Friday, June 28, 2013

The Destructive Power of the POOR










Karl Marx drafted a political philosophy specifically to appeal to the Poor. John Engles did the writing.Marx was poor, and he embraced a lazy, petty and jealous personality. Engles had credibility (something Marx lacked) and it was Engle’s standing that enabled Marx’s Communist Manifesto to spread.The Marxist philosophy resulted in: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others.Those regimes and their policies of FAIRNESS ended the lives of 200 million human beings. History is replete with suffering, death, and destruction – all initiated to help the Poor.

One important lesson exists in history. It is perhaps the most important. If all the deaths and other human costs that arose from the actions taken to help the poor were summed, the number of the Poor remains the same and it would not change the Poor's perspective and demands. Helping the Poor assures the problems associated with poverty expand and intensify. The Poor are NEVER satisfied regardless of how much is done for them. The Poor are perpetually in search of anyone who they can manipulate to illegitimately increase their income. (NOTE: Every Progressive accusation is a revelation of their own sins - Projection).

The Roman Empire was destroyed and Western Civilization driven into a Dark Age by servicing the demands of The Poor. Roman politicians and Emperors used Food and Circus to placate the Poor - and buy their support. The costs of bread and entertainment to Rome's poor was astronomical.The money spent servicing the Poor was not available to defend Rome’s borders, and positively influence prosperity for the empire - but the Poor were kept satisfied. When the hoards surrounding Rome saw the decline - they attacked and defeated Rome. The producers were killed or fled. The Poor went back to being Poor. The Poor did nothing to improve themselves once the empire died and opportunity abounded. Outside producers entered and created feudal estates - to protect themselves against the Poor. The Poor were reset into their natural state.

The Poor are poor for a reason - they are typically un-smart.

Any attempt to reduce failure / risk comes at the direct expense of liberty and property.The lessons regarding this principle are inexplicably fleeting.For the worst reasons known, new generations of politicians refuse to acknowledge the liberty / risk relationship.Those politicians consider themselves able to negotiate separating the inseparable.Every attempt to transfer wealth and keep a nation prosperous has failed.Freedom and risk/ opportunity to fail, are each a side of the same coin.

If giving the Poor what they demand solved the problems of the Poor; by now, society would have solved all of the Poor's problems.

More than any other factor - Intellect determines wealth. Every person possesses different abilities; and inabilities. Those traits influence a person’s behaviors. They adopt behaviors that reflect their abilities and inabilities/traits. Those traits and resulting behaviors are what predicates success in life. This is NOT a Zero-Sum calculus.

The Poor have historically shown they possess the same intellectual traits of their Poor forebearers.

The traits and behaviors that lead to being Poor are:
Lazy, less ambitious and unwilling to expend the effort required to obtain success –

Get rich quick, less willing to work for objectives that provide no instant reward –

Immediate gratification, the work energy expended is focused upon material items that provide an instantaneous rush -

Stupidity, seeking an education provides no immediate reward, it requires persistence, it is difficult and rejected by the poor.

Like liberty and risk, the above behaviors (and the resulting outcomes) are “generally” inseparable.These traits lead to poverty; and assure poverty remains.

The Poor are magnificently ungrateful.The demands of the Poor are irascible and relentless. The Poor remain unsatisfied no matter what is given them.Unbelievably, the Poor’s grievances increase, proportionally, the more that is given them.This ungrateful phenomenon was noted by Margret Sanger in the early 1900s. Margret Sanger is a folk hero to Progressive Democrat politicians. She is credited with founding Planned Parenthood. Sanger suggested abortions (for the Poor) be provided upon demand or whenever a person was unable to care for a child. Ms. Sanger was a rabid advocate for eugenics – a practice I support when properly channeled.

...In Sanger’s 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization, she attacked charity as counterproductive, and dangerous. Sanger asserted - helping the poor produced even more “human waste.” (Waste was Sanger’s euphemism for Poor children.) Sanger also stated, “Organized charity is itself the symptom of a malignant social disease.” This statement infers society must be unaffected by the complaints of the Poor - because servicing their needs contributed to the destruction of a society.

Sanger said more: “Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, providing the Poor with assistance makes the Poor more menacing and dominant.”

Sanger was right.

All lasting societies refused to service the Poor. The USA is revered and the world's poor flocked to it because the poor were given the opportunity to succeed. Obviously - that failed too! Churches were then the organizations that cared for the Poor. That charity is much different than today's anonymous guaranteed pay outs. The Poor were then forced to face their benefactors weekly. Shame was a consequence the poor also faced. The poor were forced to WORK and attend church to learn the errors of their ways. These small requirements vetted the poor who arrived there from bad circumstances and those who chose being poor for a variety of reasons. Regardless, the poor had to expend some effort and were prevented from behaving violently and criminally - unlike today.

Verifiable and consistent outcomes are associated with a limited intellect - the Poor/stupid are unable/unwilling to see, or are unwilling to admit, their behaviors are primarily responsible for their complaints. Irresponsible people refuse to adopt the behaviors that lead to success. A lack of responsibility – personal responsibility included, is most often causal for poverty.

The Poor enjoy blaming their failures on: birth right, bad circumstances, oppressive forces, and bad luck. Ostensibly, according to the poor's self assessment, the reason they are poor is due to forces beyond their control. Analysis shows a different causal factor - the Poor construct their lives to accrue the most comforts they can with the resources available to them - without adding to their labors or making matters more complicated. Responsible people improve their station and escape poverty incrementally. The Poor refuse to so do.

Progressives want (and need) stupid voters who are solely focused on their poverty.

The process Progressives use buy votes is three fold:

1. They make a villian. Progressives blame the wealthy as the illegitimate holder of the money and criticizing their life styles/motives.

2. They promise to implement policies that transfer wealth to the Poor's (and improve their own political viability).

3. They inform the Poor their vote is the only way to assure these policies are enacted.

Bribery is the operative function.

Historically, the Poor have shown remarkable durability in their greed, dissatisfaction, and willingness to rain violence, mayhem and murder to punish others more affluent than they.The poor claim violence is the ONLY tool available. Progressives walk a fine line to agree with, and enable, this violent option/threat. Violence is chosen by the stupid because they are unable to develop a peaceful solution, or the peaceful solution does not immediately appease their demands.

Potential violence is used by Progressives as a tool to intimidate the self sufficient./tax payers.  Violence is the implied threat - should the poor not get what they demand - riots, looting, unrest, will arise. This double edge sword is applied against the responsible and self sufficient to confiscate their wealth – “voluntarily”.

Progressive Bribery = Taxes are raised and the money redistributed to the Poor. The Poor exchange their votes for the money given them. Democrats expand government control to buy even more votes. Over time, those on the margin of poverty see they can stop working and not suffer a reduction in life style. They join others who exhange their votes for Free Stuff. Eventually, those receiving the public dole form a majority and the country implodes/goes bankrupt.

The promise Democrats make to the self sufficient is peace and safety - violence will be avoided if tax payers agree to part with their property in service to the "Needs" of the Poor. History proves no amount of transferred wealth will sate the demands of the Poor. Add to this - the Poor are incapable of retaining wealth or growing their wealth.Short-sightedness, born of a limited intellect, and the desire for immediate gratification results in the Poor spending their wealth away on products that deliver instantaneous gratification or to display affluence (showing off - pretending they are not Poor).

Margret Sanger and other eugenicists accurately defined why poverty existed and how to properly treat it. This school of thought was popular and it is likely that school would have improved the USA and prevented the immediate threat of financial ruin. Sanger's opinions on poverty’s causality and how to remedy the complaints of the Poor should be considered – if not her radical methods and words.

To understand poverty and the Poor – defining poverty is essential.What is poor? Subjectively, poor/poverty is a perspective. Many people with limited financial assets live happy and productive lives. They view themselves as Rich in love, contentment, and family. The political definition of the poor includes people who lack the assets to sustain themselves in an environment. Poor is also a comparative term. The Poor in one location are not poor compared to another location. America's "poor" live a lavish lifestyle compared to the poor in India, Africa, third world et al. American laws prevent The Poor from being poor whatsoever. The Quality of Life is equated with poverty in Democrat government speak. It is a word game that has no basis in reality.

The Poor sit front and center in the Democrat's policy making. Democrats label the Poor “Middle-Class” because the Poor do not like being referred to (Nor do they actually qualify) as Poor! Democrats have created euphemisms that describe their Poor. The Poor are called: At Risk, Working Americans/Families, Under-employed, and Working Poor. These terms are acceptable to the Poor because it implies the poor work and does not "stigmatize" them as POOR!

The exact measure of poverty that politically defines Poor is purposely unclear - and will remain unclear due to Democrats refusing to determine, or permit a determination of what defines poor = a mean level of income and property ownership that defines poverty. The definition of poverty must remain nebulous to enable Democrats a perpetual political argument.

When tasked to determine a "Poverty Point" the Health and Human Services agency could not (refused to) provide one. Being employed, receiving government subsidies, private sector subsidies, did not disqualify a person from being classified as poor! Owning a home, car (or two cars), a color TV - or several TVs, cell phone, A/C, household conveniences, and other trappings of a middle class status did not lessen a person's poverty according to HHS. The exact poverty point was purposely avoided.

According to HHS, Poverty is circumstantial and open to interpretation.

The term poverty/poor were honed over decades by Progressive Democrats to specifically describe people who lack a Quality of Life (as defined by Democrats). This is done to rile up their emotions - and the emotions of the self sufficient. Servicing the needs (demands) of the poor has caused untold strife and harm around the globe. Communism is the most extreme example of politicians appealing to the wants of the poor. Appealing to the Poor lead to the Russian revolution - ditto Mao's Communist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, Castro's Cuba. These all arose from politicians appealing to the poor. The violent nature of the poor is what accomplished those revolutions. Whether the violence is implied or actual, violence sits as the causal mechanism used to steal wealth and political control. Permanently controlling government is the goal of Progressive Democrat politicians.

The threat of violence or unrest should the poor's demands not be sated is ubiquitous. The riots of the 1960s are what prompted the initial War on Poverty. The programs and stipends offered to the poor since the 1960s have increased substantially. Noteably - the percentage of people defined as poor remains unchanged since the war on poverty was implemented. The WOP has done nothing to decrease the number of poor or the behaviors that lead to poverty.

This begs a question...

Were those acts of violence, the1960s riots, planned by Democrats?  The Fast and Furious scandal revealed the motivations and subsequent actions of Democrats to rally support for their planned policies.  Democrat policy making must be closely and historically examined . Do Democrats create self-fulfilling prophecies?  Evidence suggest Democrats plan and then pro-actively work to create the circumstances/programs Democrats need to argue for policy change?  F&F was such a plan.  Democrats wanted more gun control.  SO, Democrats broke laws were broken, they gave guns to Mexican gangs.  They purposely did not track the guns.  Whne people died, Democrats demanded more gun control was needed.  Democrats created the circumstances they needed to argue for gun law changes.  People died - Democrats did not care!!!  The deaths were either planned - or an acceptable cost.  The ends jusifty ANY means.

Servicing needs that arise from chosen behaviors - behaviors (that never abate) due to irresponsible and indolent choices; are not how most people view helping the poor. Temporary assistance is all a person is due. Society is not served with prolonged, institutional indolence/dependence. That practice assures the tax payer is an indentured servant of the government and their poor terror wing.

Remarkably, Democrats openly slander the tax payer and insult their efforts for not giving more to sate the demands of Democrat politicians and their poor voters/dependents.

Compassion is owed the compassionate. A majority of the poor are not compassionate and their behaviors clearly reveal their animus towards their fellowman and their own families.

The most glaring example of how inconsiderate, selfish, greedy, and stupid the poor are is the wide-spread practice of breeding children while receiving public assistance. No sane, compassionate, or lucid person will purposely add to their burdens while failing to sustain themselves. Adding children to an environment, incapable of providing for itself, staggers the imagination and is evidence of child abuse. However, Democrats reward the poor when they created more demand.  They receive more money for each new dependent they add to the roles.  Complaints are silenced with cries of racist. 

Democrat policy making encourages this rapacious behavior and seeks to punish and silence any opposition to their policies or the behaviors of the poor.Unrestricted breeding is one of the greatest financial drains this nation faces.The Poor will eventually breed in numbers sufficient to install a permanent Democrat majority and thereby permanently steal the wealth of the productive – legally.This is the over-arching goal of Democrats.

Lastly, the US Supreme Court decision recently handed down another bribe to the poor -free health care. Progressive politicians appear as dull-witted as the indolent they serve. The end game for Progressive politics is bankruptcy. Entitlement payouts are the largest segment of the federal budget and Progressives work to expand these each year. The children created by dependents also add to the number of mouths needing feeding. Progressive walk merrily hand in hand with their poor dependents on the road to financial ruin, and, ultimately revolution.

Once Progressives achieve their goals, neither the poor nor the government will have funds sufficient to cover their expenses. Only then, will bribing the poor finally end. That outcome will bring horrific suffering – much more than curtailing the behaviors that lead to a distorted view of poverty - a view that is neither poor or under-represented. Communists murdered 200 million poor once they no longer needed them. America's poor will a similar fate - but they are too stupid and purposely uninformed to know what awaits them.








No comments:

Post a Comment