-Caveat Lector-
>From http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/slouching_servitude.htm
}}}>Begin
Slouching Toward Servitude
by Robert L. Kocher
It seems like I've spent half my life thinking: "People can't possibly be this stupid
and
hopeless." It's a wish more than anything else. It's important not to allow that wish
to
blind you to realistic appraisal, which is what occasionally happens if you wish hard
enough, or if the realistic alternative to that wish is frightening. In a lecture,
Isaac
Asimov once spent an hour leading to the shouted conclusion, "People are Stupid!"
People are stupid and hopeless to the point of being scary. Furthermore, either by
force of numbers or direct authority, they want to take control of my life, and impose
control. To the extent of their stupidity, I suffer less chance of finding anyone of
rational intelligence to accomplish what needs to be done. The fact is, the more
primitive or degenerate the preponderate condition of other human beings becomes,
the less necessary talent I have to draw on to accomplish a task, and the more I am
subjected to the irrationalities to which people in such condition are prone. I can not
do everything myself. There must be other functioning human beings in the world.
There was a time when people were ruled by group hysteria, by superstition, by
ignorance, and by confidence men of various sorts. With the advent of education and
sophistication it might be suspected, or hoped, that the condition would be in a state
of at least some remission. But, unfortunately, this is not so. The condition seems not
a matter of deficient education but rather a matter of intrinsic nature within a
proportion of the population. Education doesn't cure the condition, but is instead bent
to serve the condition and dignify it. A proportion of human beings are intrinsically
susceptible to such rule by result of natural limitation and impulse. Change of their
existent individual condition is seldom possible. The condition is supposed to die out
by evolution through the process of environmental stress and social Darwinism.
Most unfortunately, by constructing protective political and social institutions,
people
possessed of such characteristics have found it possible to feed upon those not
possessed. What is resulting is evolutionary reversal into increasing dominance of
primitive human life forms at the expense of those less primitive. This has produced
a new oppressed class in which those who are civilized are exploited and oppressed
by those at less developed levels. Paradoxically, those who are oppressed are
labeled oppressors while those doing the oppression label themselves as fighting
oppression.
Primitives bypassed by evolutionary development, or encouraged by the rhetoric of
evolutionary reversal, still remain primitives by inherent constitution in much the
same way as the common house cat is incapable of learning mathematics and
systematically toys with and tortures a mouse before finally killing it. It's a matter
of
genetic disposition on all counts.
Confidence Men Still Rule
Various people boast about how far we have come. We're now too smart, educated,
and sophisticated to be fooled. As evidence. such people point to selected corrupt or
foolish public figures or actions which are subjected to common ridicule within the
social conformity of the present pool of consensual agreement. They so do with a
sense of self- congratulation in their agreement with that pool. In fact, the reference
is still to that shifting primitive herd pool rather than to independent analysis. "We"
haven't come that far. Group hysteria, superstition, ignorance, confidence men,
demagogues, etc. are still as operative as they ever were, but in different vogue and
costume.
One would hope demagogues and confidence men would be immediately perceived.
The Elmer Gantrys of the world are still successfully with us, but in slightly
different
superficial form.
To focus more upon the point, some among you may remember Bill Clinton. For
those who need help in recalling, Clinton was a part time woman-groper and rapist,
part time perjurer, part time Methodist, part time President of the United States who
was impeached, and both was and continues to be a full time eternal spoiled 15 year
old. He might be viewed as a truly Renaissance man in this diversity. He ran for
office on a leftist 60s countercultural platform deploring the greed of the 80s.
Upon leaving office Clinton began speaking for $100,000 a night. His fees have
increased somewhat. He is very popular in Australia. His last speaking engagement
there reportedly netted him $300,000.
What follows are excerpts from an article in an Australian publication, The Age, by
Barbara Adam dated 02/27/2002 describing a well-attended Clinton speech at a
$1,100-a-head charity dinner in Melbourne for the Microsurgery Foundation.
The article begins with the banner, "Clinton to dedicate life to redistributing world's
wealth" which has been an ongoing Clinton theme. In the early period of this theme
during the 90s, those whose income or property was to be redistributed were
described as "making their contribution."
"Former US president Bill Clinton today vowed to dedicate the rest of his life to
helping redistribute the world's wealth.
"At his fourth Australian speaking engagement, Mr Clinton said prosperous nations
including Australia and the United States held the key to the world's future . . .
"'There are 40 million AIDS cases a day and if we don't do something about it, there
will be 100 million AIDS cases a day . . . '
"Mr Clinton said Australians needed to identify with people of poorer nations.
"'If we can, then our children will have the most peaceful and prosperous and the
most interesting and fun time in all of human history,' he said.
"'I'm going to do what I can for the rest of my life to make that happen, and I hope
you will too.'
"The 42nd president of the United States said Australians should not be afraid of
change, or of people who were different.
"'Such fears had resulted in the assassinations of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Israeli
President Yitzak Rabin and the September 11 terrorist attacks.'
"'We are struggling to find a balance in our two countries to not just tolerate people
who are different, but actually venerate those differences, respect them, celebrate
them, in the context of our common humanity,' he said.
"In a direct reference to the Howard government's woes, Mr Clinton also warned
Australia needed to pull its weight in addressing global warming or the refugee crisis
would get worse.
"'If the world warms in the next 50 years as it has done in the last 10, . . .
agricultural
production will be disrupted across the globe,' he said.
"'You'll have literally millions upon millions of food refugees, leading to more
violence,
more disruption and more boatloads of refugees that you will have to face.' "
Now . . . At Clinton's 40 million new AIDS cases a day, in several months everyone
on the planet will have AIDS, or should have contracted AIDS by now. Clinton didn't
explicitly use the word "new." Within the context of the sentence "new" is implicit or
the sentence makes no sense at all, not that sense is to be expected. When Clinton
speaks he becomes so full of himself and so wound up that words flow without logic
or meaning. Clinton is likely to say anything at any time. It makes no difference how
coherent it is because adoring audiences haven't the capacity to know or care one
way or another. If they don't know or care, Clinton doesn't know or care either.
People Who Are Different
And being afraid of people who are different? Wasn't Hitler only a person who was
different? Beneath the blandness of language are there not times when the specific
nature of difference are important? Are there not times when being afraid of people
who are different is necessary for survival?
Creatures walking erect and resembling human beings pay $1,100 apiece to hear a
man of Clinton's known character expound such mindlessness. I say they resemble
human beings. No sentient moral organism, including advanced human beings,
would associate itself with any part of this scene.
But, massive crowds who must necessarily have mentalities of composition
somewhere between Jurassic Park and the end of the ice age are enraptured by
Clinton. He provides them with some type of vague emotional and visual impact that
takes control of them. They believe they are witnessing ongoing greatness.
So we have a new Elmer Gantry preacher, who is spellbinding among the mentally
dysfunctional, practicing a type of verbal terrorism in which the world will descend
into hell if his word and leadership are not followed. Presumably, people will
eventually pay $10,000 each to hear it. People can't possibly be this stupid and
hopeless. Well, they are.
God help us.
God did. He delivered unto America a day for potential self-deliverance and
salvation, a presidential election so that the Clintons could be replaced by an
improvement. The celebrated improvement was somehow declared to be George
Bush.
Witness the instrument of blessed salvation.
The following are excerpts from a March 23, 2002 Washington Times piece by Bill
Sammon.
President Urges More Foreign Aid
"MONTERREY, Mexico: President Bush yesterday said Americans are duty-bound to
'share our wealth' with poor nations and promised a 50 percent increase in foreign
aid, but 'We should give more of our aid in the form of grants, rather than loans that
can never be repaid,' he said. 'We should invest in better health and build on our
efforts to fight AIDS, which threatens to undermine whole societies.'
"In addition to the moral, economic and strategic imperatives of increasing foreign
aid, Mr. Bush said, it could also help in the war against terrorism.
"'We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed
governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn
to
their advantage"
. . . and so forth.
AIDS again . . . Given that the wealthiest country in the world, America, has an AIDS
problem, and very wealthy entertainers and such contract the disease, it becomes
difficult to see how sharing that wealth will end AIDS elsewhere. Indiscriminate sex
has little to do with it? The economic resources of the world and individual rights
will
need to be confiscated and socialized to compensate for insane sex lives?
The Message of AIDS
AIDS is not undermining societies. Cause and consequence have been irrationally
interchanged in Bush's argument. To the extent AIDS exists in societies, those
societies are already undermined. AIDS is a message from basic real chemical,
physical, and biological law saying people are acting just plain damned nuts. It is a
corrective agent of natural law upgrading the population of the earth by culling out
those undermining individuals and cultures who are characterized by incapacity or
refusal to employ higher cognitive processes. It is one of the last remaining morally
just corrective measures that liberalism has been unable to blunt at the expense of
others in its war of denial against realistic consequences to behavior.
Aside from that, given the similarity of content and thought processes in the Bush
and Clinton speeches, the question becomes, is Bill Clinton writing George Bush's
material and doing his thinking for him, or is Bush writing Clinton's material? It's
reasonable to wonder, how alike are Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton? At the least, Bush is
adding support and dignity to Clinton's position. Clinton is no longer the problem,
Bush is.
Those who have been following this series know it isn't so simple. From the last
installment on inequality and revolution in this series it can be seen that the Clinton
and Bush speeches closely follow Kofi Annan's Nobel acceptance speech. These all,
in turn, closely parallel George McGovern's declarations and what he, the self-
declared conscience of the Democratic party, has been saying for more than 30
years. And ex- president Jimmy Carter, don't forget Jimmy Carter just because as of
this writing he is in Cuba holding hands with Fidel Castro. He's saying the same
thing.
What exists is an ever-continuing siege from a unified pool of agreement where each
leader is ideologically interchangeable with the other in certain critical matters.
Deviation from that pool seems accidental or one of tactical employment of deception
rather than commitment. Basically, all parties involved in the siege are all equally
brainless and are dependent upon stealing ideological excerpts from each other to
form their own vacuous babble, and for vacuous responses to each other's vacuous
babble. The illusion of difference is one based upon personal style and presentation
rather than substance.
>From whence did these nearly identical ideas, albeit touted in different styles,
ultimately arise? The ultimate source is Marxist/paramarxist theoretics and
interpretation. Seize the wealth and productive resources of the world and divide it up
more equitably. Martin Luther King said much the same thing when he demanded
redistribution of superfluous wealth into social goals. The basic philosophy continues
to resurface in linguistically repackaged form.
The Bush Socialist Society
Within this, Bush is moving us toward a world socialist society based upon the
Marxist principle in which, "From each according to their ability, to each according to
their need." is the essential statement and duty. Restatement of the principle in the
more accurate form, "We going to make our or someone else's problems into your
problems at your personal cost" is less preferred. Obligation to the principle, "From
each who have something that can be taken, to support each according to the mess
they are making," is a perception that is studiously avoided through avoidant and
beautifying structure of language.
What is agreed upon on deeper levels?
The most basic implicit premise being established is that American lives and property
are undisputably confiscatable tools to be seized, excuse me justly redistributed, by
declaration, in forced servitude to various fads, theories, and ambitions, almost as a
form of amusement. The lives, property, and earnings of the American people have
essentially become toys to be played with, or pieces on a chess board to be moved
by uncontested declaration without regard for constitutionality or individual rights.
To put it another way, all individual income and property are now viewed as common
property and are to be used as such.
Ambitious or lamebrained political figures, including George Bush, now blithely
assume, that's assume, other people's lives and productivity are theirs,
unconditionally, to command without permission of the people being used, or
commanded through permission from others susceptible to being used, or with
permission derived from leftist sociopolitical theories. There is an assumed right to
arbitrary confiscation or transfer of ownership of anything. Within archaic remnants of
criminal law such action is considered theft. It is presently looked upon as social
redistribution. There is a constant intrusion of various demands and theories into
American life.
In the case of Bush, he makes the assumption because he's an unquestioning dolt
repeating or caught up in something beyond his capacity for understanding. If other
unquestioning dolts go along with it, it works for him, at least temporarily.
Keeping Up with the Clintons
While Bush is a pleasant person, he is too weak for any of this to produce conflict or
ideological hesitation, or apology, or qualification. He lacks secure internal
structural
limits or boundaries in his internal logical, moral, and intellectual architecture. He
lacks a REFLEXIVE coherent frame of reference to respect for individuality and
freedom. Individuality and freedom are what secondarily remain after social servitude
to poverty or any other conjectured social goals. Probably, he is too compromised,
undercut, or undeveloped by a warped and deficient educational background. He's
operating from what he had been fed, or from what vacancies existed, during the
period of his intellectual acquisition. He lacks creative or inquisitive nature, and
the
thoroughness, to either challenge or fill vacancies. During his entire presidential
campaign he was not heard to utter a single creative or incisive statement. That was
the determinant diagnostic signal of what America was to end up with. Consequently,
there is no offense to Bush's internal structure by the Clintons, or by Marxist or
irrational principles. Instead, Bush is defenselessly trying to catch up with the
Clintons and others.
In order to understand George Bush's thinking it should be understood he has been
carried and rescued most of his life. His business activities were marginal or
unsuccessful adventures in which the family name placed him in figurehead positions
and drew opportunity as favors. When the success of those adventures was in doubt,
they were acquired by other companies who installed him in further lucrative
figurehead positions. Sustained discipline and accuracy of mind has not been a
necessity in that life. It plainly shows.
In cases other than Bush, such as the Clintons, the assumption of unquestioned
command and right to intrusional revision results from a profound psychoanalytic
pattern. Within this pattern the assumption of permission is derived from the
oblivious conceit and self-centeredness of narcissism. The spoiled child does not
recognize the difference or boundaries between himself, his wishes or fantasies on
one hand, and the right to independence from him in an independent outside world
on the other. If uncorrected, the problem persists through chronological adulthood.
The idea that other people have, and have a right to, their own independent identity
and rights that are not automatic extension of the ambition or demands of service to
the narcissist, or are not playthings, is alien and is considered an intolerable unjust
inconvenience. When this is combined with gullible susceptibility or enforced
obedience among the masses it creates problems for the continued existence of
rational individual freedom as that narcissism acquires political authority.
That is, people such as the Clintons believe other people have no right to be anything
but extensions or expressions of their (the Clintons and people like them) primitive
self-centeredness and ambition. There is only one world, theirs, and they are
specially entitled to obligate or do with it as they wish.
Enforced Servitude
We can afford the money to pay for these declarations of economic redistribution, at
least initially. However, what we can definitely not afford is the cavalier disrespect
and loss of those principles underwriting individual autonomy and liberty. Neither can
we afford the disregard for enforced servitude. What is being accomplished is the
creating of a playground where individual incompetents or misanthropes such as the
Clintons, or a de facto class coalition of such people, have control over our lives.
This isn't just about money or the needs of so- called disadvantaged people. It's
about unexamined presumption. It's about increasing boldness. It's about whether
other people, including even George Bush, have respect for us in our individual lives.
Indeed, to the degree we become ground down and overly compliant, will WE even
remember to have respect, and demand respect, for our own individual lives? We
need to recover our boundaries of our individual selves.
We can afford the money to pay for these proclamations, at least initially. But, once a
critical valid principle is either breached, or a corrupt(able) principle is
established,
that which has been justified can be expanded without limits or challenge. An
example is the case of an income tax that was never supposed to exceed five
percent and is now being used for purposes undreamed of during its inception,
including social redistribution of wealth to achieve economic equality, and
subsidization of irresponsibility.
(What exists is a new form of taxation without representation. Any political
representation of people earning through effort and creativity is smothered and
dismissed by an organized mass of people interested in taking and redistributing
among themselves, or for politicians purchasing political gain. The original
representation of the individual was not only through vote, but also through a respect
for the individual as separate from the group defined in the United States
Constitution. The purpose of the constitution was to define and limit the power of
government and to establish the rights and boundaries of the individual as opposed
to the group. That's why there was a Bill of (individual) Rights. With the
deconstruction of the original constitution, the individual has lost representation in
government concurrent with being subjugated to the irrationalities of the mob. He has
also lost protection from the demagogues and the irresponsible.)
To put it another way, once an operating principle is wrongly established and
subsequently glorified, excesses in its future implementation are no longer
considered excesses or insult or injustice, but become interpreted as mere
zealousness or enlightened correction to the original too-limited concept of
necessary scope. Once the sacrifice of individual rights in the principle is
accomplished, there is no longer basis for restricting excesses in imposing sacrifice
and all protection is lost. The deconstruction of valid principle which is at first
tentative in application eventually becomes tyrannical as corruption finds ways to
exploit it.
Collaterally, there is an issue as to whether we as individuals will be subjected to
forced servitude to the irresponsibility of others. The existential distortion of
language
abstracting out concrete realities of irresponsibility and corruption have been
discussed earlier in the series.
If we lose in these two areas we end up as forced servants to corruption, to
pathology, to irresponsibility, to incompetence, and to narcissistic ambition in the
dark ages of a quasi Stalinist state. This is the all-important issue. In this most
important regard George Bush, regardless of difference in personal sexual practices,
is of too little difference or improvement over the Clintons, leaving the Clintons and
their legacy entirely too uncontested and unscathed, --and also deconstructing
obstacles to arbitrary sacrifice of individuality for social benefit. While Bush is
presently conducting a war on terrorism that is popular, the status of freedom and
individuality in the nation is being cut off at the knees. Regardless of anything else,
this status is the real war that has been taking place for years. As was said earlier,
the celebrated improvement was George Bush. Bush supporters are still determined
to celebrate that improvement by pointing to actions against so-called terrorists. Bush
supporters are committed or determined to maintain an initially somewhat
unfortunately adopted infatuation at any price.
Terrorist Nickel-Dime Triviality
But, the war on terrorism is, over the long term in future history, nickel-dime
triviality
that will pass. While it's absolutely necessary for the moment, if successful, it will
be
of passing importance. In 60 years few historical texts will mention the crashing of
several airplanes into buildings (unless the acts become historically interpreted or
labeled as the trigger of the world-wide religious war required to correct the
problem).
Justifying imposition of social servitude and the arbitrary seizing and redistribution
of
earnings and property for unconditional socioeconomic equality is a corrupt principle
that, if not decisively challenged and vanquished, will determine the course of
individual rights and the direction of the nation, and even the world, for relentless
time to come. It's important to keep one's eye on issues of critical long term
importance rather than only on temporarily important incidents. Regardless of
whatever else is happening, and regardless of what you think you're winning, if the
course of long term direction is diverted from rational individuality and into to
servitude, you've lost everything. In this case the serious underlying losses of
delayed effect out-total the short-term winnings even through the celebration of the
wins. The core elements of substantive importance in American life are being
disassembled while fools are busy celebrating the bombing of a few psychotic goofs
in the Middle East.
Indeed, as was diagramed previously in this series, arrogant assumed right to
imposition of social servitude of others is a principle basis of terrorism and
revolution.
In his philosophy of social servitude, George Bush is ideologically underwriting or
encouraging so-called terrorism on one hand while conducting military operations
against it on the other. Consequently, military actions are doomed to failure in
establishing long term change unless the American people are enslaved to satisfy
the demands of terrorists and revolutionaries. Even this enslavement will produce
uncertain stability because satisfying irrationality, due to the inherent nature of
irrationality and its consequences, is a task that is impossible to finalize.
What is occurring, whether by purpose or stupidity, is the construction of a trap in
which world socialism will be the only escape. Among other things, in these
statements sociologizing poverty as the cause of terrorism, we are legitimizing a
political movement that we will need to pay with our freedom to ransom ourselves.
If George Bush can not understand all this, he is dangerous. If Bush does
understand this but continues to act as he has, he is dangerous. If his supporters, in
their desperate blind determination to create and believe in a messiah, do not
understand this, they are more dangerous than Bush, Clinton, et al because they are
the reason why the Clintons, the McGoverns, the Bush's, and the rest, thrive.
Mexico
Part of Bush's present thrust may have something to do with his apparent obsession
with Hispanics. This happens to interact with Mexican president Vincente Fox's
presently unsolvable problem. Over the centuries Mexico has produced no thriving
economy. On the other hand, Mexicans reproduce at rate that chokes them to death
with each other. Mexico City had a population of about 8.5 million [closer to 15
million�Zola] in the mid 1990s and there are numerous other Mexican cities with
populations of over one million within an annual national population increase of 2.1%
despite massive flight to the United States or other areas. That rate means an
approximate increase of 160,000 people each year in Mexico City alone, which the
area has little economic capacity to assimilate. During parts of the 90s the real
economic growth rate was in the order of -6 to - 7% with an inflation rate of about
50% according to page 280 of the 1998 Time Almanac. As of 2002 the total
population of Mexico is a little over 100,000,000 in a depleted area perhaps twice the
size of Texas containing vast marginally inhabitable areas. There are many areas the
size of Rhode Island without roads or anything else. Corruption and political
instability
are a way of life.
During the early 1500s Hernando Cortez conquered Southern Mexico in the name of
the Spanish king, queen, or whoever. As was customary practice at the time,
conquerors claimed everything conceivably thought to exist, whether they had even
seen it or not. That Hernando even knew Utah existed was highly doubtful but Spain
wanted all it could get. This left Spain claiming to own nearly the entire western
third
of what is now the United States by declaration of Mr. Cortez. In 1821 the Mexicans
completed revolution against, and expulsion of, Spanish rule, which then left Mexico
theoretically claiming, through inheritance and transfer of title, the same territory
by
virtue of Mr. Cortez's same original Spanish declaration.
But, during the period of 1836 to 1848 Mexico lost Texas, California, Arizona, New
Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and parts of Wyoming to the United States. The
areas were sparsely populated by people of Mexican heritage or orientation, and
without significant Mexican governmental representation or administration. Settlers
from the United States poured in exclusively, massively, and identified with the
United States. They refused recognition of the Mexican government, and made it
stick with occasional help from the U. S. Army. Basically, Americans did the same
thing to Mexico as that which the Mexicans did to Spain. If the Mexicans refused to
acknowledge the validity of Mr. Cortez's pronouncements, neither would the
Americans. With the exception of a few problems such as the battle of the Alamo it
was much easier to enforce such refusal because there was little or no Mexican
presence in many of the areas. There was no way Mexico could mount an army to
defend or establish control of distant and even unknown areas such as Utah,
Wyoming, or Northern California against outside immigration and subsequent
rebellion.
Mexico is now dead in the water in a condition that is unimprovable within any short
period of time. It seems not in the nature of the corruption, the culture, or the
political
system to facilitate development and improvement.
At this point, over the short period of time, the direction Mexico needs to go is
perfectly clear. Fox, and Mexico, need to export tens of millions of Mexicans who are
a problem as well as engulf and utilize an external economy and welfare system.
That means the easiest direction for Mexico to pursue is to annex the states of
California and Texas, with Arizona and New Mexico along in the ride, then send tens
of millions of Mexicans there and beyond. Mexico needs an exodus of at least
25,000,000 people per ten year period to even maintain its present sick condition.
The Immigration Problem
If there were open borders probably 70% of the Mexican population would vacate
Mexico proper and move North. This opening and an eventual annexation has been
proposed in a Mexican national political movement which seeks to reclaim the
Mexican boundaries pre 1836. Marxist representation and organizing sites for this
movement can be found on the internet under an Aztlan search. This movement is
serious and spreading through the grassroots like a prairie fire. The inferior quality
of
thought patterns within this movement are a diagnostic signal of something I would
personally not welcome into America and have undoubtedly played a substantial part
in putting Mexico in the condition it is in. The degree to which such patterns already
exist within the American general population seriously threatens the continued
existence of the nation. More of it will be hopelessly unsurvivable.
If it were possible to migrate out 60% of the population of Mexico, Mexico might,
temporarily, become a workable and livable place for those remaining.
What is well into fruition is a reconquest and conversion of Southwestern United
States by force of numbers and occupation. After a given proportion of local
American populations are Mexican immigrants, the legal and administration of
various American states will be overwhelmed and Mexicanized or coopted while
momentum of the social demography will work to smuggle more illegal immigration
as well as subvert attempts to stop it. This will, in practice, eliminate the borders
between the countries in certain areas and allow unlimited mass migration to pour
through those points. From thence the population can redistribute the wealth or
anything else through participatory democracy. That essentially parallels what
happened in South(ern) Africa, which subsequently became a hellhole. The African
lesson should be heeded. In 10 years California and Texas will become de facto
socialist provinces of Mexico that have massive national political leverage in the
United States. These provinces will have numerous senators, representatives, and
enormous numbers of electoral votes. This will, in turn, provide unresistable leverage
in accessing and redistributing individual incomes in the remainder of the United
States through input into taxation and direction of expenditures.
In one sense what is occurring is a reversal of the process, or reapplication of the
process, that created the Western United States through mass migration. There are
several important differences. While Mexico was economically, militarily, and
administratively unable to control the immigration and loss of the area during the
1800s, the United States government under prevalent sociopolitical philosophy is
now unwilling to stop the process. Furthermore, as the process expands in a wave,
the remainder of America will be forced to support it, financially and otherwise,
through welfare, social services, and imposed theoretical cultural pluralism. So-called
Anglos will finance their own conquest, destruction, and enslavement. The entire
scenario will be a portrayal of hilarious and somewhat sadistic comic stupidity if it
were not reality.
The American Anglo world is now so immobilized, beaten down, lacking in pride, and
guilt-ridden that it is nearly eager to commit economic, cultural, and racial suicide.
The basic core of the country that made it great has become so diluted as to make it
ineffectual.
All this seems to have the blessing of George Bush.
Returning to the remainder of the Sammon piece:
"After his speech, Mr. Bush met with Mexican President Vicente Fox, who wants the
United States to expand its guest-worker program for Mexicans and grant amnesty to
hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Mr. Bush agrees with the proposal, but
acknowledges the American public would not support granting blanket amnesty to
the several million Mexicans who are living in the United States illegally.
"A senior administration official said a bill before the U.S. Senate granting amnesty
to
200,000 of those Mexicans is part of an "incremental" approach to the immigration
issue. The official was asked by The Washington Times if that means the president
favors an even-greater relaxation of immigration rules that stops short of blanket
amnesty . . .
"During a joint news conference last night with Mr. Fox, Mr. Bush made clear that he
considers the bill before the Senate, known as 245(I), to be merely a first step in a
broader effort to give special treatment to Mexican illegals.
"'Beyond 245-I, which is the family reunification act, is first of all understanding
the
unique nature of the Mexican in our country,' he said. 'The Mexican national is
different by virtue of the fact of proximity to the United States.' . . .
"Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, Mr. Fox had called for looser
immigration laws by the end of last year. This was viewed as politically advantageous
to Mr. Bush, who has long courted Hispanic voters.
"But after the attacks, the American public called for stricter, not looser, control of
borders. Recognizing the altered political landscape, Mr. Fox has instead called for
expansion of guest-worker programs and amnesty for a smaller group of illegals.
"'This type of policy was tried in the 1950s and 1960s and touched off massive
permanent illegal immigration to the United States,' said Dan Stein, executive
director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
"'The alternative that Fox is offering relies on the revival of a failed guest-worker
program that has served the interests of neither the United States nor Mexico,' Mr.
Stein said. 'As enticing as the words 'temporary' and 'guest worker' might sound, we
know from experience in this country and elsewhere around the world that there is
nothing temporary about these schemes.' "
The key phrase here is, "incremental approach." The American nation will get as
much of it as it can be forced to swallow at any time.
Why Bush Will Lose
Going back, "This was viewed as politically advantageous to Mr. Bush, who has long
courted Hispanic voters." If Bush expects to harvest any political advantage from
this, he is very naive. It is a naivete typical of those accustomed to the status and
privileges of elitism assumed on both sides of social boundaries. Bush is living in the
past. Back in Texas all that was required was that he spoke a little broken Spanish to
the minority peasants, then hop on a plane to attend a birthday party or family
diversion at the family private playground in Kennebunkport, Maine. Mexican
Hispanics are unconsciously treated as serfs, and fawn like them. As a politically
powerless minority, they haven't had much choice but to play the game. But this
political courtship has been fantasy island.
Bush is temporarily useful to Mexico and immigrants, and also to advancement of
political left/ counterculture destructive strategy, as a dupe. The political powers
that
will arise out of increased Mexican population will be more radical aggressive
Hispanic equivalents to, or beyond that of, Kwesei Mfume and Jesse Jackson�and
with a majority, or close to a majority, of the vote in various areas. There will be no
further need for the humility or obsequiousness that Bush is accustomed to and
counting on. Temperance, caution, and moderation will no longer be a necessity
upon achieving force of numbers and political control. Mexicans won't need to grovel
before Bush's pandering to them in Spanish. They have their own people who speak
the language much better, thank you. It's in their easiest and best, even necessary,
interest to obtain the gains available through social(istic) redistribution or
regulation.
If George Bush wants to appeal to this he'll need to do so by tightening the
authoritarian socialistic and countercultural stranglehold in America. Bush will still
lose. Just as the first liar always loses in a conversational contest among liars, Bush
will be outbid by more radical leftists in his attempt to cash in on what he has done.
The remainder of the country, which already doesn't show up to vote in their silent
protest of being politically disenfranchised from consideration, will be further
disenfranchised and strangled. Within the virtual reality of American politics, they
are
no longer in the loop. Unless there is formation of a new political party the Perot
candidacy in 1992, which produced the highest proportion of voter turnout in recent
years, will have been their last gasp.
In 10 years California and Texas will become de facto socialist provinces of Mexico
with politically enforced economic support from the people in the United States. The
United States as it was once known, and once flourished, will slowly dissolve and
disappear. The only way to stop it is to build a wall between Mexico and the United
States and repel anyone attempting to climb over it by all means necessary while
expelling all illegals. If there needs to be family reunification, it can be achieved
by
sending family members South back into Mexico to find it. Mexican migration can
occur to sparsely populated areas of South America. Twenty-five years ago
emissaries from the Brazilian government were in Pennsylvania attempting to recruit
Amish to settle in land opening up in Brazil. Mexicans could theoretically settle
there,
but Brazil doesn't particularly encourage Mexicans.
George Bush's good friend Vincente Fox is already antipitating the outcome and
tightening the screws. He is bringing legal action against the United States and
American employers in international court to force payment of minimum wages to
Mexican nationals in America as well as force payment of retroactive reparations. He
does not demand or guarantee the same pay levels in Mexico. This is but the
beginning.
Sharing the Wealth
This business about redistributing or sharing the wealth of the American nation
deserves further examination. It's based on deceptive verbal manipulation in which
geographical boundary is substituted for personal boundaries in such a way that
personal boundaries are obliviated or disenfranchised.
There is a cute trick or imprecision of language that has horrible consequences for
the concept of American individual economic rights and sovereignty. We can talk
about wealth that exists IN America. We can also talk about the wealth OF America.
In one sense the two statements mean the same thing in imprecise normal
conversation. However, in a second sense the OF can be used to imply ownership of
that individual income by the country, rather than by individuals. By that use of
language there is vague transfer of ownership which is then employed in further
argument.
People create goods, services, and wealth. Boundaries do not. Consequently,
America creates and possesses absolutely no wealth. Individual wealth happens to
occur IN America. America has, possesses, no wealth. Absence of possession
precludes entitlement to redistribute wealth in the manner as if those redistributing
have possession because of geographical boundaries.
Bush says we have a duty to share OUR wealth. What's this OUR demagoguery?
Who gave OUR, whoever OUR is, possession? The permission was constructed by
Karl Marx and various socialistic theoreticians.
What politicians and theorists are promising to divide up and redistribute wasn't
created by them and doesn't belong to them. Neither is it owned by geographical
boundaries. It belongs to someone else, to separate individuals. However, in their
arrogance the politicians and theorists now act as if it belongs to, or is subject to,
them. Under the rise of collectivist thinking there is no right to individual choice
in the
matter. It's a matter of group ownership/choice or leadership choice. Abstract verbal
equations of meeting declared redistribution occur within a process in which personal
rights are unrepresented.
One man does not own another. Two men do not own a third. Group permission
from outside people who are not primary owners does not confer arbitrary right to
confiscate the efforts of the individual in a free society. In violation of this the
incompetent, the demagogues, the parasites, or the Marxists say somebody else
gave them permission to take control of your life and property by vote. Transfer of
ownership is being determined by people who have no personal investment in
anything except acquisition of political power that comes with the power to
redistribute, or those who desire to receive that redistribution. There is no adequate
stable counterbalance against motivation to steal from or exploit other people under
such circumstances. Democracy, elections, and the vote instead only ensure such
loss of rights and exploitation. It is always temporarily advantageous to confiscate
from other people.
Individual people are being engulfed by, or incorporated into, an artificial analytic
system used to study certain economic interactions and other phenomena. The
analytic system, and the systems analysts, within that system take on a separate life
and power of their own that then becomes a system of ownership of the individual.
Abstract systems analysis methods are transferred into to system's ownership of the
individual and, secondarily, ownership of the individual by manipulative politicians
and ideologies touting group benefit.
A Health Care System?
For instance, in the leftist systems analysis language of the post mid 60s we now talk
about the health care system in America. Previous to that time nobody ever heard of
a health care system. Certain diseases are looked upon as a strain on the health
care system. But there is no health care system. I go to an individual physician and
pay him for examination or treatment. The physician is not stressed. Neither I nor the
physician are owned by the system. Nor are we to become owned by the
demagogues claiming us.
Systems analysis can produce some interesting ideas. Want to end the illegal drug
problem? It's easy. Take the money now being spent on illegal drugs and spend it on
drug treatment programs. It's absolutely guaranteed to work according to abstract
systems analysis.
There is now an analytical system, and a coordinate government system that
declares I have a duty to provide Mexico or Mexicans a more pleasant time than
what Mexico has justifiably or logically produced. If not, there will be unpleasant
consequences for me. In the same way, the radical left, including Bush, is espousing
the distorted notion that I am obligated to change the conditions that are argued to
sociologically license terrorism. In Bush's cleverly constructed use of language, "We
will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed
governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn
to
their advantage."
This ideology was thoroughly refuted last time in the inequality and revolution
analysis.
To sell the scheme to the suckers Bush adds what will turn out to be the mythical
stipulation that money will be given, " . . . only to states that reform their
governments, economies and human rights practices . . . " It's never going to be
enforced. Who is going to qualify under this statement, Carmelite Nuns? � and I'm
not even sure about them. Important cultural factors are not mentioned and can't be
mentioned under the conditions of world multicultural pluralism.
This type of redistribution generally results in an abysmal lack of serious
introspection on the part of recipients. It is as catastrophic internationally as it
has
been domestically. Domestically it has subsidized enormous and unworkable out of
wedlock birth rates in some quarters and expanding erosion or displacement of
responsibility concurrent with increasingly arrogant militant feeling of irrational
entitlement and sociological buck-passing.
Rehabilitation is not motivated and does not progress through pleasant undemanding
subsidization support of the problem.
Mexico can not just export their problems, or dump or export the continuing surplus
and spillover here, while continuing the problem-manufacturing process at home.
That goes not only for Mexico, but for everybody else. Neither are other people here
to be conscripted into social servitude to any of this.
Bush and Clinton: Birds of a Feather
Bush and Clinton have much in common. After assuming the presidency, both tried
to be president without knowing what to do on a concrete level.
George Bush probably acquires or accepts information somewhat quickly, but it is
not processed or analyzed beyond one or two steps. There's no sign of creativity or
originality or depth of processing. This is a phenomenon he shares with Bill Clinton
who is also basically a shallow processor or is able to acquire without originality or
creativity or any depth of understanding in terms of a more thorough broader
association to what he learns. This type of mentality is apt to be highly successful in
school, especially when the student mindlessly repeats the programming of his
professors, but it has notable deficiencies in the world out of school. There is a
cookbooking of action without thorough broader consideration.
Clinton came into office with a committed leftist countercultural agenda from the 60s
too vague in content to be workable. Consequently, he became the eternal
campaigner for the presidency even while president. He attempted to create an
illusion of being president and of stature by bombing some aspirin factories in Africa
and starting a crusade against Serbia, but none of it took off because it was too
wrong, transparent, foolish, and irrelevant for lies and public relations routines to
elevate into serious significance. He seems to know nothing about economics or
even philosophy of law. His leadership had as much to do with the somewhat
speciously argued economic boom of the 90s as it did with the passage of the Hale-
Bopp comet during the same period. That he didn't attempt to take credit for the
latter was probably due to temporary lapse of attention. Monica Lewinsky was the
limit of his capacity. In this case his incapacity was a blessing because if he were
more clever he would have had us living in the equivalent of the 1920s and 1930s
Soviet Union.
Bush seems to have come into office with little discernible highly defined
commitment to anything. His campaign lacked an incisive coherent theme beyond
the idea that George Bush was pleasant. It isn't even apparent that either Bush
senior or junior are searching for something in their lives. My personal impression is
that the family is peculiarly bland and lifeless or bloodless with no determined
direction. The present President Bush seems to have an infinite supply of
spontaneous blandness for all occasions. The idea that he would express the
appropriate anger that normal Americans felt in legitimate reaction to the past and
continuing outrage perpetrated by the Clintons is unthinkable. The crashing of
airplanes into New York buildings was an event so accepted as evil that he could
react to it in safety from criticism. Indeed, it was a necessity. The closest thing
approximating a sense of anchor or direction in the Bushs seems to be a
perpetuation of ascension and verification of a type of social class. Within this,
concepts of individual economic and personal rights in America are of little
relevance.
Reagan had fire and determined direction. I don't see a hint of it in the Bush clan.
Unlike Reagan Bush is a drifter, not a determined forceful rower. The same was true
of his father. It is neither Bush's inclination nor within his developed capacity to
confront socialism. If pressed Bush could probably not define freedom without resort
to speechwriters. From the content of his campaign and presidency it seems doubtful
he has ever given such matters serious personal study. As Bush is adrift, so is
America, and so it becomes for the world. Right now the easiest direction for Bush to
drift is toward world servitude, not restoration of personal rights and individuality.
Other articles by Robert L. Kocher may be found in the Writer Index. His email
address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-30-
from The Laissez Faire Electronic Times, Vol 1, No 11, April 29, 2002
Editor: Emile Zola Publisher: Digital Monetary Trust
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
