The only groups that can provide financial support for the out of control fiscal spasms of the Federal government are Whites, (and tiny minorities like Jews and Asians). Blacks, forget it. Latinos, not much help at all. The gap both in annual income and in net worth between us and them makes that very clear. (I am, lamentably and laughably, an exception to that rule!) Whites will continue to be restricted and sacked to finance their own destruction, while their unproductive enemies profit from it. That, my friends, is the truth about "social justice."
I can't see how that is not going to happen.
Unless the whole house of cards --with a $20 trillion debt at the end of O's regime-- collapses entirely.
*Socialism comes in two types: the upfront and honest confiscatory Marxist type, where the State takes actual ownership of everything, and the regulatory/wealth-transfer type, where the State leaves you to earn your way and own your stuff, but so enmeshes you in regulations and taxes that it has effective, if not legal, ownership. You own, but it controls. That's how the Euro and now American versions work. National Socialism, by the way, was a regulatory type.
***
PS, my house-guest and buddy D, a gay Mormon who has amazingly integrated both his active gayness and his very sincere LDSness, horrified me this past week. I know he shares with many others a completely irrational love of Obama, but his idea on death taxes really threw me. This is a very nice man, a truly decent and generous guy. And no dope. But he finds the ability of people to pass on their property and wealth to their children morally offensive. Why should adult children benefit from someone else's effort? Were D in charge, the State would become the sole heir of everyone's estate and it would all be "put into a big pot and distributed to people who really need it."
Imagine for a minute that the Mormon church's current Prophet got a revelation that the LDS church was henceforth to be made the sole beneficiary of every Mormon's estate. Everyone who's ever called that religion an evil cult of greedy swindlers would be instantly vindicated. It would be headlines all over the country.
But for some reason, when it's the Government --whose corruption, arrogance and jaw-dropping talent for mis-spending galactic amounts of money on ludicrously inept projects, the Obamacare rollout being only the latest of many-- taking your money to redistribute it to "our country's most vulnerable", this sounds like some noble moral accomplishment that only a mean-spirited, racist and greedy Republican would resist.
Has he never been to the DMV?
Mother of God.
But, really, isn't his idea the natural progression of the Liberal vision?
---
1 comment:
Today, Jack Donovan posted his thoughts on veterans. He says he has respect, envy, and compassion for soldiers and other personnel in combat zones, but no gratitude. Why? Because he doesn't think they are really protecting us from anything. He sees the military, not the troops themselves, as being subservient to the liberal establishment. He also sees soldiers more as mercenaries, a view he says is backed up by soldiers in "honest moments."
I don't always agree with Jack. I think this is one of those times. I do suspect that overseas operations may simply be a way for liberals to preoccupy the military from their abuses, but I think he's eying the wrong "soldiers" as the liberals' forces. I can't be the only one who thinks that many police departments are being given tactical teams with military-grade weaponry, and that cops are adopting a "shoot first, no apology later" mentality, is not comforting in the slightest. My libertarian side coming out to play...
-Sean
Post a Comment