We Are All Homosexual Black Jews Now
In business, or in any endeavor that requires efficiency, any messing with the supply/demand curve generally sends the enterprise on a continuing downward trend.
Add layers of regulation to the farming sector, for example, and unavoidably in a market of competitors, some players will be situated to better weather the regulation. Other firms will not be long for this Earth without outside subsidy. Some of the unprepared firms will be unable to land the subsidies — perhaps a state legislator objects to a side business of tobacco crop — so those firms exit the market.
Shortages occur, prices skyrocket, and a socialist/Chris Dodd appears to announce that people are suffering, and this is the heartless, corporatized farming sector’s fault. This naturally requires more regulation. The tale ends with every firm sacrificing at least their efficiency, if not their existence. Even the firms that thought they might benefit from the elimination of their competitors — they would be producing more, and more efficiently, had they not been subjected to a Regulator.
In a nutshell, though not much more than a nutshell is needed as the “showstopper bugs” are so apparent and unmistakable, the above describes a built-in economic failure of statism. However, I’m more concerned today, in terms of timeliness, with the socio-political effects of centralized power.
Interestingly, they perfectly mirror the economic ripples.
Day One of catering to an irrational actor — here, the Kudlows/Bret Stephenses/GOP Establishment-types suggesting acquiescence to, say, amnesty out of a fear that the “Empathy Slander” of conservatives as heartless and racist is too leviathan — is Day One of decline.
And the rest is just commentary.
Scapegoated? One option. Fight back.
Philosophers much more accomplished than I, though it should be noted that they generally have terrible hair, have certainly delineated this before, yet I lose sleep over the fact that such wisdom fails to take. Again and again. We don’t have fantastic pre-Biblical records of markets and political policy, and obviously we have no records of pre-recorded history, but I feel comfortable assuming that Ogh the cave-king ran into the exact same socio-economic issues when bartering with the fine residents of Ur, and I bet his adviser, we’ll call him Chris Dodd, told him that all would be prosperous if he just demanded that his farmers and hunters just put him in control of divvying up the stuff, because those greedy b****es were ruining life for everyone.
I feel comfortable with that guess, since the pattern shows up with the Bible’s false prophets, then in the Koran, and also in every freaking society since the dawn of Anatomically Modern Man, visually appearing least pleasantly in the form of Howard Dean, and then on to Obama.
Really, human history is that simple. Humans have had one — one! — respite from tyranny. The statist, ignorant of human history and unaccepting of the inherent smallness of a man’s existence, keeps showing up to try it again, and he’s gonna need a scapegoat.
Again, the rest is commentary.
Look at the omnipresent demonization that occurs in every statist society. To institute control is to imply that some people are not behaving properly, and thus need to be controlled. This doesn’t require starting out with malevolent descriptions of the folks who need to be controlled — the Progressive statists are generally convinced they are seizing your property and liberty because they are wiser and can produce a better outcome with it — but it always ends with the demonization of the supposed malevolent bloc of citizens. Because the statist plans fail. So they need to pick a scapegoat to explain away the failure, and to prescribe a more “efficient” dose of statism. In our example, Ogh picked the farmers; most of humanity — for ease of historical records, most likely — went with the Jews or the blacks or the gays.
And then they gave the statism another go, and the society eventually collapsed.
The society catered to an irrational idea, and it fell. But the scapegoated folks who catered to the irrational fear of them? If any of them attempted to apologize, to go along to get along — they lost, too. One could stay closeted, or meet the statist halfway; it didn’t alter the eventual demise.
Appeasement fails in economics — all these companies that believe they can work with Obama, that think they can survive infringement upon their livelihoods by simply getting on the statist’s good side, they are still at Day One on the road to ruin. Similarly, scapegoats who think that a strategy of outreach, compromise, and catering to bigoted fears can somehow result in the desired outcome of a proper understanding of your humanity — well, ask the gays and the Jews how well the “closeting” tactic works.
You cannot cater to someone’s false caricature of your belief system or behavior in hopes that the bearer of the falsehoods will take a liking to you. Instead, he will believe himself validated — you really are the amoral player he thought you were — or, if a thug, he will smell blood.
Yet the bullied continue with the outreach, again and again, and I haven’t slept well in years.
So what do you do? Stay closeted? Strike out?
The bullies, when they are desperate and defeated and panicking, can’t reach out. They don’t know how.
Eventually you will have to reach out, and provide leadership. Not to appease, but from strength and their need and because they’re ours too.
They can grow up; especially if they will lay off the kool-aid.
So what do you do?
Pray. God is more powerful than any Mafia-POTUS with his Chicago-style sycophants and cheerleader-MSM toadies.
Prayer is for when your engine has quit, you have no parachute, you’re in a vertical dive, and the landscape is nothing but a swirling kaleidoscopic in your windscreen. We ain’t quite there yet!
Prayer is not called for when your engine is still running, tho sputtering, you’re in relatively level, controlled flight, you have a parachute nearby, and you can see the runway.
Fight! Now is time to be on your feet, not on your knees! That’s not to say that you can’t send out a “little help here” shout out to God. I’m sure there were many people on their knees before the election, and look how that turned out. God helps those who help themselves, right?
Prayer is before, during and after a fight.
To assume prayer is only when we are in a no win situation is light going into a gun fight without ammunition.
We’ve been told to pray for the POTUS. I would amend that to prayers for the USA.
Hope is not a strategy.
Your penultimate paragraph hits the mark. Conservatives are letting Dems build the ballpark and make the rules and dictate the game.
But it’s not all fantasy; it’s a very real Catch-22. Declare all illegals should be kicked out and you’re a racist. The liberals have simply largely won that battle in our larger culture. Don’t do so and pander and you abandon principle in favor of identity. May as well join the Dem Party.
This is why political correctness is such a sad evil. PC thrives on lies and half-truths and lack of context. Give a child a way out of a story where they broke a window or tell them it’s not their fault and they will lie and believe. It’s human nature – up to a point. It’s human nature for cultures which are endemic losers – the world’s children so to speak. What else can I call cultures that for 20 years have sailed across Bolivian valleys dangling on cables like a circus act rather than build a bridge or people who ride donkeys in modern urban centers?
All over the world, history’s failures are being told “there, there,” your culture is a failure due to colonialism, racism, imperialism and what-not.
All over the West, people from the Third World and minorities do not compete as a group and commit crime out of all proportion to their numbers. The answer? Racism.
Call a ball a strike and it’s still a ball. What happens though is that rules become immaterial and the game is destroyed. In this case the rules are the nature of reality itself. To ignore that is the most dangerous game. The men of the British empire were not racists but hard eyed pragmatists going up against men just like themselves. The difference was not one of morality but of competence. Today the PC left will tell you the exact opposite. Failure has defaulted to morality and success become immoral.
As you correctly state,
Your penultimate paragraph hits the mark.,
but not just to American politics but also to the manner in which the West is letting Islam dictate the rules of the game.
Appeasing revolutionary beasts never works out, and only benefits those seeking totalitarian control.
And caving in to illegal, unlawful behavior is surely not the way ‘forward’. But it IS the way off the cliff.
Even some otherwise rational players become ensnared in PC gobblygook. But it is up to the stalwart to resist said capitulation-and it is.
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/07/when-authentic-revolutionaries-hold-the-reins-of-american-power-centers-via-the-most-radical-regime-in-u-s-history-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
To wit, going down the path of least resistance is a fool’s errand. Deadly too.
The awful irony of it all is that THEY are COUNTER-revolutionaries. WE are the revolutionaries. This nation is the penultimate revolutionary country. WE freed mankind. They want to re-enslave man. It’s beyond irony actually.
If you look at the Electoral Map you’ll see that Romney did well in counties/States populated by people who still, despite all efforts, believe in freedom. Romney may have had a weak Conservative message but it was enough for those who value liberty over tyranny.
Obama did well in counties/States where tyranny holds sway, where people rush to be slaves to the State. The GOP failed because it failed to offer the voters in the slave-holding States a choice. It offered them Slave-lite when the Democrats were offering full, unabridged slavery complete with shackles of generational dependence.
The GOP loses in the Slave States so it wants to move closer to the Slavers when it should be doing the opposite, it should be offering Freedom. But no, that would be an ideological debate that would scare the moderates, or so the rationale goes. The real reason for avoiding the ideological debate is that the Establishment hates having to deal with a free People. It lusts after the Dem-Slaves because they’re so obedient. The Dem-Slave know who’s in charge, what’s the deal with those Conservatives anyway?
Chris, you make some good points. Here’s the $64K question: do the majority of the people welcome slavery? If the answer to that question is yes, then the only remaining course of action (short of civil war) is to partition the nation. But I guess we really don’t know if the answer is yes. If we assume that the answer is no, we have more options.
Overcoming the “emphathy slander” (good name, BTW) is one of the hardest problems we face, because it seems to work nearly every time it’s tried. And a slew of defenses against it have been tried, and none of them have worked. Mitt Romney was possibly the most moderate candidate the GOP has nominated since before WWII; as a governor, he implemented socialized medicine, fer chrissakes. Yet the media successfully portrayed him as being somewhere to the right of George Wallace. Obviously that course of action isn’t going to work.
I’m thinking… if the media is going to call us that, then maybe we should own it. Stop trying to suck up and start saying, “Yeah, we’re your strict parents, here to b*tch-slap you. Pull up your damn pants and get to work.” If Obama wants to lead from behind, then let’s make leading from in front our motto. Maybe we should even make it as ridiculous as possible: “The GOP, proud to be the baby-eating party!” It’ll make our opponents insane, and it will make some other people realize how silly it all is. And I think there are people who would appreciate some real straight-talking leadership, even if they don’t agree on all of the specific issues.
A glance at the map reveals that Obama did well in: the inner cities, where overwhelming numbers of blacks reside and where election fraud is rampant; ditto for south Florida; black belts in certain counties of the Southeast and South; south Texas where voter fraud is a way of life; a few New England states (New York counties were overwhelminly red); the West Coast (not the interior counties of those states; and a cluster of counties in the upper Midwest (Wisconsin-Iowa-Minnesota tristate area). The rest went for Romney. (This is why secession state by state is senseless.)
I forgot the Aspen-Boulder-Denver and Taos-Santa Fe wealthy liberal enclaves.
If I did needlepoint, I would stitch your second-to-last paragraph.
Mary, please stitch this one also: “the built-in economic failure of statism”
And kudos to DS on his clever and clear statement of the problem. None of the schemes of statists can work because of basic human nature. For every cockamamie policy like Obamacare, you can find dozens of ways in which the authors expect people to act against their own interests, against their conscience or in some otherwise irrational way. The founding fathers and the Constitution hit upon a way to create a reasonably harmonious and very successful society without reliance upon any fatal utopian notions. Of course it wasn’t perfect but we were generally improving over the years along all of the axes haunted by Progressives today (pollution, civil rights, safety nets, etc.) Now, watch out because things are going to get awfully screwed up.
Yes, this, a million times.
Mao showed up on the scene, originally telling peasants and workers that the Kuomintang, then the Japanese, then the Kuomintang again were the cause of all of their problems. Once Mao and his buddies were in power, it was the landlords and the business owners (those terrible people, trying to leverage their own possessions for their own benefit! Make them as poor as the rest of us!). The cycle continued as each new scapegoat was eradicated and things still kept getting worse; there was always a new scapegoat responsible for the new horrors. Conveniently, the scapegoats were usually broad swaths of people that just happened to include those whom Mao believed to be his political enemies. Funny, that.
In the end, the 10-year orgy of circular firing squads called the Cultural Revolution opened the people’s eyes a bit–somehow, they just couldn’t belive that people on the street wearing tight pants or people storing old clothing in their apartments were responsible for the poverty of the common folk (although they seemed to have blamed “corruption” more so than socialism itself, which we all know was the real cause). The Communists (who are, of course, actually socialists) discovered they had blown their credibility by backing the Red Guards’ ridiculous zeal . . . so they did what came naturally: scapegoated the Gang of Four, as if the Cultural Revolution wasn’t the natural outcome of any form of collectivism.
Oh, collectivism, you’re nothing if not consistent.
Thank you.
Mr. Steinberg;
Most pressing problem first: Get a Yahoo email account; You will then get free sleep aid advertisements on every page. They’re guaranteed to work, too.
Bottom line:
You’ll never experience a healthy discipline from anyone that has never been exposed to it.
Excellent piece, which White Europeans need to read.
Ok…so we’re judging secular political affairs through the lens of biblical doctrines…and describing our ideological opponents as statanic heretics.
Gee…where, oh where -throughout history- have we *ever* heard that line?
Mebbe that’s personally satisfying to you, but…it’s not helpful, folks.
The question SoCons and Christians must ask themselves is whether it’s a good idea to use government to impose their morality and beliefs upon others? If so, do we use the morality and doctrines of Catholics…or Baptists? Perhaps that of the Pentacostal holiness movement? Greek Orthodox, mebbe? Calvin or Wesley? Moody? Mebbe we should turn to Jewish doctrines and beliefs as our template? Then, there’s the question of which doctrines and which Jewish sects we adopt as our template for secular rule in a supposedly free republic?
Unwittingly, by using such arguments, and enacting such laws, you opened the door for another religious belief system to infiltrate this nation of supposed religious fredom and liberty. A group, if I recall correctly, known as Islam or Muslim. (They used the very laws you’ve enacted in order to gain power in certain cities and states, and even within many federal bureaucracies.)
Liberals do not hold a monoply on nanny-statism, folks. As you well know, nanny-statism is a well-known and understood path to tyranny.
How’s about this: In America, if another person or group isn’t offering you or others physical harm, or if they aren’t stealing from you (including enacting laws which limit your freedom and liberty) they are free to do as they wish.
Government isn’t here to impose one form of morality upon us over that of another form of morality.
If the left and the right would stay out of one another’s private lives, the world, itself, would be a much better place to live.
…but you can’t see that.
The mote in your own eye has blinded you.
Exactly what have we imposed, Warren? I keep hearing these specious charges again and again, but I have yet to see one documented bit of proof we have “imposed” anything in our supposed demands of theocracy.
Does our vote mean imposing? Are our opinions imposing? Should we just assume like you do apparently that at all beliefs, all opinions, are of equal value? Assume the position of potted plants? Grant that man sovereign and master of his destiny?
Seems to me if anything, it is people like you that have imposed upon us “SoCons” and “Christians”, apparently the bane of human existence in your book. Clever to be sure under guise of privatizing our tenets, but the results you were sure you would obtain are one of misery and incompetence.
Want an example of you imposing? I would go so far as to say public thievery? The public school system. So 30, 40, 50 years ago, we granted you the humanist position of moral relevance and live and let live, took our own children on our own dime to private schools or homeschooling, never wavered in our tax dollars going to support your secular children.
And the results granting you your wishes? Abject failure – possibly the worst in the civilized world, and most certainly the worst for the cost.
Perhaps our real fault is not imposing ourselves in your precious life of live and live, but the fact we didn’t call you on your deceit long ago because we were a little too tolerant, a little too forgiving, a little too accepting of your demands – too worried about judge not, lest ye be judged. We gave up discernment in the hope that we could be liked and accepted by folk like you.
What you really ask is not democracy and credit. It’s immorality and chaos – and we’re all woven together whether we like it or not, as our election just attested. Believe me, if possible and it is not, you and people like you wouldn’t have one iota of influence over my life, nor my children’s lives.
It’s arrogance like yours that think they know better than the rest of us how best to manage our civilization.
Now where have I seen that in recent history? Say as recently as nine days ago?
Yes – absolutely. However, rmember the old adage “…absolute power corrupts absolutely.”. First, if Christian concepts were given official relevance to law and politics and other religions cast aside, then there would be arguments and strife over which brand of Christian thought should prevail. Whichever thought wins out would, in my view, become tyranical.
That being said, I, a committed agnostic, would gladly sacrifice to a any Christian government and any resulting value structure, even if it meant that Church on Sunday were required, because without religion providing our values and morality, the government does it. That is really scary. I will gladly swallow my personal spiritual beliefs and become a Christian warrior.
I’m just kind of wondering … what the heck are you talking about?
You talking to Boner?
He has that effect on a lot of people.
Yeah, Boner’s argument boils down to: “Other people’s rights are an infringement on my rights! Waah!” It’s a narcissistic argument. Narcissists hate any form of morals of ethics because they want to do whatever the hell they want and not feel bad about it. Leftism is narcissism cast in the form of politics. Don’t forget that.
Newt Gingrich made a lot of sense when he pointed out that “outreach” is the wrong approach: what is needed is “inclusion.”
TinyURL.com/a3fkr7r
The Repubs have a superb field of new governors getting great results in their states. The Republican Party at the national level should talk to them, and ask them their advice about whom to include in further discussions.
We cannot live WITH them and can easily thrive without them. As a Christian I can never participate or condone violence to achieve political ends. But self defense is righteous. How far do we let them go? Until we are starving and fending of criminals in most of our homes? By then it will be too late to rebuild this nation. We will be on the threshold of 1000 years of darkness.
Praise the Lord! and pass the ammunition…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dryBNYaj1sA&feature=fvwrel
Author,
I think your article was spot on until you imported homosexual behavior into it. What does homosexual behavior have to do with statist meddling in the voluntary transactions of free men? What does it have to do with “appeasements fail[ing] in economics?” And finally, what does “irrational idea” is being “catered” to with regard to homosexual behavior?
Thanks.
*And finally, what “irrational idea” is being “catered” to with regard to homosexual behavior?*
We are most certainly NOT all homosexuals now. Moreover, it is offensive that you are trying to conflate sexual behavior with race. The former people have a choice to engage in, while the latter is a genetically determined trait.
I’m neither here nor there on the verdict of homosexuality, but this statement is probably incorrect, at best inconclusive.
Because there are literally hundreds if not thousands if identical twins, one straight and one gay, with literally hundreds of millions of dollars of trying to identify a gay gene, not having found one.
It would appear the decision may not have been a conscious choice, but a decision nonetheless.
First, get over the idea that it’s just temporary. It isn’t temporary.
Second, secure your assets. They will be coming for them soon.
Third, get under the radar. Sell your business. If you are visible in the opposition, stop being visible. If you are young, get off the websites.
Slash your lifestyle, even if you don’t need to today. Anybody can live for 1/3 less. Many can live for less than half. (and protect what you save. And don’t kid yourself that anything electronic in this country can be protected).
Learn how to use weapons in the brief window that you have. Stock up.
Next, move. Red states won’t offer ultimate protection, but they will delay the pain for a little while, maybe for long enough for you to accumulate enough assets to leave the country entirely.
Learn how to game the system. Liberals have done it for years. Now it’s incumbant on you to do it. If you aren’t taking, others are taking from you.
If you can stand it and can hide your true feelings, get a government job.
Of course, don’t get fooled by the republicans again. There probably is no political solution short of violence, but FOR SURE, the republicans are no solution. Don’t waste another second on them.
Perhaps most importantly, make sure your children have a useful skill. No, not “civil servanting”, because they will soon be purged from the preferred class. Something like auto repair, welding, practical medicine, farming. They will need it during their descent to serfdom.
Much as I would like to think that this is overly dramatic, it may well not be.
I would add that if you have IRAs and 401Ks, you may want to start looking into how to protect them from the government. If over 59 1/2 you may want to start pulling out the funds and taking whatever tax hit now while rates are still reasonable. A lot of Statists feel that that have a claim on that money since they let you earn it tax free.
The question of home ownership is also a problem. You have to ask if you really own your property if the government can tax you to a level that you can’t afford. Here in CA, our new 2/3 rds Democratic Majority in both houses probably spells the end of Prop 13 and taxes related to property ownership are likely headed for the moon. For the average house, taxes will likely surpass whatever you may have earned in Social Security. Unless you are a government employee or very wealthy, how do you pay for 20+ years of retirement under a heavy tax burden and a dead economy?
Where and how do you make a stand? A question for our times.
I only see two ways out that we as citizens can effect. One – we wait for the big fail and hope that enough of the liberals see the light and switch. Two – we assert strength where we strongest, in the mayoral mansions of red states. Our founders discussed in depth, and then created firewalls to protect us from the slow accumulation of power in Washington DC and the White House. Those firewalls have failed. We need knew ones. Please, please, please, will someone at PJTV begin to address these issues instead of bemoaning our loss?
One thing we need to start doing is taking some of that energy that’s going into secession petitions, and instead put it into a movement to call a Constitutional convention, with pre-written suggested amendments to be submitted. If we can get 37 states to call for a convention, there is absolutely nothing short of civil war that Washington can do to suppress it.
Communists and Marxists have been drooling over that prospect for decades. Be careful what you wish for.
Hey, bro; wanna date?