Sociable

Monday, November 01, 2010

Ready for the Revolution!

GO TOM TANCREDO!!!! We need ya' more than ever!

Okay, onto the collection of blog entries I've ammassed since my last visit to the InterNet...


October 29, 2010

We dodge a bullet… AGAIN!

Today’s flurry of reporting on multiple “suspicious packages” coming out of Yemen brings attention to the current status of our War on Terror …. Whoops! I mean our overseas contingency operations.

Once again, OTHER COUNTRIES pulled our butt outta’ the fire and protected us. The packages that actually had explosives on them were intercepted in Dubai and Great Britain. IT WAS NOT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT that saved us… AGAIN!

Just like the Detroit Christmas bombing attempt, we’ve been more lucky than anything else. How long can we keep successfully calling “heads” or “tails”? Eventually, our luck WILL run out! And how long will the American public keep thinking it’s our ‘skill’ or ‘preparation’ that is keeping us safe? We’re getting REALLY good at fixing barn doors after the horse is running in the field. As long as Dubai, Great Britain, can keep an eye on the most dangerous horses before they get out, we’ll be fine. For our part, we arrest a low-level wannabe in Washington DC that never hooked up with any group more nefarious than the FBI (who set up the sting to begin with.) We didn’t disrupt an already-formed and developed terrorist cell – we created a cell and caught some guy who was attracted to the cell WE created! Really?! Does that make you feel any safer?

Our efforts to fight this war through drone attacks is pure Clinton-era arm’s-length denial warfare. Didn’t we learn anything from the ‘90’s? Drones are great an all, but they don’t collect vital Human Intelligence! We aren’t listening-in, or sitting-in on Al-Qaeda meetings, nor are we cultivating relationships that would permit such listening-in. We’re just dropping bombs from remote-controlled aircraft. Essentially, we’re bombing the horse after he’s gotten out of the barn… and if not for the screeners at Dubai and Great Britain we’d be counting body bags right now. We really need to wake up and open our eyes, folks!!

Just a side note – it’s two years since the ascendancy of the Anointed Chosen One, the one who was going to bring the world together, who was going to bring civility and would restore the World’s love to America. If we just voted for him, the world would love us again – he would restore international relationships and the United States would be adored by the whole world. In short, countries wouldn’t hate us anymore and would stop attacking us.
How’s that working out for you?!

October 28th, 2010
Groupthink – group identity and the destruction of community

It is impossible for a conservative to be a racist – IMPOSSIBLE!

This is not spin, hyperbole, or fantasy; it’s a FACT! You see, conservatives see individuals one-on-one. Contrary to the false presumptions found in the media and history text books (both products of liberal Progressives), the Jim Crow laws, and other condoned governmental racism – if you read the actual FACTS of history – were the products of southern liberals, not conservatives. The last remaining KKK member of the Congress was the late Robert Byrd, a DEMOCRAT. The most famous racist in recent Congresses was Strom Thurmond – a Democrat when he spoke in racist terms, but later converted both in heart and in party to become a Republican. Lyndon Johnson, that great pillar of ‘racial progressives’, repeatedly voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Bill when he was Speaker of The House, only to switch sides for political gain when he became President.

Conservatives, and the few Republicans that fit into that category, don’t speak in terms of ‘the blacks’, ‘women’, ‘the rich’ or ‘the working class.’ They (we) see individuals with little concern for their color, gender, race, or income – we see individuals. Although the leftists try to paint any of us who disagree with Obama as ‘racists’, the fact is many of us would have voted for Condi Rice for President, or Colin Powell. Race just doesn’t matter to us… WE DON’T CARE! Nor do we JUDGE someone by his/her color, creed, sex, or anything else he/she can’t control. We tend to judge a person by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

So, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, we must venture past who sees the world as various ‘voting blocks’ and go to the heart of ‘what’s wrong with seeing groups?’

In nearly every Democrat/Liberal/Progressive argument you will hear the cries of victim/perpetrator. Just think of the targets of recent Administration policies – the evil banks, the racist Cambridge cops, the horrible doctors and HMOs that amputate kids’ feet for more money, horrible lending companies, racists and xenophobes in Arizona, Or, as he recently described them… “enemies.” This is pure Saul Alinsky.

This is also the core of what makes groupthink so insidious! When one identifies themselves, or others, by a certain group, it can only result in animosity, envy, conflict, and eventual hatred. What if – instead of calling all Wall Street bankers ‘evil’ – corrupt individuals were pointed out? Would that not open up the possibility of utilizing good bankers (yes, there are some out there!) for fixing the problem? Of course, that wouldn’t allow the government to take over the financial system, now would it?

PEOPLE WAKE UP! The Democrat/Liberal/Progressive agenda is ALL about divide and conquer! YOU ARE BEING USED! You are pawns in a larger game to gain power and control! You are being divided… most effectively and strongly into rich folks / poor folks… and they (those attempting to gain more power) are using your envy to gain more control over you!
“Now, Charles, you are speaking of the horrors of groupthink and dividing folks into separate groups, and yet I’ve read here on the blog you often rail against illegals – grouping all of them together. Hypocritical, are we?”
Good question, but you’re leaving out one major thing… actions vs. nature. There is nothing wrong with grouping illegals, felons, molesters, atheists, or even liberals because those generalizations are based on ACTIONS that define those individuals. No one chooses to be black, white, female, or male.

But it is the ACTIONS of a group of individuals that unites them. And, yes, you can lump ‘millionaire fat cats’ into a group – but ONLY if you truly believe that ALL millionaires and fat cats are alike in their actions. I don’t believe that all millionaires got rich through ill-gotten gains. In fact I would tend to be prejudicial the OTHER way. I think most rich people are like Bill Gates or Lawrence Ellison, or Sam Walton, or Andrew Carnegie… they EARNED their money through ingenuity and hard work (and should therefore be REWARDED instead of punished!)

It’s all based upon actions. And one of the actions that I tend to judge people on is how they CHOOSE to identify themselves. Do you identify yourself as ‘black’, ‘white’, ‘male’, ‘female’ or some equally innate characteristic? I had nothing to do with what color I was born… it has nothing to do with any effort or talent on my part. I had literally nothing to do with it. So why would I brag about it, or identify myself with it? I just don’t get that. It’s not like John McCain identifying himself as a POW survivor… he EARNED that title by surviving great hardship. His courage, bravery, tenacity, faith, and strength got him through a very difficult time, and that should rightly be part of his self-identification. But your great-great-great-grandfather was owned by a white man? Really, what exactly does that have to do with you and the person YOU are? It’s not as if you survived the lashings and indignities yourself. Heck! My grandfather had a cross burned on his lawn in the 1920’s because he was a Catholic. It has nothing whatsoever to do with who I am. It, perhaps, serves as an example that my family has overcome hardships and adversity in the past, but really has very little to do with where I am today. I guess I could whine and talk about how picked on I am because of what happened 110 years ago, but I know I’d be lying. I’d be playing the victim when I was never really victimized in the first place.

So that’s where I just don’t get the groupthink. I am an individual. The effects of my blood relatives, their histories, and our family’s past have so little influence on me and the kind of person I CHOOSE to be…in fact, I’ve even chosen to ‘get beyond’ things that HAVE happened in my past. If I don’t identify myself by THOSE, how could I possibly be so weak as to identify myself by things that didn’t even happen to ME?!?!
I can’t understand those who are enslaved by their identity as part of some group. I can’t imagine not thinking for myself. I can’t imagine voting for person “A” because all the other Catholics, or white guys, or 40-something are voting for them. I can’t imagine being that easily led. Maybe those that buy into the groupthink are individuals who are unwilling or unable to stand on their own. Hmmmmmm Something to think about.

Maybe those who choose to primarily identify themselves with a larger group are just folks who are too weak, cowardly, or insecure to stand on their own and have their own opinions. And maybe that lack of self-image is what allows them to have such a poor image of others, and see others as nothing more than sheeple and faceless entities in the larger crowd.

Wow! I like where this stream-of-consciousness is going. Adolph Hitler identified himself as part of the Aryan master race, and likewise saw the Jews as a single monolithic entity… so he had no qualms with slaughtering them. Was it his own lack of self-esteem (as a failed soldier and artist) that molded his outlook and projected his own self-loathing upon others? Do folks who have little or no self-identity outside one group or another share this same tunnel vision? Is this why it’s so easy for ideologues to demonize their opposition?

This blog has already taken up too much of your time, and I appreciate your interest in my musings. But just a few last questions to top this entry off.

Do you identify yourself by your accomplishments and triumphs, or by things you have no control over?

How do you view and identify other individuals? Is it by things they have no control over… or by what they have triumphed above and achieved?

When you first see someone, do you prejudge them by their looks, race, age, sex OR BY THEIR ACTIONS?

Do you truly believe all blacks are ________, or all women are _________, or all Asians are_____________? Do you believe all rich people are ______________?

How do you feel about people who primarily identify themselves (an action they choose to take) with things they have no control over such as color, race, gender and such?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are encouraged. I enjoy a good debate. However, you MUST have the courage of your convictions! "Anonymous" posters may be deleted