unfolding problems. Crony is exemplified by opportunists who stand for nothing higher than their own immediate gratification.
These five categories often sort themselves out among several political persuasions: Dino, Conserver of Liberty, and Rino. Insofar as their political approaches, Collectivists would be most attracted to the Popular approach, Isolationists to the Traditional approach, and Independents to the Principled approach.
A Populist who is independent of principles and still a leader would be an elite manipulator of easily balked or stampeded baa sheep. Think of comedian cows (sinister clarabelles, aka dupes to make noise and cut opportunities from the herd for wolfish hedge fund artists). Populists are uncomfortable with principles independent of the herd fashion of the day, and thus avail every opportunity to get high while castigating Principalists for hypocrisy. They are very insecure without the approval of a support group and tend quickly to throw anyone who threatens the support group into the fiery pit (Madow was nearly overcome with tears upon hearing Stewart approve of her). A Traditionalist is independent of change and slow to be manipulated or to receive insights; he will resist leaders except to help control minds of a similar bent. A Principalist, who is independent of the herd and not slow to sense need or advantage in change, will seek to increase learning and opportunity among similarly inclined thinkers.
Herd minded feelers (baa sheep, moo cows, rap lovers, and other Populists) and Collectivists tend to comprise the base for Dinos; Principle minded thinkers and Independents tend to comprise the base for Conservers of Liberty; Tradition minded, slow to change Isolationists tend to sway back and forth between Dinos and Conservatives. So, then, who are the Rinos? The Rinos are the crony wolves and international bankers and corporatists --- who have no loyalty to the herd, to tradition, or to principles. Their loyalty is to the NWO --- so long as they expect it will reward fellow cronies and mafiosi. As things stand, Principle minded Conservers of Liberty tend to be marginalized and unrepresented. This is because Dinos and Rinos have perfected the financing and propaganda to keep the pretense going that they represent principled thinkers.
For Crony Capitalism to impose a new world syndicate, two things are needed: (1) an institution run by cronies for controlling worldwide banking, and (2) a culture for mentoring each succeeding generation of replacement cronies. The U.S. provides (1) in the form of the Fed; China provides (2) in the form of a nationwide hierarchy of corrupt cronyism. Nearly everything that is happening in the world politically is about rebalancing the relations between (1) and (2). Ask: In every significant venture and rebalancing, who benefits more than China? The NWO is not allowing American pols to look after American interests. Everything is about creating vacuums to allow Chinese cronies to fill. Reducing Iraq helped China, not America. Choking American energy production helps China, not America. Free trade helps China, not America. Flooding America's borders helps China, not America. In many cases, Western tolerance of Islam helps China, not America. When it becomes necessary to put the Islamic spider back in its bottle, that will be readily done by China, not America.
This game is so far down the road that not even real Americans are likely to be able to reverse it, even when they finally wake up to it. At most, we will go down in glory, if not in whimpers. If government of, by, and for the people must temporarily perish from earth, we will at least preserve it in our ideals.
******
NOTE: Is not a feeler, in his empathy, an effective thinker? Moreover, is he not principled, in respect of his empathy for the collective, i.e., his culture or country? So, in respect of what forms or ways of thinking should principles of empathy and of law or mores best be RECONCILED? One ought not say that all feelers of the weal of the collective fail to think or lead, nor that all thinkers regarding the best principles for the collective fail to feel. How then ought instinctive feelers and articulate thinkers reconcile, in a bipartisan way, so as to combine the best of the principled and the empathetic? How ought a liberty loving nation find common ground with the rest of the world order? Why should any particular nation lay down, to allow itself to be replaced by any other less-than-holistic nation? Why should any particular way of living allow itself to be replaced by “progress”? Why should conservers of liberty lay down to allow themselves to be replaced by elitist managers of collectives?
Our philosophies, formulas, and urgings regarding substance, empiricism, logic, and math seem always, when restricted to themselves, to lead to an UNRECONCILED incompleteness. Indeed, one begins to suspect that --- for every conscious event and experience --- the potential, unfolding shapeliness, context, desireability, and quality of interpretation depends upon how each Independent perspective happens to interfunction as it seeks its reconciliation with the Collective. Bottom line: Absent inculcation of respect for a caring and reconciling Meta Source, we seem less likely to sustain hope and inclination for pursuing meaningful reconciliation and cooperation among competing perspectives.
2 comments:
By definition, the Left is collectivist oriented. So I tend to agree that the Left seeks comfort in the mood swings of the collective, not in principles of independence. Because the Left feels the bent of the herd more than it thinks, it hates any threat to its only source of security, i.e., its supporting herd. Because the Left promotes the Collective over all else, its mindset loves to find hypocrisy in the character of any advocate for principles that are independent of the collective. It's not that the Left hates hypocrisy, but that it hates principles that are independent of the herd. To threaten the Left's core support group is to get elbowed near its fiery pit. Excepting its alphas, the Left, almost by definition, tends to be comprised of feeling beasts, not independent thinkers.
Forget the war on terror. It has transmogrified into a battle to realign the hierarchy that runs America. In nature, predators mark their territory, then war against rivals who dare intrude. Predators don't tend to venture into gardens whose inhabitants are uninviting or hostile to outsider modes of predation. The lesson to a tribe that watches one of its own, as an outsider, venture into new territory and get slayed, tends to be, "Keep out!" However, Obama, et al, insinuated themselves into power by feigning that there are no such things as outsiders. There is only a celebration of a thousand blooming multi culti. So, now the garden of America is wet with competing tribes of outsiders. Now, we have rampant competition among various, unassimilated tribes of new invitees. This means there is no "keep out" lesson that can be taught by assasinating leaders among these anti-American cultures and intolerant tribes. Rather, until a new cultural (not racial) hierarchy is securely defined, there will be inter-party and inter-tribal predations of opportunity.
Traditional Americans have foolishly invited entire, intolerant, and warring tribes into their garden, and now must either watch or participate as these new intolerants engage in often violent forms of competition to restore some balance of nature. Example: Had a traditional American power structure slayed Osama, a lesson might have been taught. Coming from the Obama power structure, the lesson is more likely an invitation to a power contest. Like Obama said, he means to fundamentally change the garden of America. Those who thought he meant a free redistribution of entitlements will instead get a free wake up call. There are no free entitlements; only balances of predation. Biology eats biology, and information eats information. Bush, at least, defended America from outside predators; Obama is tying America to the tracks, to be run over by them.
Post a Comment