I have coined my own term: Drone Thinking. A drone is one who does things in a routine, unimaginative way. In fact, a true drone can do nothing more. Drone Thinking, as I define, is thinking in a simplistic, non creative, robotic manner. I will elaborate.
Having once tutored high school students primarily in math and science, I quickly realized that there were two basic types of thinkers in scholastics. To be the most effective tutor possible, I discouraged memorization almost always. I encouraged my students to understand where a formula came from, and why a certain method for solving a problem works. When you understand "the why," as I call it, you naturally remember. Some students embraced this and did well. They understood that the "distance formula" was just manipulating properties of a right triangle, and they saw that the "ideal gas law" was just a natural ratio. To these students, things soon came easy. Others, usually the more lazy students, rejected this method, and became increasingly insistent that I just give them the formula. They did not care when I began to explain "the why," they just wanted to know how to do it. "Just give me the formula!" they insisted. These students did not perform as well in their classes as the former group.
As I pondered this one day, I realized that many doctors I have encountered are the same way. It seems to me that Drone Thinkers are like computer programs: input and output is all they can do. Doctors take your symptoms as the input, run their drone thinking minds and tests like med school taught them, and give an output of a diagnosis and generic (and often incomplete as well as inadequate) treatment. In fact, virtually every medical condition and problem can be at least partially treated with a proper diet, but how many doctors ever ask their patient about what he eats? Well, why would they? Nutrition is not part of the algorithm they learned in med school.
Having a certain manageable medical condition myself, I am quite familiar with the inadequacies of Drone Thinking doctors. Without going into too much detail, let me just say that all the more creative treatment strategies- which always happen to be the most effective- that I have used in dealing with my condition, I came up with entirely on my own. If I go to my doctor and described a particular problem I was running in to with my treatment, something unique to me, I will get the same stupid questions, stupid suggestions and stupid answers that any other doctor out there would give any other patient. When I ask them if a strategy I came up with will work, they think for a second, sometimes they seem shocked at an actual new idea entering their world, then say something to the effect of "yea, that might work." Why didn't they come up with anything like that? Eight years of school for this!? They can't even say "hey, good idea!" when they see one! Why are they such robots? I'll tell you why, because they have no creativity.
The same is true for those students I could not convince to invest in understanding the subjects they were failing. One can hardly blame them, considering the new wave of multiple choice standardized testing in our schools. A, B, C, or D? That is the only question that matters anymore. Forget about "the why," forget about thinking for yourself, forget about alternative methods to solve a problem, even if they work. Just give them the formula in the book! And now, with Bush's monumental failure, (supported by both retarded sides of the aisle, mind you), the No Child Left Behind Act, this trend has gone even further. There is little if any time for art (the outlet for a child's creativity) or science (science's purpose is to understand the world, mind you) in the elementary classrooms anymore. I speak on this with authority, by the way; I know more than a few elementary school teachers personally. Also, this is not to pick on doctors. Theirs is just one of too many professions that exhibit the symptoms of Drone Thinking. And this is certainly not to pick on teachers, just the morons who wind up being their bosses.
Problem is, all these mathematical formulas, all these medicines, diseases studied and defined, treatment strategies, and, well, EVERY advancement in society since the wheel, required creativity and understanding. No Drone Thinker has ever contributed anything to society that resulted in advancement. The best any Drone Thinker has ever done is make it possible for someone else, someone with creativity, to do so. Why, then, do the powers that be encourage nothing but Drone Thinking, stamping out creativity and individualism whenever possible? (I could make a whole point about mind altering antidepressants and other drugs designed to make people non dynamic, complacent robots, but that is the subject of a future post.) The answer, I believe, can be found in nature.
Two examples come to mind in which the truest form of drones can be found: ants and bees. (Just so happens, these are perhaps the truest forms of communism on the entire planet. Coincidence?) Both cases feature colonies of insects that are all the same. A pack of dogs, on the contrary, is one working unit, but the dogs all have rank and individual personalities, skills, tasks to perform, etc. Some ants may have a few separate classes to perform different tasks on a limited scale, depending on the type of ant, but they are all essentially the same. They do simple, menial tasks. They have no individuality. They are strong and hard working, but not at all creative. Bees are the same way. They defend the hive, they make honey, they visit flowers... They do not differ from one another. They are drones. Now why is it, do you think, that today's leadership seems to favor Drone Thinking over virtues like creativity and understanding? Look further in to nature's example. At the center of every drone populated ant colony and bee hive in the world you will find one thing: a queen that rules them all.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Website says "Suck it Jesus"
So I have just learned of a website named http://www.suckitjesus.com/ ("stop the censorship!" is their mantra). It has apparently taken off, selling bumper stickers and whatever, and I feel the need to write an immediate response. (The posting time is about five minutes after a friend told me of it.) They claim support for Kathy Griffin after her comments and censorship (see earlier post: "Emmys, and Things That Matter"). Personally, I don't really care if someone thinks it's blasphemous. Being a fan of free speech, I think they ought to be allowed to say it. However, being a TRUE fan of free speech, I also welcome all those who say they ought not say it.
There is one thing I'd like to point out, though. If I started a similar website, only suggested that instead of Jesus sucking it, it ought to be Mohamed sucking it... some fanatic Muslim would likely kill someone over it.
There is one thing I'd like to point out, though. If I started a similar website, only suggested that instead of Jesus sucking it, it ought to be Mohamed sucking it... some fanatic Muslim would likely kill someone over it.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Teaching the Black Man to Fish
Some years ago, I was thinking about the constant complaint, even in the new millennium, that the white man is keeping the black man down. Now, I started my thoughts, anyone with a brain that isn't already washed knows that keeping the black man down is a thing of the past. But it seems more fashionable than ever to accuse the white man of just this. So I began to ponder...
For the sake of argument, I thought to myself: IF I were going to keep the black man down, how would I do it? As I tossed ideas around in my head, I noticed my dog looking at me, begging for food like he always did. A light bulb went off! I realized that, in a way, I keep my pet down. Sure, he's just a dog, so this is the best he can do anyway. But my dog does what I want him to, goes where I want him to, even performs tricks at my behest, and is happy to do it. Why? Because I take care of him! I am the master! Then I realized that, while I already knew conservatives (i.e. Republicans, for you simple minded folk) didn't keep down the black man, the liberal Democrats actually did! I was shocked to realize that some white men DO keep the black man down, albeit with the black man's help.
Allow me to explain. Liberal Democrats have dug their heels in to a policy of socialistic welfare. If allowed to, they would completely subsidize the black community with welfare, food stamps, and whatever else they could think of. This sort of policy eliminates the incentives for a man to make something of himself. Well, a subsidized man might think, I could go get a job. Or, I could sit here and get paid and fed for doing nothing. But that's not all. To give the black man a handout, a freebie, is to tell him in so many words: you can't make it in the white man's world! What other message does "affirmative action" send? They go even further by awarding unwed mothers by sending them a bigger welfare check for each child they pop out. Liberal Democrats, by endorsing the policies they do, are saying to the black man that he can't make it in the white man's world anyway... but since the liberals are such good people, they give him something to live on. And to think! So many blacks have bought this hook, line, and sinker! They actually think that I, the conservative, who would rather they make it on their own, am against them! When you look at the bravery and resolve of the black community in the sixties, it is a shame that this was the result for the next two generations.
So can you deny the two-pronged attack on the black man by the liberal Democrats that has kept him down? Not only has the liberal white man made so many blacks dependent upon him, he has also brainwashed him into thinking that he can't make it without a white man's help. No, a white man's charity. All this, and somehow, simultaneously, blaming the conservative who would have them free of all this.
The policies of the liberal Democrats have clearly not done a thing to help the impoverished black communities. The housing projects are trashed. Blacks still have large poverty rates. Crime is still rampant in many primarily black communities. This is because only the conservative has the answer. The conservative is not racist- the conservative agrees with Martin Luther King Jr. when he said people ought to be "judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." The conservative agrees with the Declaration of Independence, when it says that "all men are created equal." The conservative believes fully in the right known as the "pursuit of happiness." (By the way, "pursuit of happiness" means striving to be all you can be. The emotion of joy has nothing to do with it.) The liberal Democrat clearly does not- after all, they are the ones drawing the lines of distinction; treating blacks as if they need special help. Liberal Democrat politicians and other celebrities- especially those that are black themselves- are the ones who stir up racial tensions whenever possible. Need I remind you of the Duke Lacrosse case? The conservative would simply eliminate the psychological and physical chains of welfare and free handouts. The conservative, believing in equality, has a greater vision of the black man, of all men. The conservative does not encourage cries of racism to try to stir up a riot. To put it simply, the conservative believes that the black man can make it just as the white man, and any other color man can, if not kept down.
We have all heard the saying "give a man a fish, you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you've fed him forever." This is only half true. You see, if you give a man a fish, and keep doing so, you can eventually make him your slave. This is the liberal Democrats' vision for all of us, not just blacks. But, if you teach a man to fish, he just might open his own fishing business and prosper. This is the conservatives' vision for all.
Now, I am sure that many people reading this will call me a racist. Well, if that is all you can take away from this, go ahead, your loss. But ask yourself this: between the liberal Democrat and me, the conservative... which side is giving the black man a fish, and which side wants the black man to learn to fish?
For the sake of argument, I thought to myself: IF I were going to keep the black man down, how would I do it? As I tossed ideas around in my head, I noticed my dog looking at me, begging for food like he always did. A light bulb went off! I realized that, in a way, I keep my pet down. Sure, he's just a dog, so this is the best he can do anyway. But my dog does what I want him to, goes where I want him to, even performs tricks at my behest, and is happy to do it. Why? Because I take care of him! I am the master! Then I realized that, while I already knew conservatives (i.e. Republicans, for you simple minded folk) didn't keep down the black man, the liberal Democrats actually did! I was shocked to realize that some white men DO keep the black man down, albeit with the black man's help.
Allow me to explain. Liberal Democrats have dug their heels in to a policy of socialistic welfare. If allowed to, they would completely subsidize the black community with welfare, food stamps, and whatever else they could think of. This sort of policy eliminates the incentives for a man to make something of himself. Well, a subsidized man might think, I could go get a job. Or, I could sit here and get paid and fed for doing nothing. But that's not all. To give the black man a handout, a freebie, is to tell him in so many words: you can't make it in the white man's world! What other message does "affirmative action" send? They go even further by awarding unwed mothers by sending them a bigger welfare check for each child they pop out. Liberal Democrats, by endorsing the policies they do, are saying to the black man that he can't make it in the white man's world anyway... but since the liberals are such good people, they give him something to live on. And to think! So many blacks have bought this hook, line, and sinker! They actually think that I, the conservative, who would rather they make it on their own, am against them! When you look at the bravery and resolve of the black community in the sixties, it is a shame that this was the result for the next two generations.
So can you deny the two-pronged attack on the black man by the liberal Democrats that has kept him down? Not only has the liberal white man made so many blacks dependent upon him, he has also brainwashed him into thinking that he can't make it without a white man's help. No, a white man's charity. All this, and somehow, simultaneously, blaming the conservative who would have them free of all this.
The policies of the liberal Democrats have clearly not done a thing to help the impoverished black communities. The housing projects are trashed. Blacks still have large poverty rates. Crime is still rampant in many primarily black communities. This is because only the conservative has the answer. The conservative is not racist- the conservative agrees with Martin Luther King Jr. when he said people ought to be "judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." The conservative agrees with the Declaration of Independence, when it says that "all men are created equal." The conservative believes fully in the right known as the "pursuit of happiness." (By the way, "pursuit of happiness" means striving to be all you can be. The emotion of joy has nothing to do with it.) The liberal Democrat clearly does not- after all, they are the ones drawing the lines of distinction; treating blacks as if they need special help. Liberal Democrat politicians and other celebrities- especially those that are black themselves- are the ones who stir up racial tensions whenever possible. Need I remind you of the Duke Lacrosse case? The conservative would simply eliminate the psychological and physical chains of welfare and free handouts. The conservative, believing in equality, has a greater vision of the black man, of all men. The conservative does not encourage cries of racism to try to stir up a riot. To put it simply, the conservative believes that the black man can make it just as the white man, and any other color man can, if not kept down.
We have all heard the saying "give a man a fish, you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you've fed him forever." This is only half true. You see, if you give a man a fish, and keep doing so, you can eventually make him your slave. This is the liberal Democrats' vision for all of us, not just blacks. But, if you teach a man to fish, he just might open his own fishing business and prosper. This is the conservatives' vision for all.
Now, I am sure that many people reading this will call me a racist. Well, if that is all you can take away from this, go ahead, your loss. But ask yourself this: between the liberal Democrat and me, the conservative... which side is giving the black man a fish, and which side wants the black man to learn to fish?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Useful Idiots and Political Correctness
The USSR was a terrible world power; most people have no idea just how terrible. I wish that history books would include just one picture of one of the poor Russians post-Bolshevik Revolution (the Communist takeover) forced to drag stones via barbed wire- wrapped around their bodies. It is hard to fathom the tens, if not hundreds, of MILLIONS of people that Stalin had killed for the sake of power. What we in the free world can and should take from this dark chapter in history is a warning and a lesson.
The term "useful idiot" is mostly associated with Lenin; but Stalin also made full use of the useful idiots he could influence. Lenin, for the less educated in history out there, was the center figure leading the Bolshevik Revolution, and the first leader of Russia after it succeeded. Of course, revolutions need support. Lenin recognized that many would support his cause without fully knowing what his intentions were. He promised a "worker's paradise" to many, and many actually ended up being liquidated. He called these people useful idiots- Idiots, because they did things that were stupid. Useful, because he could us them to further his own goals.
Stalin also loved his useful idiots, and his greatest were Communist Sympathizers in the US and Western Europe. They had no idea what he was doing: executing millions, suppressing all freedoms, making life a miserable existence of servitude to the ruling elite. These useful idiots thought that the USSR really was some kind of Utopia. They spied on the free USA's government, giving the USSR nuclear secrets that advanced Stalin's program to build an atom bomb by ten years, making him a monstrous threat to peace and freedom. Idiotic? Yes! Useful? Stalin thought so.
Stalin also coined a term still with us today, though no one knows its origin anymore. "Politically correct" is something everyone has heard of. Chartlon Heston had it right when he called political correctness "tyranny with manners." Today, being politically correct means not saying "black" but saying "African-American." It means not saying "illegal aliens," or my favorite: "invaders," but rather "migrant workers." The term "retarded" used to be perfectly acceptable for adults with the mind of a child, now it is "mentally challenged." Or "handicapped." Or whatever they last changed it to, who can keep up? There's no such thing as a "bum" anymore, just an "impoverished person." It is all about control. First they control what people say, then it is easier to control what the think.
Stalin used political correctness much more harshly, and much more literally. Politically, his party- the communist party- was the only party in power. It was unacceptable that anyone or anything be positioned in any way against his party. Therefore, if someone was not "politically correct" by his definition, meaning completely in line with the party, they were executed or sent to Siberia.
In the USA, "political correctness" has not reached this level... yet. It still regularly is used to destroy people. Don Imus, anyone? I don't care for the guy; in fact, I never heard of him before he was fired for some off color comments. But should he have been? The good ol' PC police showed up the moment they smelled a chance for action, and next thing you know Imus is fired for exercising his right to free speech. (Remember all he did was call some black girls nappy-headed hos. Rappers do this and worse daily, if not hourly, but the PC police aren't equal opportunity. That's a story for another post, though.) You see, the left only ever believes in free speech when that speech is politically correct, as they define it. The question is: why are there so many people letting them get away with it? The answer: too many useful idiots.
The term "useful idiot" is mostly associated with Lenin; but Stalin also made full use of the useful idiots he could influence. Lenin, for the less educated in history out there, was the center figure leading the Bolshevik Revolution, and the first leader of Russia after it succeeded. Of course, revolutions need support. Lenin recognized that many would support his cause without fully knowing what his intentions were. He promised a "worker's paradise" to many, and many actually ended up being liquidated. He called these people useful idiots- Idiots, because they did things that were stupid. Useful, because he could us them to further his own goals.
Stalin also loved his useful idiots, and his greatest were Communist Sympathizers in the US and Western Europe. They had no idea what he was doing: executing millions, suppressing all freedoms, making life a miserable existence of servitude to the ruling elite. These useful idiots thought that the USSR really was some kind of Utopia. They spied on the free USA's government, giving the USSR nuclear secrets that advanced Stalin's program to build an atom bomb by ten years, making him a monstrous threat to peace and freedom. Idiotic? Yes! Useful? Stalin thought so.
Stalin also coined a term still with us today, though no one knows its origin anymore. "Politically correct" is something everyone has heard of. Chartlon Heston had it right when he called political correctness "tyranny with manners." Today, being politically correct means not saying "black" but saying "African-American." It means not saying "illegal aliens," or my favorite: "invaders," but rather "migrant workers." The term "retarded" used to be perfectly acceptable for adults with the mind of a child, now it is "mentally challenged." Or "handicapped." Or whatever they last changed it to, who can keep up? There's no such thing as a "bum" anymore, just an "impoverished person." It is all about control. First they control what people say, then it is easier to control what the think.
Stalin used political correctness much more harshly, and much more literally. Politically, his party- the communist party- was the only party in power. It was unacceptable that anyone or anything be positioned in any way against his party. Therefore, if someone was not "politically correct" by his definition, meaning completely in line with the party, they were executed or sent to Siberia.
In the USA, "political correctness" has not reached this level... yet. It still regularly is used to destroy people. Don Imus, anyone? I don't care for the guy; in fact, I never heard of him before he was fired for some off color comments. But should he have been? The good ol' PC police showed up the moment they smelled a chance for action, and next thing you know Imus is fired for exercising his right to free speech. (Remember all he did was call some black girls nappy-headed hos. Rappers do this and worse daily, if not hourly, but the PC police aren't equal opportunity. That's a story for another post, though.) You see, the left only ever believes in free speech when that speech is politically correct, as they define it. The question is: why are there so many people letting them get away with it? The answer: too many useful idiots.
Monday, September 17, 2007
On "Centrism" and Other Misnomers
I would like to state, for the record, that, as a true conservative, I am also a true centrist. The founding fathers were true centrists. Other conservatives are true centrists. Arnold Swarznegger is not a centrist. Allow me to explain what the left, right, and center really are.
Many call conservatives "on the right," or "right-wing," even. This is a fallacy. "Right wingers" in history might include the Nazis, ancient Sparta, and Musollini's Italy. The idea of the "right," is that people exist for the good of the state. Nazism did not recognize individuals' rights, nor did it believe that the government should serve the people. All Germans, under this ideology, existed to serve Germany, de facto the Nazi party. The same was true of fascist Italy at that same time. In Sparta, the ideas were not much different. While that ancient society was actually freer than the Germans were under Hitler, the "right wing" ideas were still firmly in place. It is well known that the only way for a Spartan to receive a tombstone upon death was to either die in battle, or die during child birth. Why? Because that was seen as giving the ultimate sacrifice to the state, and only such a sacrifice ought to be rewarded in death. Spartans all existed to serve the state. In true "right wing" politics, the state comes first.
On the "left," however, the state supposedly only exists for the people. Now, this idea I can agree with, but the way the "left" everywhere carries out this idea is completely out of sync with this alleged goal, as well as reality itself. Communist Russia is the best example of true "left wing" politics, so our attention turns to the USSR in the early 20th century. Karl Marx (may his soul suffer for all eternity for what he's done to the world) theorized that, eventually, common people would revolt and depose the aristocratic elite. Eventually, he said, the state would disappear all together as the people, in their communist "worker's paradise" just did what they were supposed to do: followed laws, and all that... because they knew nothing else. It would all just fall in to place. Now we see the opposites: left vs. right, "all for the state" vs. "the state will disappear." It should be noted, however, that communism never reaches a stateless existence. It is first (and this was Marx's idea as well) set up as a dictatorship, in which the state controls all so to theoretically make everything equal for everyone. "From, according to your ability, to, according to your need" is the philosophy of communism. That is to say, in communism, the "left wing" of politics, you produce whatever you can for society, and the state will disperse it as it sees fit, based on the needs it interprets. In true "left wing" politics, there is no more freedom than in "right wing" politics.
And that is the sad irony of both these opposing ideologies: they are, in the end, the same thing. What is the difference between Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler? Not much. On the far right, and the far left, there is nothing but oppression and suppression of freedom.
However, despair not, there is a better way! In 1776, and the tumultuous years following, there came a new country; one that would soon lead the world in the ways of freedom. (Yes, there have been free societies before in history, but none like this.) America was the true "centrist" state, neither right nor left. The government existed for the people (as well as by the people), but it did not dictate for them. FREEDOM is the answer. It's so simple, I think I need to say it again. FREEDOM. To be in the center is to embrace (responsible) freedom.
Today, the Governator has coined his little term and calls himself a "centrist." That is nothing more than a convenient way of disguising the fact that he now fully embraces left-wing politics. For example, he has recently signed into law a complete socialized medicine policy. This means that the state now pays, with taxes, of course, for the health care of all. Including illegal aliens, mind you. There's your communism as shown above: the state takes from people according to whatever they make, then gives to others according to what the state sees fit. It is an affront to freedom. It is the state spending a man's money for him, rather than letting him do with his money as he pleases. It's communism-light, right here in America. And it's just the beginning of what the left wants to do.
The fact is this: there is no real right-wing movement in America. Sure, there are some right-wingers out there, but for the most part, the so-called "right-wing" consists of nothing more than conservatives in the true center like me, who want America to remain FREE. There is, however, a large left-wing following. The so-called "liberals" (who are actually nothing of the sort, considering that word liberal refers to freedom and "liberals" want anything but... another misnomer from the left) have a large following, as do the conservatives, who are actually at the center. So what the Governator calls the "center", is actually the "center" of two opposing sides: the real center and the left. Well, if one is on the left, and one is on the center, the middle is actually to the left. So there you have it... Ah-nold's "centrism" is nothing more than left-wing politics under a new name.
This is but one of many misleading misnomers that the left, desperate to take over and remake America in Karl Marx's image, has created to fool the "useful idiots" that Lenin referred to so often. They call themselves "progressives," referring to progress. (See Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama.) They fail to mention that their left-wing policies are throw backs to the early 1900s, when the first ideas of communism and socialism spread across Europe and beyond, only to result in monumental failure wherever they were put to the test. They fail to mention that the Nazis also poised themselves as progressives, when Hitler was a throwback to the days of dictators and tyrants. Even we conservatives call them "liberals," when in actuality a liberal believes in liberty and these people clearly do not.
To the left, everything is positioning and image, and that is because what they really want is a lie. They want a Marxist Utopia that cannot exist. They want people to follow their policies, but know that if their Marxist policies are shown for what they are, people will not accept them. They want people to believe that they care and will help, but they will not. So they call themselves things they aren't. Then they call conservatives anything else they can: "right-wing" and "fascist," when anyone who knows me, a true conservative, knows that we true conservatives despise everything Hitler had to offer. They go as far as to call abortion a "woman's right to choose," leaving out that it's her right to choose "to kill." They call it "gun control" when their aim is really to "abolish" gun ownership all together. They call it the "fairness doctrine" when it actually takes away the freedom of speech we all enjoy, letting the government decide who gets to say what on which issue, making it more of a "fascist doctrine." When I call "affirmative action" racist for discriminating against white people (reverse racism, if you will, since it's the opposite of the traditional kind against blacks), they turn it around and label ME a "racist." The same goes for anyone who doesn't want to give up the country to illegal immigrants who have no right to be here. Oh, I must "hate Mexicans." I could go on and on and on, but hopefully you get the idea.
The left in this country knows that a 1918-Russia style revolution can not and will not happen in this country, because we are not as discontent as the Russians were with the Czar at that time. Nor are we as uneducated and ignorant- that is, there aren't as many "useful idiots" to take advantage of as there were when Lenin needed them. However, there are some, and the left knows this. Instead of a coup, they have opted for a slower revolution. A revolution of generational change, of gradual erosion of what makes America great. They further their cause each and every day with lies. Many of these lies are simple misnomers. So please, think for yourself, reflect on what I have said. Do not fall for bumper-sticker-talking-points and little terms that some liar coins to sound good in a commercial. Realize for yourself what words like centrism, progressive, right to choose,racist, bipartisan, fairness, etc. mean, when used by certain people. See through the fog! If there is one truth in the world, it is that politicians lie.
Many call conservatives "on the right," or "right-wing," even. This is a fallacy. "Right wingers" in history might include the Nazis, ancient Sparta, and Musollini's Italy. The idea of the "right," is that people exist for the good of the state. Nazism did not recognize individuals' rights, nor did it believe that the government should serve the people. All Germans, under this ideology, existed to serve Germany, de facto the Nazi party. The same was true of fascist Italy at that same time. In Sparta, the ideas were not much different. While that ancient society was actually freer than the Germans were under Hitler, the "right wing" ideas were still firmly in place. It is well known that the only way for a Spartan to receive a tombstone upon death was to either die in battle, or die during child birth. Why? Because that was seen as giving the ultimate sacrifice to the state, and only such a sacrifice ought to be rewarded in death. Spartans all existed to serve the state. In true "right wing" politics, the state comes first.
On the "left," however, the state supposedly only exists for the people. Now, this idea I can agree with, but the way the "left" everywhere carries out this idea is completely out of sync with this alleged goal, as well as reality itself. Communist Russia is the best example of true "left wing" politics, so our attention turns to the USSR in the early 20th century. Karl Marx (may his soul suffer for all eternity for what he's done to the world) theorized that, eventually, common people would revolt and depose the aristocratic elite. Eventually, he said, the state would disappear all together as the people, in their communist "worker's paradise" just did what they were supposed to do: followed laws, and all that... because they knew nothing else. It would all just fall in to place. Now we see the opposites: left vs. right, "all for the state" vs. "the state will disappear." It should be noted, however, that communism never reaches a stateless existence. It is first (and this was Marx's idea as well) set up as a dictatorship, in which the state controls all so to theoretically make everything equal for everyone. "From, according to your ability, to, according to your need" is the philosophy of communism. That is to say, in communism, the "left wing" of politics, you produce whatever you can for society, and the state will disperse it as it sees fit, based on the needs it interprets. In true "left wing" politics, there is no more freedom than in "right wing" politics.
And that is the sad irony of both these opposing ideologies: they are, in the end, the same thing. What is the difference between Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler? Not much. On the far right, and the far left, there is nothing but oppression and suppression of freedom.
However, despair not, there is a better way! In 1776, and the tumultuous years following, there came a new country; one that would soon lead the world in the ways of freedom. (Yes, there have been free societies before in history, but none like this.) America was the true "centrist" state, neither right nor left. The government existed for the people (as well as by the people), but it did not dictate for them. FREEDOM is the answer. It's so simple, I think I need to say it again. FREEDOM. To be in the center is to embrace (responsible) freedom.
Today, the Governator has coined his little term and calls himself a "centrist." That is nothing more than a convenient way of disguising the fact that he now fully embraces left-wing politics. For example, he has recently signed into law a complete socialized medicine policy. This means that the state now pays, with taxes, of course, for the health care of all. Including illegal aliens, mind you. There's your communism as shown above: the state takes from people according to whatever they make, then gives to others according to what the state sees fit. It is an affront to freedom. It is the state spending a man's money for him, rather than letting him do with his money as he pleases. It's communism-light, right here in America. And it's just the beginning of what the left wants to do.
The fact is this: there is no real right-wing movement in America. Sure, there are some right-wingers out there, but for the most part, the so-called "right-wing" consists of nothing more than conservatives in the true center like me, who want America to remain FREE. There is, however, a large left-wing following. The so-called "liberals" (who are actually nothing of the sort, considering that word liberal refers to freedom and "liberals" want anything but... another misnomer from the left) have a large following, as do the conservatives, who are actually at the center. So what the Governator calls the "center", is actually the "center" of two opposing sides: the real center and the left. Well, if one is on the left, and one is on the center, the middle is actually to the left. So there you have it... Ah-nold's "centrism" is nothing more than left-wing politics under a new name.
This is but one of many misleading misnomers that the left, desperate to take over and remake America in Karl Marx's image, has created to fool the "useful idiots" that Lenin referred to so often. They call themselves "progressives," referring to progress. (See Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama.) They fail to mention that their left-wing policies are throw backs to the early 1900s, when the first ideas of communism and socialism spread across Europe and beyond, only to result in monumental failure wherever they were put to the test. They fail to mention that the Nazis also poised themselves as progressives, when Hitler was a throwback to the days of dictators and tyrants. Even we conservatives call them "liberals," when in actuality a liberal believes in liberty and these people clearly do not.
To the left, everything is positioning and image, and that is because what they really want is a lie. They want a Marxist Utopia that cannot exist. They want people to follow their policies, but know that if their Marxist policies are shown for what they are, people will not accept them. They want people to believe that they care and will help, but they will not. So they call themselves things they aren't. Then they call conservatives anything else they can: "right-wing" and "fascist," when anyone who knows me, a true conservative, knows that we true conservatives despise everything Hitler had to offer. They go as far as to call abortion a "woman's right to choose," leaving out that it's her right to choose "to kill." They call it "gun control" when their aim is really to "abolish" gun ownership all together. They call it the "fairness doctrine" when it actually takes away the freedom of speech we all enjoy, letting the government decide who gets to say what on which issue, making it more of a "fascist doctrine." When I call "affirmative action" racist for discriminating against white people (reverse racism, if you will, since it's the opposite of the traditional kind against blacks), they turn it around and label ME a "racist." The same goes for anyone who doesn't want to give up the country to illegal immigrants who have no right to be here. Oh, I must "hate Mexicans." I could go on and on and on, but hopefully you get the idea.
The left in this country knows that a 1918-Russia style revolution can not and will not happen in this country, because we are not as discontent as the Russians were with the Czar at that time. Nor are we as uneducated and ignorant- that is, there aren't as many "useful idiots" to take advantage of as there were when Lenin needed them. However, there are some, and the left knows this. Instead of a coup, they have opted for a slower revolution. A revolution of generational change, of gradual erosion of what makes America great. They further their cause each and every day with lies. Many of these lies are simple misnomers. So please, think for yourself, reflect on what I have said. Do not fall for bumper-sticker-talking-points and little terms that some liar coins to sound good in a commercial. Realize for yourself what words like centrism, progressive, right to choose,racist, bipartisan, fairness, etc. mean, when used by certain people. See through the fog! If there is one truth in the world, it is that politicians lie.
Emmys, and things that matter
So Kathy Griffin won an Emmy (don't quite know how), and she uses her chance to crack some offensive jokes. Now she boasts being censored. But why was she censored? The religious zealots are happy because she said such blasphemous things (saying that Jesus had nothing to do with her winning her award, and then basically saying she worships her award as an idol.) But the show biz folk are mad? I guess I didn't get the memo that they weren't anti-religion again. Well, anti-Christianity anyway. But if you get past the knee jerk reaction of "oh! that blasphemous heathen..." you might see that Griffin was not mocking religious belief so much as she was mocking the entertainment business itself. How many times has a rapper won an award and credited either God, Jesus, Allah, or whatever? You know, the rapper who's album nominated for the award had one song about God, and the rest about murder, drugs, anonymous sex, and materialistic things like diamonds and shiny rims. And how many actors, actresses, and the likes, would you say worship their own fame and themselves rather than a higher being, or nothing at all for those alleged atheists out there? No, no, my friends. Kathy Griffin doesn't seem to be making fun of Christianity; seems to me she's talking down to all her colleagues. Why else do you think they wanted to censor her? Have you heard of another recent example of Hollywood choosing not to bash Christianity? I can't. It's too bad the religious leaders condemning her don't see what I do.
Now the question becomes, why do I focus on this and not the fact that, say, Israel took out nuclear materials in Syria from North Korea. (Yes, you read that right.) Or that Hillary Clinton has not only proposed socialized medicine, but has not yet decided whether or not illegal immigrants will get coverage on our dollar (meaning they will). I focus on this because it is the perfect example of the culture war at large. Someone within criticizes an anything-goes, anti-Christianity, commu-fascist liberal organization: the entertainment business. She is censored for it by that industry, not because of any religious outrage, but because she dared speak out against them. Meanwhile, the religious right, the strongest advocates for morality and decency, are too inept to see what has really happened, and merely follow their knee-jerk reaction of condemning her for what she said on the surface. Here we see that the side for morality is so "good" that they often only think in two dimensions. Drone thinkers, all of them.
So the "left," the side that will grind away at morality and decency until nothing is left except debaucherous perverted sickness rivaling that of the Roman Empire circa 200 A.D., is easily able to censor one of its own critics. And the "right," the side that would oppose this society-eroding nonsense- the only hope for the survival for this country- is duped into thinking that they have actually won a battle and that some good is done, when in actuality they just went along with the silencing of someone doing them a favor. Can you see why this distresses me? Who will win this aptly named "culture war" if this is how the sides play it out?
Now the question becomes, why do I focus on this and not the fact that, say, Israel took out nuclear materials in Syria from North Korea. (Yes, you read that right.) Or that Hillary Clinton has not only proposed socialized medicine, but has not yet decided whether or not illegal immigrants will get coverage on our dollar (meaning they will). I focus on this because it is the perfect example of the culture war at large. Someone within criticizes an anything-goes, anti-Christianity, commu-fascist liberal organization: the entertainment business. She is censored for it by that industry, not because of any religious outrage, but because she dared speak out against them. Meanwhile, the religious right, the strongest advocates for morality and decency, are too inept to see what has really happened, and merely follow their knee-jerk reaction of condemning her for what she said on the surface. Here we see that the side for morality is so "good" that they often only think in two dimensions. Drone thinkers, all of them.
So the "left," the side that will grind away at morality and decency until nothing is left except debaucherous perverted sickness rivaling that of the Roman Empire circa 200 A.D., is easily able to censor one of its own critics. And the "right," the side that would oppose this society-eroding nonsense- the only hope for the survival for this country- is duped into thinking that they have actually won a battle and that some good is done, when in actuality they just went along with the silencing of someone doing them a favor. Can you see why this distresses me? Who will win this aptly named "culture war" if this is how the sides play it out?
Friday, September 14, 2007
My Immigration Amendment
The following is a constitutional amendment I have written that ought to have already been enacted, following the repeal of the 14th amendment, which should also have occurred already.
All foreign nationals within the borders of the United States illegally shall be denied citizenship for the rest of their natural born lives. English shall be the only official language of the United States, all official matters shall be conducted in only this language. All federal, state, and other government funds, moneys and services shall be denied to any foreign national, or non-citizen illegally within the United States. The borders of the United States shall be closed to and defended from all who would enter illegally or invade. The citizenship of all those born inside the United States to non-citizens who, at the time of birth, were within the nation's borders illegally, shall have their citizenship revoked immediately, and said persons shall be swiftly deported.
All foreign nationals within the borders of the United States illegally shall be denied citizenship for the rest of their natural born lives. English shall be the only official language of the United States, all official matters shall be conducted in only this language. All federal, state, and other government funds, moneys and services shall be denied to any foreign national, or non-citizen illegally within the United States. The borders of the United States shall be closed to and defended from all who would enter illegally or invade. The citizenship of all those born inside the United States to non-citizens who, at the time of birth, were within the nation's borders illegally, shall have their citizenship revoked immediately, and said persons shall be swiftly deported.
A Promise
As the Conservative For Truth, I vow that I will never allow my words to be chosen, edited, or censored in any way by anyone other than myself. I will never say anything any individual or group wants me to unless I want to, and I will never neglect to say anything under the same circumstances. I will never voice another person's idea without giving them credit, unless I had the same idea independently. I will always retain my integrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
