Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Poverty, Mass Murder, and Liberals: A Complete Package

Words evolve. They take on new meaning over the years. Social and political movements appropriate certain words, redefine them, and then use them to shape the ideological battlefield. The classic example of that, of course, is "bolshevik" and "menshevik." The Bolsheviks were, in fact, the Mensheviks and vice-versa. The word bolshevik, derived from the word meaning "majority," was appropriated by the radicals who were in reality the minority of the old Social Democratic party. The minority labeled the majority the minority and got away with it. Clever. There are many other examples of this in history such as the insistence on calling nazis and fascists right-wing when they are clearly left-wing products.

In our once great, still beloved, but evermore daft United States, precisely those who are not liberal, as in broad minded and generous in their attitudes towards others, have appropriated "liberal" as theirs. The political philosophy of this "liberalism" is one which portrays life as a series of problems that needs addressing by the state--the state guided and run, mind you, by the "well-educated liberal elite" produced by our increasingly decrepit "liberal" universities and informed by "liberal" Hollywood and "liberal" Big Media. Modern U.S. liberals are a variant of European social democrats who believe in a big state and mistrust the individual; the big difference being that US liberals have much more power in the world than their European co-religionists ever could hope. They advocate the "positivist" attitude so aptly summed up in the motto emblazoned on the national flag of Brazil, "Ordem e Progresso," so long, of course, as they are in charge of imposing the order and defining the progress. They take positivism's emphasis on rational thought and logic, and its opposition to superstition and fantasy, and turn it on its head into a "science-based" fantasy that somehow just so happens to lead to more power for them and their state. Global climate change is one stirling example of how liberals have taken a legitimate scientific-based concern over pollution, and turned it into a monumental hoax, known as Manmade Climate Change. That hoax somehow, just somehow ends up demanding more money and power for--guess who?--the liberals and their state. As we will discuss, this philosophy comprises followers who proclaim a great love for humanity while in practice exhibiting a great hatred for people.

Sorry for the long-winded intro, but it brings us to today's topic, for which I provide the following bumper sticker, "Liberals love humanity and hate people." Oh, and by the way, liberals will get you killed. Yes, killed. Modern liberalism kills people, and does so by the millions, all in the name of humanity, of course. It should have a warning label that asks you not to practice liberalism at home, or something along the lines of "I am a trained professional, do not attempt liberalism on your own."

Liberals hate all sorts of people but their special, most lethal hatred is reserved for the poor and the "uneducated." They kill the poor by the bushel, by the ton, by the hectare . . . they kill them at home and abroad. No poor person is safe from the lethal loving embrace of the liberals.

So many examples, it's hard to know where to begin. I don't pretend to provide an exhaustive account of liberal mayhem, just a glimpse at the tip of the iceberg. So, where do we start? How about with DDT? This extremely useful pesticide was virtually banned around the globe for decades because of the bogus writings of Rachel Carson, the lesbian biological mother of today's whacky environmental movement. The ban on DDT, ostensibly to save birds, puppies, and other wonderful warm things, resulted in the deaths of millions of poor persons around the globe from malaria and dengue, which came soaring back on the wings of now safe mosquitos. This tradition of sacrificing the poor on the altar of Gaia continues to this day.  The insistence on the global warming hoax, long after the "science" has been shown to be false, perpetuates policies, e.g., ethanol in gasoline, opposition to domestic drilling and nuclear energy, that increases the cost of living, promotes food shortages, stifles employment, and, yes, leads to death. The opposition to cheap energy and food, the zoning restrictions in upperclass neighborhoods, all under the guise of protecting the environment, take direct aim at the lives and welfare of the poor. Liberals kill.

Liberal welfare policies create havoc throughout our society. What slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, and racial discrimination could not do, liberal polices have done, to wit, destroy the black family and turn millions of blacks into permanent wards of the state and of the liberal political machines that control most of our cities. Liberal immigration policies, beginning with the disastrous 1965 Kennedy-Johnson immigration law, insure a constant stream of poor third world immigrants, altering irrevocably the nature of our society and ensuring that the struggling black (and white) American poor cannot compete with the ultra-poor pouring in from Mexico, El Salvador, Bangladesh, and so on. Liberal minimum wage laws ensure the disappearance of the starter jobs, once a platform for the poor to spring out of poverty. All of these people, the old poor and the newly arriving poor, need, of course, social programs and more and more government help. The liberal political machine dispenses jobs and money, and the productive sectors face rising taxes, a labyrinth of regulations, and the constant presence of "helpful" government regulators and enforcers. Let the poverty and misery spread!

Liberal gun control policies also target the poor. The poor in our cities must live with the drug dealers, gang bangers, and the other hoods in the hood. The comfortable liberals live in secure high-rises, and tony suburbs well protected by overpaid and over equipped police and fire departments and expensive security firms. The poor must put up with the inability to defend themselves; they must allow themselves to be murdered in the name of ridding America of gun violence.

Likewise liberal education policies deny the poor the right to choose the schools their children will attend. Instead an alliance of politicians and teacher unions keeps the poor trapped in failing and unsafe schools, while the wealthy liberals, well, you know what they do, and it isn't to send their own kids to those schools.

The examples are endless. From the liberal refusal to allow us to become energy independent, the liberal refusal to see what Islam does everywhere it takes root, and the liberals' seemingly endless assault on the family, everywhere we look we see the death and destruction that modern liberalism brings to our shores and promotes overseas.

To speak out on this is to risk being labeled a racist and hate-monger. To fail to speak out, however, means being complicit to some of the greatest crimes on the planet: the crimes of the liberals.

44 comments:

  1. Thanks, Dip for this post. I have long spoken out against the left's hijacking of the lexicon, and have suffered fools who tell me they only want to improve the lot of the downtrodden. Time to call bullshit all around: "Not true! The left doesn't care about the downtrodden unless they represent a path to power."

    And don't even begin on Rachel Carson. I was skeptical when I read Silent Spring in freshman year. 15 years in malarial Africa wiped out all skepticism: the people who suppressed DDT are responsible for millions of deaths. And the malarial infection of everyone in my family.

    So how do we reclaim the language? It's hard enough to maintain a rational dialogue with people who tell the truth. It's impossible with people who have hijacked the language.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dip
    Liberals hate all sorts of people but their special, most lethal hatred is reserved for the poor and the "uneducated." They kill the poor by the bushel, by the ton, by the hectare . . . they kill them at home and abroad. No poor person is safe from the lethal loving embrace of the liberals.

    There are few others fits your tag for Liberals.
    I don’t name them all, but Neoconservatism kills the poor as a Fire Wood by sending them to wars like in Afghanistan, Iraq may be soon to Syria....

    As you put it To speak out on this is to risk being labelled a racist and hate-monger. reading most the comments here in blog sadly very applicable to most of your readers and commentators

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bizarre writing. Hard to understand what you're saying.

      Delete
    2. The draft ended after the Vietnam era.

      For those not paying attention, the All Volunteer Force the U.S. has fielded for the last three decades comes _overwhelmingly_ from the middle class, not the poor.

      Delete
    3. "Anonymous:"

      The military is made up of "the poor?" Somebody is still stuck in a 70s Vietnam fantasy fugue.

      You really have no clue, do you?

      Delete
    4. Annon - My son spent ten years in the Navy doing everything he could do to protect those that served below him. He was FPO and Boarding and Interdiction officer for several years.
      What are you talking about?

      Delete
    5. The vast majority of those who served in Vietnam were also from the middle class, draftees and enlistees alike . The lie that the poor and downtrodden seems to self perpetuate .Anon, you are, in word and in deed, a lying sack of fetid manure

      Delete
    6. reading the above telling as I wrote:

      a racist and hate-monger? isn't?

      Delete
    7. RECRUITMENT TOOLBOX:
      Movies, Toys, TV, & Computer Games

      Blackhawk Helicopters on High School Campuses

      Delete
  3. What slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, and racial discrimination could not do, liberal polices have done, to wit, destroy the black family and turn millions of blacks into permanent wards of the state and of the liberal political machines that control most of our cities.

    Dip?

    Since you were gonna be borrowing my "enumerated powers" you'll not be minding me reciprocating? I will cite of course.

    Arkie

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ah yes the "narrative". The post you replied to is a strange variant we see recently. a mix of our Liberals' "theology" with Islamic overtones. And as liberalism loves to clothe itself in the raiment of the revealed truth (by them of course) facts are never necessary only faith is required and required with a capital R.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Instead of post, I should have said comment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. First, Dip, an excellent intro, and an equally excellent comprehensive overreview of the facts of liberalism.

    A demo of the results of liberal policies, for decades, in the Second City occurred Tuesday tonight, with the toughest gun control laws on the books: Tonight on the Channel 5 10 PM news, Garry was bragging about a 40% drop in killings.

    Immediately afterward, upwards of fifteen, possibly as many as twenty people managed to get shot on the first 80 degree day since October of last year:
    • At least 10 people were wounded -- including two 16 year olds -- in shootings throughout the city Tuesday evening.

    The gunfire erupted on a particularly warm day -- the city's first day in seven months with temperatures in the 80s -- and on the eve of city officials touting a big reduction in the number of homicides for the first part of the year.

    Six of the people were wounded in two separate shootings in the Roseland and South Shore neighborhoods.
    Roseland? But Roseland is as safe as can be, according to CPS coaches, principals, Rahm and Pfather Pfleger. No violence there. Now go play ball.

    The news missed the triple in 012 with one dead. And a few more trickling in from the south side.

    So once again, nice job Garry - blow that horn and it pays you back with maybe 20 people shot. On a Tuesday night no less.
    Labels: crime" This from ssc blog site.

    You can make book, majority are gang related, and majority non-white gangs. No racism, just fact. But try to find the statistics in the media!

    And in great measure, from liberal policies that fail minorities, long term. Sad.
    Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To make the author's remarks clearer, there should have been a quote mark before the "Tonight

      ....A demo of the results of liberal policies, for decades, in the Second City occurred Tuesday night, with the toughest gun control laws on the books:
      (The article author stated:)
      "Tonight on the Channel 5 10 PM news, Garry was bragging about a 40% drop in killings.

      Also, should have been "liberal" media....

      Delete
    2. corrections from Jack

      Delete
  7. Not in any way meant as an admonition, rather perhaps merely suggestive.

    I've been closely studying the occasional tossed in comment and it appears to me the few appearing are not from A person doing repeat visits. Rather more likely to have landed here via a Google search. Word/phrase usage, grammar doesn't appear consistent.

    The one thing "seems" consistent thematically - Islamic.

    This being a blog and not held hostage to the diktat of those we would oppose might be best left fluttering in Cyberspace, unreplied to. Just sayin'.

    Arkie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arkie, definite islamic troll, tenor and theme is consistent. "Small caliber, low info." But a similar lack of logic pattern, to the other comment.

      Good suggestion-observation, though.

      Jack

      Delete
  8. I must say, Dip, this has been one of your best, albeit mercifully brief considering the topic, messages I have read. I know I don't comment often, but I ALWAYS read. This site is one of the small islands of sanity out there. Please keep up the excellent work.

    Remember Benghazi!

    LibertyGrace'sGrandma

    ReplyDelete
  9. I live along the Mississippi flyway. Here, as along the Pacific flyway, raptors and other great birds were on the brink until DDT was banned. In the past 20 years or so they have made a tremendous comeback - falcons, vultures, eagles, osprey even wild turkeys. So if it wasn't the DDT, what was it??? I am no scientist, and sincerely want to know. (And don't even get me started on the massacre of birds by windmills...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hard to place cause and effect on this one. At the same time that DDT was banned we also had the stablishment of the Endangered Species Act and the EPA.
      1. The killing of these birds (for their plummage, general sport, and as pest control) was stopped.
      2. Their natural habitats cleaned up.
      3. The use of a pesticide (whose entire basis for bird damage was based on the fraudulent claims of a single activist) was ended.
      I would suspect actions 1 and 2 had much more to do with the return of these animals than number 3.

      Delete
    2. As sometimes happens Anonymous (& KellyJ appears right in stating, "Hard to place cause and effect...")

      Anyway, I needed a link to something a friend in the UK asked about - then when I found that, I happened to notice what was on the sidebar of the article I'd needed.

      As to "why have the birds made a comeback?" - the jury is still, as they say, "out!"

      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2428/was-rachel-carson-a-fraud-and-is-ddt-actually-safe-for-humans

      Arkie

      Delete
    3. Snort. Those "scientists" with their deliberately-defective "studies" of birds laying thin-shelled eggs should have been booted in the ass. The thin shells were attributed to DDT, NOT to the deliberately low levels of calcium in their diet. When the calcium was increased, the thin-shelled eggs disappeared regardless of the level of DDT in the diet.

      Raptors were declining in number before the introduction of DDT.

      Those bigass windmills appear to be killing far more birds of all types than DDT which was apparently harmless unless fed in amounts that birds would never be exposed to in nature and which was far more benign than the chemicals that replaced it. Why isn't any environmentalist up in arms against windmills?

      Delete
  10. Might be. Where those of us who have served in many tropical posts have no doubt, however, is that the banning of DDT cost the lives of millions of our fellow humans. I will take humans over birds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bad thing about DDT was the indiscriminate and widespread use on the one hand, vis-a-vis natural selection among the mosquito population on the other. Widespread and indiscriminate use of DDT kills the mosquitoes who are susceptible to it, but not those who have some natural resistance. As time goes on, the mosquito population becomes more and more resistant as the weaklings who are susceptible are culled, and the strong survive. That being said, a complete ban in malarial regions was inexcusable.

      Re the rest, as the German "progressives" would say: Wir mussen die Ordnung haben.

      Delete
  11. As it happens sometimes, a friend points out my making some sort of error (not an uncommon occurrence). Above I mentioned "not responding" as the most effective strategy - ignoring in effect, the argumentative debating tactic the Leftists/Islamists frequently employ ie, "but what about America making trouble for all those peaceloving Muslims in places like Iraq?" or somesuch.

    The following sentence was pointed out in particular:

    If you point out that Muhammad Atta was an Islamic terrorist, they shoot back that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist -- willfully ignoring the crucial difference that the murderous actions of the former derive from Islamic/Islamist doctrine whereas the actions of the latter do not derive from Christian doctrine.

    http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/04/islam-radical-islam-and-the-the-lefts-denial-of-the-threat.html

    I stand corrected.

    Arkie

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you again Sir, another excellent post! Your use of the English language is wonderful - clear, precise and easily understood even by me, one of the great unwashed that the liberal elite wish to 'tame'.

    A question please... For over ten years now I've been reading different analysis concerning our social dysfunction. I don't seem to hear any solutions though - and this really bothers me; a lot. Some say better laws, others say 'Vote the Bums Out' - but our Republic still seems to be disintegrating.

    What is the solution - another Revolution or Civil War? What a bloody mess that would be! Last night a friend and I were speaking: His thoughts were that there would be no organized rebellion - rather a spontaneous cleansing sparked from some old prostate cancer victim who just got weary of the lying deceit and decided to do something about it. He was waiting for death anyway...

    Also, something I don't hear much of - the ideological unity between the Islamics and the liberals. I believe there is a unity on the most basic level - both ideologies love death, but few seem to say anything about this.

    Thanks again for your postings. Don't worry about the length - you could double the length and they would still be worth my time to read! dy

    ReplyDelete
  13. Preach On! Preacher man! Great post.

    To anon, I've always wondered why terminal diagnosis don't trigger more mayhem. At the risk of sounding psycho- I have a grudge list of people I will look up if I get the news that I have some incurable condition. Ahem, I probably don't understand the psychology of getting a death sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Humor/on Ahhhh, new site name coming to mind, Dip--"The Macabre" Humor/off Loven' it,

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  15. Regarding your remark '... for which I provide the following bumper sticker, "Liberals love humanity and hate people." '

    I am just SURE that came from the old Peanuts cartoon strip. I have a very clear mental image of Lucy Van Pelt standing in front of her "the Doctor is in" booth, declaring, "I love humanity -- it's just PEOPLE I can't stand".

    (I always liked that one.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or this for a bumper sticker "Liberals, they're always there when they need us".

      Delete
  16. I am just superstitious enough to believe that a lot of what we're seeing in the Western world's ongoing crisis is an outworking of the Apostle Paul's admonition that God is not mocked. Since our host mentions the poor being sacrificed on the "altar of Gaia", the covenantal curses in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the prophets come to mind, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Galatians 6:7,8 - but even more than that, the promises of God stand sure.

      "He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand." (Daniel 12:9-10)

      "...and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done." (Revelation 16:11)

      "Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy." "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." (Revelation 22:10-13)

      Delete
    2. " He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”

      Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."

      Rev. 22:20

      Delete
  17. I have pretty well trained myself to use "Leftist" in place of "Liberal." And, in any sentence, "liberal" is in quotation marks, or, I use "so-called." Reclaiming the language, one word at a time.

    My Bible study group members are of age. The youngest is forty, next, forty five, then, all over fifty and mostly over sixty. A couple of weeks ago, we got off onto the topic of grammar and declining lucidity, etc. I deliberately used "different than," in a sentence. I'm glad they did not have rocks ready to hand. As it was, I was pelted with howls of "different from."

    So, why is it happening? Correct use of language is denounced as a bourgeois affectation, and has been so for nearly a half century, maybe longer. However, the more likely cause, and, the more sinister, is that clarity of thought and discussion are truly bourgeois values. Jane Jacobs, in Systems of Survival, described two "syndromes" the Commercial and the Guardian. Where Guardian seek group cohesiveness, loyalty, and prowess, Commercials favor "dissent for the sake of the task." President Bush, whom may God save, .was famous for free-ranging discussion of policy options, and was reviled for this by the left. In any discussion with a leftist, the reason that they so quickly descend to name-calling and flit from one topic to another is that they were not having a debate. They are having, or at least intend to have, a dominance. The idiot trolls we see from time to time in comments say stupid s#1+ all the time, not to discuss or prove anything, but to disrupt any orderly discussion.

    Jacobs also had an entire chapter on Islam, which I would describe as 100% Guardian dominant, and which makes alliance with the Left because they seek Guardian dominance, also. Just in case the point is not as obvious to everyone as it is to me, the US was founded as the first Commercial Syndrome dominant nation.


    Systems of Survival, by Jane Jacobs, is out of print, I think, but is still available from those used book sellers via Amazon. Everyone who reads her has a V-* moment, actually, several, as they see so much of what we have observed over the years worked into a coherent theory.

    Michael Adams,
    Austin Texas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, why is it happening? Correct use of language is denounced ... and has been so for nearly a half century, ... However, the more likely cause, and, the more sinister ...

      Good points, I've speculated some on this. I get rather too twisted up I suppose when I'm reading a newspaper and come upon reign when I recognize from the context the writer (typesetter?) should've used rein.

      I get shivers down my spine when I hear the word disrespected being used in place of the "old-fashioned" s/he shows her disrespect for the English language.

      Perhaps we should lay the blame on SpelChek.

      Arkie

      Delete
    2. I thought what I did was honorable,” Riddle said. “Now, after coming home, it’s kind of tarnished. All the things that happened over there: the innocents that got killed. We were lied to the whole time we were there, and that is what tarnished our honor in that war.”

      To Iraq and back

      Delete
  18. My Bible study group?
    In you study of the historical and religious background of Christ's time on earth, which side he was represt in that tiem?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "...destroy the black family ..." Go to the DOL website www.dol.gov, search for Patrick Moynihan, click on "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action", and read it. Then look around you. Moynihan hit the target dead center. Now read it again substituting "Caucasian" and "white" for "Negro" and "black". Then look around you. Same story, different characters, same ending.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with you that "Liberalism"/"Leftism" kills. However there are no better alternatives.

    Conservativism killed even more people. It is responsible for the holocaust, the horrors of colonialism, the crusades, Islamofascism, Al Qaeda and all the dreadful tyrannies in the Muslim world

    ReplyDelete
  21. By the way, none of the example you made are products of the "left"

    Rachel Carson was a scientist, neither liberal nor conservative.

    The welfare state which you rant against is a product of the "Right". It was established by the very conservative Otto Von Bismarck.

    The term "Left" and "Right" change from time to time, consider what the terms originally meant.

    The term "Left" was origianlly used to descibe the advocates of the middle class, capitalism and nationalism.

    The term "Right" was used to describe advocates of absolute monarchy and theocracy.

    There is no doubt. The founding fathers would be considered "leftists" while Al Qaeda would "Right-wingers".

    ReplyDelete
  22. Conservatism caused colonialism?? The Holocaust?? Hitler was a national socialist, a really big government-solves-everything kind of guy. His policies revolved around hatred of the Jews, you know, kind of like the policies that the Left is spreading these days with regard to fomenting racial hatred.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Decent writing. Same old story though.

    ReplyDelete