Tag Archives: social engineering

The Left, and Throw-Away Humanity

While the left is content to spew their opinions and opine on subjects that they are dangerously under educated about, the chasm between what they claim and what they do continues to grow wider. The left claims to care so very much about the people, and whatever shortcomings that they face. The reality between the left’s over-reaching legislation and their over-spending, is that they will happily use whatever they must in order to further their own flawed claims and defective logic.

After President Bush sent troops to Iraq, and after her son died in battle, Cindy Sheehan began vigorously criticizing Bush. She became a darling of the left, and became seen as someone sympathetic that the left could hitch their wagons to, who could also harshly criticize Bush with impunity. As Sheehan began to criticize Democrats in Congress, as well as President Obama, the left abandoned their support of Sheehan. The separation of Democrats and Sheehan eventually grew so large that Sheehan ran unsuccessfully against Nancy Pelosi for California’s 8th Congressional District seat.

Occupy Wall Street was another one of the left’s “useful idiots.” As the group coalesced and began to protest in New York, parallel groups sprouted up around the world. Sensing a populist movement that they could, again, hitch their wagon to, the left went so far as to say, “God bless them.” However, once reports of perversions, hard-drug use, racism, and sex crimes grew in number, the left had little choice but to abandon this group as well.

Will the new Gabby Giffords/Mark Kelly gun-control initiative (“Americans for Responsible Solutions“) be used in the same way? As a convenient means to push heavy-handed gun control measures by the left? It certainly fits the same scenario as previous movements that the left has already glommed onto: it’s a movement built on tragedy, it has a sympathetic figurehead, and it has the promise of compassionate and devoted supporters. It would also allow the left to paint gun-rights advocates as callous and non-caring about gun crime victims.

“Let no crisis go to waste,” the saying goes, and the left has wholeheartedly embraced that advice. There is no bridge too far, or hyperbole too divisive, that the left will not try to use. Will the left ever run out of convenient victims to re-victimize, or will the right finally wise up enough, that it will be able to argue consistently against such false narratives? With every new false narrative, this writer would like to claim there’s a distinguishable stepping forward on the right, but for every step forward, it seems like there is a Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock to stop the right’s progress in its tracks. We must learn not just to argue better (and illustrate lies effectively) but to avoid the left’s verbal pot holes as well.

Tools for the useful idiots

From School Lunches to Health Care: The Welfare State Is Coming to America

USDA school lunch programLast week a little girl in North Carolina was told by a tax-paid school bureaucrat that the lunch that her mother had packed for her was not good enough. The incident pointed Big Brother’s finger at the tens of millions of mothers in America whose entire lives revolve around their kids’ best. Understandably, many Americans questioned what business it is of the government to tell our children what to eat.

It would be bad enough if this was an isolated case of tax-paid do-goodery gone wrong. But this incident was much more than that. It was an example of the systematic transformation of America, from a generally free society to a Scandinavian-style social democracy. The school bureaucrat’s prying into a four-year-old’s sack lunch offered Americans foretaste of what life will look like once we are subjected to the full force of that welfare state.

There are three important angles to this incident that tie it to our future under European collectivism: economic redistribution, social engineering and socialized health care. The mother-packed school lunch in North Carolina is related to economic redistribution via something called Federal Aid to States (FAS). This is a program – or, to be precise, a package of programs – that send federal funds to states for a variety of purposes. Among them is a program to subsidize school lunches. Another pays for milk in school cafeterias and a third program helps school districts serve our kids fruit and vegetables.

These three programs come with strings attached. The bureaucrats at the United States Department of Agriculture impose restrictions and mandates on how schools can serve their lunches – and how also what nutritional value all school lunches must have. As the incident in North Carolina shows, these regulations now allow the federal government to open school lunch bags that kids brought from home and pass judgment on whether or not the kids’ parents followed federal regulations when they packed the lunches.

In other words: because Congress has created programs to make school lunch more accessible to kids from poor families, the federal government can now tell you what kind of food you can send with your kid to school each morning.

The second big-government angle to this school lunch incident has to do with social engineering. The welfare state is a project where government redesigns our entire society, including but not limited to our economy, in accordance with socialist theories and ideological preferences. At the heart of the welfare state is the idea that politicians, bureaucrats and select “experts” from academia know better than you and me what you and I want and need. This central planning of our lives spans from the macro level, where government punishes hard work and rewards sloth and indolence through income redistribution, to the micro level where individual citizens are told how they can and cannot live their lives.

As an extension of this master social planning, government takes upon itself to interfere with practically every aspect of our lives. In Denmark, e.g., there is a law that says that you as an employee must take a vacation every year. If you don’t, you are punished with a fine. (In my case that would have amounted to a loss of $3,000 taken out of my income.) In the bad old days, Communist East Germany mandated preschool for all children because it was “good” for the children’s upbringing.

In America, the same do-good social engineering philosophy now de facto dictates what parents can and cannot feed their children. So far, the dictate is limited to what is in the children’s school lunch bags. But how inconceivable is it that, in the name of creating a better society, the next step would be home inspections? How far are we now from extending this social engineering to a situation where parents are asked to sign a Fourth Amendment waiver and allow federal agents to do unannounced nutritional inspections of their dinner plates?

The third angle to the school lunch inspections is related to the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare. When our beloved government wants to tell our kids what to eat and what not to eat, the purpose is partly to replace parents as the final arbiter of good, nutritional food. Partly, though, the purpose is to enforce eating habits that keep kids from getting obese.

No one wants their kids to become obese. But if the federal government’s sole purpose was to help children avoid obesity, then all it would have to do would be to launch some dorky campaign with paternalistic TV commercials about how to eat well. It would not have to invade our children’s school lunch bags.

The purpose behind fighting child obesity is much more sinister than to help kids stay healthy. To see it, we have to take a step back and look at the Affordable Care Act one more time. One major feature of the ACA is to put so many mandates on private insurance plans (abortion pills and contraception being just a couple of them) that it becomes increasingly difficult for employers to afford private health benefits for their employees.

As more and more employers have to dump private insurance, the idea is that people will demand a government replacement plan. Lurking in the back of the ACA is the public option, which will spring to life once enough people have lost their private insurance. (This can very well happen even if the Supreme Court declares the individual mandate unconstitutional.) Once it is activated, the public option will enroll more and more Americans until it effectively wipes private options off the table.

Socialized health care through the back door.

Back now to the school lunch in North Carolina. The idea with force-feeding kids what government has deemed is nutritional and healthy food is, again, to fight obesity. The reason for fighting obesity, in turn, is that it leads to costly medical conditions. So long as we all have private insurance, these costs are no matter for the federal government. Only when the federal government takes over our health insurance through a public option will the costs of obesity-related diseases become a matter for Congress and the president.

In fact, cost containment is the main feature of government-run health care. Any student of socialized health care in Europe knows that it is marred in cost problems. In theory, everyone has the right to health insurance at no cost, but in practice access to health care is so rationed that people suffer tremendously while waiting for it. Patients die of curable conditions at stunningly high rates because they cannot see a doctor or, once in the hospital, there are too few doctors to give them the right diagnosis or treatment.

The architects of the ACA know this. They know that that once their law has socialized health insurance in America, the federal government will be faced with the same cost problems that plague government-run health care in Europe. As a measure to stem an obesity-related cost tide tomorrow, they invade children’s school lunches today.

There is no doubt that too many Americans have a problem with obesity, and there is also no doubt that obesity leads to a slew of medical conditions. But the way to fight obesity is to let the persons who become obese through irresponsible behavior bear the bulk of the cost for their decisions. Private employers who care about the health and well-being of their employees provide them with wellness programs. They do this sometimes because they genuinely care, sometimes because it is a cheap and effective way to keep the cost of health insurance down.

By the same token, parents who let their children become obese by feeding them irresponsibly should bear the financial cost of the extra health care that their children will require. This can, again, be done if private insurance companies are allowed to operate on the terms of free markets. Just like a smoker should have to pay a higher health insurance premium than a non-smoker, private insurance companies should be allowed to charge higher premiums of a family that eats themselves obese than of a family that eats responsibly and attends to their own health.

But instead of allowing us private citizens to make independent decisions and pay the consequences, the big-government honchos who currently run the federal government prefer to expand government control over our lives into new areas. The latest addition to that list of government-controlled areas is our children’s school lunch bags. It came about as a result of other expansions – economic redistribution, social engineering and socialized health care – and will probably not be the last of its kind.

Unless, of course, the American people decides that it is time to elect a president and a Congress that is more friendly to individual freedom and responsibility and less interested in building a Scandinavian welfare state. It remains to be seen whether or not that will happen.

A Brave New World In 1984

The English language is beautiful in its complexity, dangerous beauty. Interpretation is an art in English, enough that you can paint your own pictures with someone else’s words. Orwell knew it. Aldous Huxley figured out how to control people without it. Unfortunately it seems the world’s governments have figured out how to use the ideas of both. In 1984 Orwell used “newspeak” while Huxley in “A Brave New World” just made everyone’s life just comfortable enough to not question.  I feel only a small minority of the political spectrum is being truly honest in the current debate. Although all sides say that our course is unsustainable, they are demanding that more money be spent or that if we just lessen the amount of unsustainable growth of government we will be fine. Whether the two larger sides of the argument are acting politically or not, this type of statist philosophy is attained through things Huxley and Orwell wrote about, through active shaping of the populace.

Newspeak is so prevalent today I have to pick from only a few terms that have been victims of the practice. These two will be the term “liberal” and the term “Social Justice.” I have chosen them for very important reasons, they are both old and loaded terms that have been used in incredibly dynamic ways.

The word liberal comes from the word liberty. In Europe during the Enlightenment individuals who felt that people should have more control over their own actions were called liberal. That is what the word meant originally and is the reason why many on the far right consider themselves libertarian. The Newspeak corruption of the word began With F.D.R. when after half of the new deal was deemed unconstitutional; He tried to add 6 more seats to the supreme court in order to pass similar bills that had been denied. He chose to claim he wanted more “liberal” justices. He chose the word for two reasons, because after the abuses of Woodrow Wilson and his Progressive buddies the term progressive was negatively loaded, and because the laws he wanted passed were the opposite of liberal in its original sense and that was the reason half the New Deal was deemed unconstitutional. The modern term Liberal has become the polar opposite of what it meant, now liberalism demands more economic and social control over people. Mussolini for example hated liberal government because it denied government control, while modern American liberals demand control in everything including what your children eat, whether you have health insurance and whether you can wear an American flag shirt at an American public school.

“Social Justice” is a meaningless term. It has been in use since the turn of the 19th century, has been used by Islamists, fascists, communists and totalitarians before it was adopted by American liberals. It can literally mean anything. From what I have seen Social Justice is invoked when a government wants to do something that by itself, would be called immoral, but it is excused by claiming it is for the greater good, i.e. for the justice of all society. Honestly justice needs no qualifier. Social Justice is so vague in fact; you can use it to claim the morality for anything. If you want to dispose of a group of people, all you have to do is say they are bad for society, there in it is justified to kill them and so fourth. That kind of power is not “liberal” in its original sense, but social justice has been a term used by American Liberals to coerce the ability to do many things thought tyrannical by our founding fathers.

To keep on the social justice theme, terms like “open space” and “smart growth” are the same kind of undefined or open-ended term that social justice is. These programs are what has sent Bay Area housing prices skyrocketing, these programs for example quadrupled the housing prices of Palo Alto CA, in the decade of the 1970’s. That isn’t smart growth. Keeping “open space” for posterity is great, but when the consequence of an unlivable cost of housing causes farm workers in Salinas CA to live 9 people to one apartment society isn’t being helped. Basically the fruition of these laws is that rich, mostly white liberals make money and price out  the poor and minorities. There is half the African American population in San Francisco than there was just 15 years ago and currently more African Americans die than move to or are born in the city. Not social justice in my eye.

What programs like “open space” and “smart growth” do is they provide money for the less fortunate, or affordable housing all of which is bad economically. It would be easier to not try to control what happens and let cities naturally develop lower income areas due to a reasonable cost of living, something the Bay Area hasn’t experienced since these types of government interventions started. Regardless of the damage these actions have caused the less fortunate, their newspeak terminology and the idea that they are giving to the poor makes people feel well, comfortable and good, that is if they don’t have to live in those places hardest hit and failed by an inevitably incompetent economic third party. This leads me into the Huxley side of my point. Make people just comfortable enough to not question. There are many ways to do this.

In Huxley’s book what is used is a removal of the family structure, drugs, sex and guaranteed food, shelter and work. In the book there was a biological caste system. The Alfa class was the hardest to control because they were the most biologically intelligent while the lowest biological class was the easiest to control, using guaranteed living, drugs and sex. We have only one biological class, human. Our class system is irrelevant to biological ability. Yet I see a Huxley like control system apparent. Regardless of the epic failure of government programs to help the less fortunate, these programs do control the helped populace. These individuals are stuck but their needs are taken care of, their animal needs that is. The STD and drug use rates of these communities’ shows that drugs and sex became a needed release or entertainment. These things are fun and addicting, even all consuming if you have a job let alone if you have none. These individuals are controlled with false comfort drugs and sex, which causes a breakdown of the family. Huxley would feel sick to his stomach thinking maybe his idea was used, but this particular idea has existed since the Ancient Greeks. Give people free stuff and take away their choices and they will be happy, for a short period.

Regardless of the extreme inhuman suffering of these groups leading to crime and at its worst riots, those that provide it receive a comfortable feeling at best and a megalomaniacal feeling with a need to protect these hurtful practices at worst. Through Orwellian newspeak even the most intelligent people can be fooled into thinking any program is for the best. “I live fine, I take care of those people, so I am like a protector, without me they would be worse off, I am more moral than those who would question and change things.” It is a type of moral comfortability. The Alphas of “A Brave New World” felt the same of the inferior biological castes. That false feeling of being a protector is incredibly pervasive and speaks to our most animalistic of instincts.

Unlike in Huxley’s book, when riots happen you cannot release drugs or “soma” in clouds from their government workstations. We are seeing what happens to a completely controlled populace as I type. In the U.K. where riots hit hard they have a whole lower class, many of which have not worked just in their lifetime, but their families have not had a job in three generations. People need liberty. People need choice and they need the ability to fail and suffer. We have been warned. Humans aren’t like a bear in a zoo that can be made happy with friends and activities to use up their time. It is in actuality about power and control. Read both books, especially “A Brave New World,” tell me that the scene when the teacher was instructing his very young students to stimulate each other sexually doesn’t make you question why the government wishes to teach your toddler about sex. This country is turning to a brave new world in 1984.