The other day the Comrade said we have a clear choice between "social Darwinism" and something else -- which is basically marxist communism, but I think he described it as "lilies that bloom year 'round" or something like that.
But, ooh kids, "social Darwinism." That sounds nasty, huh? It's basically survival of the fittest. And being that Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the premise that those who survive are those who are best suited to thrive in their environments, there's really no way we can get away from social Darwinism, is there?
I mean, even if the Comrade could construct "an economy built to last," apparently a communist one since that seems to be what he's going for, the people who will thrive in that kind of an environment will be the ones who learn how to manipulate that system most effectively. And what would that require? Hmmm, let's see.
- Self-inficted wounds that allow you to collect disability?
- A lot of brown-nosing of "the powers that be," who, by the way, control every aspect of the economy?
- Failure/refusal to do anything for your own self, proving that you are the most incompetent and therefore have the greatest "need?"
- Getting a job with a union or for the feds?
- Winning the loltery
I can't think of any other way to thrive in the kind of world the Comrade is "fundamentally transforming" this nation into.
Because apparently, under the Comrade's diktats, anyone who actually produces something or provides a service for pay and hopes to keep their profits is an evil "fat cat" stealing the "wealth" from those who sit on their butts and do nothing. (Or not "nothing." It seems OK by the Comrade to recruit them to go terrorize bankers every now and then.)
"Historical determinism" means basically that history, or human experience, moves inevitably toward a single outcome. That is, history sort of moves by itself, and we're all caught up in the wave. Nothing we can do about it. It's not our fault.
Does this explain the White House's "it's not my fault" attitude regarding its own failures?
Anyway, marxism teaches historical determinism. According to Marx, all human experience on the planet is controlled by "dialectics," a concept actually developed by a guy named Hegel, whose work is pretty much unintelligible. This is how dialectics works: You say "yes." Which triggers me saying "no." We have a fight. This happens over and over again. And that is what moves history.
Marx believed he could look into a crystal ball and see where all these dialectic "swings of the pendulum" from yes to no to conflict would end up. According to Marx, the bougeois said "yes." The working class said "no." The classes would be in continual conflict that would result in revolution and the overthrow of the bourgeois class. When the workers eventually -- and inevitably -- take over, Marx happily predicted that the result would be a communist utopia.
Ever since, marxists like the Comrade have done everything they could to foster and encourage class warfare to trigger the revolution and bring on utopia.
Do you believe this? Is that how history works?
I watched a TV show over the weekend that claimed that people like Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, too, I guess, were probably people who had had some kind of communication with extraterrestrial aliens. After all, there are two years of Da Vinci's life that are not accounted for. The aliens gave him and the others lots of smarts and insight so that these individuals could do and make things that would redirect history.
To me, the alien theory makes about as much sense as Marx's dialectics.
And maybe extraterrestrials would be easier to live with than IRS agents and/or other federal bureaucrats. At least the aliens are supposed to be intelligent.
Save the Republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment