Friday, August 17, 2012
Conservatism: The Big Lie
"Franklin’s famous formulation on Adams went that his colleague 'is always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his senses.'”
Adams was also one of our nation's first Conservatives.
As written in "The Birth of This Blog,"
"Jefferson wrote that there have always been two factions in politics, the Party of The Rich and the Party of The Non-Rich. After Jefferson gave Adams a thwacking in the election of 1800, that was the last time Conservatives admitted to voter their belief that the wealthy should rule unconditionally. Since then, the Conservatives have continually lied about their actual beliefs.
"As to the sub-ideologies of the Party of The Rich all is smoke and mirrors to sway the ignorant or uneducated voter, the uninformed voter, the fearful, vicious, and hateful voters, and the religious faithful, - the latter treated with so much contempt and called the "crazies" by the Bush 43 White House after Bush's coronation when the usefulness of Christian support was over, according to David Kuo in his intriguing book, "Tempting Faith, An Inside Story of Political Seduction." Kuo, second in command of Bush's Office of Faith-Based And Community Initiatives, soon discovered after the election that religion was merely a political tool to the GOP, a base considered less than intelligent and easy to manipulate with the right rhetoric, pun intended.
"I know thou art religious,
And hast a thing within thee called conscience,
With twenty popish tricks and ceremonies
Which I have seen thee careful to observe."
"These sub-ideologies, 'faith-based,' 'limited government,' 'states' rights,' 'pro-life,' 'balanced budget,' 'family values,' 'job creators,' and other talking points and meme generators exist only to attract votes from those who would object to the Conservatives' true aim: power of, for, and by the upper classes.
"Criminalize Conservatism" will address three areas: 1.) the true, *economic* definition of "conservatism," as noted by Jefferson, as opposed to the Conservatives' false and self-serving descriptions of themselves, 2.) the evidence proving that Conservatives are actually the leaders and the members of a criminal sub-organization under the banner of the GOP, and are hell bent upon destroying the middle class, the core of our democracy, and reducing them to the poor class where they will be permanently subjugated and silenced, and 3.) that America, and the world, can only be saved by criminalizing conservatism.
"To repeat the above in simpler terms, the following three points are the foundation of "Criminalizing Conservatism:"
"1. The term "conservative" ONLY represents the political and thus, the economic interests of wealthy, who
"2. Are succeeding in destroying our democracy by illegal, immoral, and murderous methods that justify labling conservatism as felonious, conspiratorial, criminal behavior, and
"3. Saving our democracy can be accomplished ONLY by Criminalizing Conservatism.
"In a syllogism, we would state those three areas of interest as follows;
Conservatism serves the interests of wealthy, power-seeking criminals.
Conservatives are destroying our democracy through class warfare.
Conservatism must be made illegal."
To repeat: "Jefferson wrote that there have always been two factions in politics, the Party of The Rich and the Party of The Non-Rich. After Jefferson gave Adams a thwacking in the election of 1800, that was the last time Conservatives admitted to voter their belief that the wealthy should rule unconditionally. Since then, the Conservatives have continually lied about their actual beliefs."
Everything any Conservative leader, and every Republican is a Conservative, is a lie: keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson, the Conservatives' purported leader knew this and found his way to the Presidency enhanced by the Federalists' foolish notion that the People would accept the rich as their overlords. Keep in mind that if Jefferson was right, making the Conservatives the Party of the Rich and all other parties are the parties of the non-rich than the Conservatives MUST lie, or be defeated in a democratic repubic.
Jefferson on political parties:
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.
"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.
"Men have differed in opinion and been divided into parties by these opinions from the first origin of societies, and in all governments where they have been permitted freely to think and to speak. The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the [aristocracy] should prevail were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813.
"The division into Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of man; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory." --Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1802.
"The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.
"Nature has made some men monarchists and tories by their constitution, and some, of course, there always will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817.
Although Jefferson erred in believing the tension between the parties to be good for government (the world had yet to see the emergence of labor unions, environmentalism, gender and sexual equality, and a myriad of other interests inimicable to the interests of the wealthy), he was spot on regarding the "rich and corrupt" among us. Had he lived to see the effects of permitting Conservatism to participate in the political arena, he would now see the conspiracy of Conservatism for the patently criminal enterprise that it is and called for an end to it. "Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795
Just in the last news cycle we see from the examiner.com:
"When asked in an interview on CBS This Morning, how he (Mitt Romney) reconciled his criticism of President Obama for cuts to Medicare spending in the ACA with those proposed by Ryan, he replied, 'First of all, Congressman Ryan has joined my campaign, and his campaign is my campaign now, and we're on exactly the same page, and my campaign has made it very clear: The president's cuts of $716 billion to Medicare—those cuts are to be restored if I become president and Paul Ryan becomes vice president.'
"Similarly, in an interview with Fox News anchor Brit Hume, 'We are the ones who are not raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare,' Ryan replied when asked to explain why he and Romney were criticizing Obama for Medicare reductions nearly identical to his own in scope.
"A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reveals however that the ACA has not only reduced the cost for health insurance for millions, but 'has significantly improved Medicare’s long-term financial outlook. Adding that the 'claims that health reform 'robs Medicare' and does not 'shore up Medicare’s finances' are flatly false," the report cites the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the ACA will reduce Medicare’s projected spending by $716 billion over the 2013-2023 period without affecting the benefits of program enrollees, according to John McDonough of Harvard’s School of Public Health.
"The trustees also estimated that the ACA adds eight years to the solvency of the HI trust fund, without any reduction in benefits through 2024, whereas repeal of the ACA would require instituting reductions in benefits in 2016—for current Medicare beneficiaries under the Ryan plan.
"Not only are the Romney–Ryan claims that the ACA weakens Medicare’s finances disingenuous, but they make a lie of the claim that Ryan is the "intellectual numbers guy," a luminary in the GOP constellation. If anything in terms of an astronomical metaphor, he is more reasonably the "dark matter" that threatens to destroy the universe. It becomes clear as well that neither he nor Romney truly have a plan that will preserve Medicare—nor even that they put pencil to paper to work out a plan intended to preserve the program. If anything, their "plans" were calculated only to eliminate the 0.9 percent Medicare tax increase on individuals with taxable incomes over $200,000 per year, and couples earning over $250,000.
"Moreover, the fact that neither has proposed overall economic plans that demonstrate that they can balance the budget without adding further to the national debt—and especially in light of Ryan's record as a borrow and spend reactionary—make it all the more clear that their only priority is to cut spending to help sustain ever greater cuts to their own taxes, and those of their wealthy benefactors."
Also, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/jon-stewart-blasts-republicans-divisive-hypocrisy_n_1788870.html:
"Jon Stewart Blasts Republicans For Divisive Hypocrisy."
On Wednesday night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart was a little confused by the growing trend of "positivity" in Mitt Romney's campaign. In a speech on Tuesday, the GOP candidate made a call for Americans to come together in the same sentence that he instructed the current President to "take [his] campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago."
"As a general rule, I find it helps not to frame a plea for national unity by insulting a major city within that nation," Stewart joked.
But the hypocrisy wasn't limited to that one comment. The last few months alone are a veritable treasure trove of divisive language from Mitt's side of the aisle, and Stewart has the footage to prove it. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/jon-stewart-blasts-republicans-divisive-hypocrisy_n_1788870.html)
To summarize this article, we have only to say that to understand Conservatism, if you keep in mind that:
A. Conservatism is the label given to the mouthpiece of greedy rich, and
B. In a participatory democracy, intelligent people will not vote for the mouthpieces of the greedy rich, so
C. Conservative leaders must lie to be elected.
The Big Lie, if repeated enough, works. And if lies are funded by unlimited amounts of money from rich donors, the lies will be unlimited...click--->the soul and direction for the next 50 years is at stake unless you are ready to fight back.
Addendum To Post:
When first implementing "Criminalize Conservatism," a blog devoted to proving that "Conservatism" is not a political philosophy - it is a criminal enterprise that must be placed in the same category of the Mafia - I was aware of the barrage of idiocies I would receive from Conservative sheeplets: identical flame throwers of below-average intelligence and above-average hatred that would prove to be as numbing as repeated blows to the intellect with a ball peen hammer and an insult to any English-speaking person with a modicum of love for the written word.
For this reason I have deleted scores of comments from the sheeplets, mostly to protect the sensitivities of my beloved readers, but now and again a comment has been forwarded to me by an ostensibly aggrieved person of liberal leanings, objecting to something they've just read, and committing the same sin performed by the angry IQ-challenged sheeplet: he or she speaks out without examining any of the rest of the site, thus thrusting him/herself into a bottomless pit consisting of unabashed fallacious diarrhea of the mouth.
After deleting her post and banning her from my facebook site for her asinine comments (to follow), I rethought the matter more carefully; the absolute fuzziness of, we'll call her "B.F.," was appalling, her message tortuous, and her logic abysmal, but beneath the obnoxiousness was a smidgen of hurt...and I as I am not immune to the hurt feelings of my fellow human beings I reconsidered my action.
You'll see that B.F. isn't a Conservative sheeplet - *their* comments are too banal, too boring, too - well,ignorant - for reposting after I have banned them, unless for purposes of intermittent laughs - but B.F. needs to take a deep breath and think before she writes and blurts out the kind of tripe that will make acquaintances jeer and friends laugh behind her back. And in a spirit of charity, I now volunteer to assist her.
"Working out the latitude of acceptance between conservatives and liberals is a long-term project. In fact, it will never end. It has no closing date; no signoff. It requires a commitment to negotiate through differences toward a goal of what works for as many as possible if not for all.Conservatism is relative to what? Liberalism is relative to what? They are not absolutes with finite edges you can encapsulate; they are notions and the value of one is meaningless unless there is the other.The standstill comes when the point is reached that one side attempts to eliminate the other. This is a product of the MTV generation of instant gratification. The idea of taking the time to listen, understand, explain, negotiate is foreign to far too many of the younger generations, who think: "get it done; get it down now; and get it done my way so I don't have to listen to your crap."That "crap" may very well have value.Conservatives tend to react to what they perceive as risk and a disruption to the environment they have accepted and protect as level-headed, safe, secure.Liberals tend to thrive in a bit of chaos because they adjust and adapt readily to what a conservative might feel is dissonance and contradiction.Liberalism smooths out the mountains and fills in the valleys so that the needs of society are met. Conservatism serves a function of keeping this leveling in check so that the attempt to alleviate inequities for all does not create a new kind of inequity for individuals.No, conservatism is not criminal just as liberalism is not criminal."
"What is "criminal" is the hijacking of one sentiment to ram down the throats of all at any cost without regard for long-term impact. That is the spade."
Clear writing, B.F., results from clear thinking and you have failed and failed badly.
But we are here to educate as well as to entertain, so:
What in the world is a "latitude of acceptance?" Of what use is a long-term project that will never end? To repeat the "never-ending" concept with the trite "has no closing" and "no signoff (sic) is unnecessary, and your next sentence, starting with "it requires," ending with "with what?" Is too moronic for words - it is meaningless, B.F! Also, the unnecessary use of multisyllabic words is a habit of the high schooler, and appears especially awkward when used for effect rather than effective communication...
I can't continue. To critique the rest of your comments would be too painful, and honestly, my only thought is that no one would fault the poor English instructor for blowing his brains out were he to be forced to read and grade such inane babbling.
Your heart may be in the right place, B.F., and it is a bigger heart than that belonging to the average Conservative, but I'm afraid you're sitting on your brain.
Go to http://criminalizeconservatism.com and read the pages contained in the tabs under the banner, especially "Objections Rebutted," but please do NOT leave any comments on the site (I've banned you on the Facebook site, bit not the web site - yet) until you have completed an English Comprehension course at your nearest community college. A course in Critical Thinking, my recommendation to all Conservative sheeplets, would not be remiss in your case either.
I know you appreciate the kind turn I've just performed for you B.F.
Go, with my love and good humor, and sin no more.
"Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only being stupid."