helping commies get to know knives
Monday, January 05, 2004
Today, using my new tool of objectivist philosophy, I will objectively consider the individual looters that make up the democrat and republican gangs of mass murdering Hitler saluting thugs. Modernly known as the democrat and republican political parties.
What are commies as a group?
The political methods of the commie:
Commies are a group of people who rob other people, usually successful people. Commies force as many people as they can to work in extreme or partial slavery for the "common good". The "common commie good" is always arbitrarily defined and constantly changed by 1-10 head thugs in charge of the gang. Sometimes the people they rob are stupid rich, sometimes they are accidental rich, sometimes they rob dirt poor people, sometimes they directly steal and rob the very inventors of the "good" themselves. The common goal is robbery for some "common commie good". The concept of the "common commie good" is usually explained by loud repetition of some meaningless platitude asserting that people in a feudal dictatorship are better off than people under capitalism. The common good always involves a extraordinarily lavish lifestyle for the leaders of the gang. Lots of times, the chief thugs (i.e the thugs that are the best backstabbers) use some kind of rhetorical rationalization to perform a mass scale robbery, when they really just wanted to double their own salary. The scale of the robbery is usually a cover for the fact that it was done only to benefit the interests of the leaders.
If you have two groups of opposing looters, the groups always pick some meaningless secondary robbery to accuse the other looters of. After a propaganda war is fought, and the proper number of people are brainwashed, a compromise occurs with both sides engaging in celebratory mass looting. Often, the chief thugs pick figureheads who are "crusaders against the system". Everyone delights in watching the nominal figureheads make speeches like this when they are in charge:
To reform government, we must rethink government. The need for reform is urgent. The General Accounting Office (GAO) high-risk list identifies areas throughout the federal government that are most vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. Ten years ago, the GAO found eight such areas. Today it lists 22. Perhaps as significant, government programs too often deliver inadequate service at excessive cost. New programs are frequently created with little review or assessment of the already-existing programs to address the same perceived problem. Over time, numerous programs with overlapping missions and competing agendas grow up alongside one another, wasting money and baffling citizens.
Though reform is badly needed, the obstacles are daunting as previous generations of would be reformers have repeatedly discovered. The work of reform is continually overwhelmed by the constant multiplication of hopeful new government programs, each of whose authors is certain that this particular idea will avoid the managerial problems to which all previous government programs have succumbed. Congress, the Executive Branch, and the media have all shown far greater interest in the launch of new initiatives than in following up to see if anything useful ever occurred.
So while the government needs to reform its operations, how it goes about its business and how it treats the people it serves, it also needs to rethink its purpose, how it defines what business is and what services it should provide.
The President's vision for government reform is guided by three principles. Government should be:
Citizen-centered, not bureaucracy-centered;
Market-based, actively promoting rather than stifling innovation through competition.
The President has called for a government that is active but limited, that focuses on priorities and does them well. That same spirit should be brought to the work of reform. Rather than pursue an array of management initiatives, we have elected to identify the government's most glaring problems, and solve them. The President's Management Agenda is a starting point for management reform.
This, of-course, is an example of an excellent figurehead doing his best to convince the looters that they can loot more money by robbing less. The public is happy that such a great leader is in charge, and the looters are happy because they have good cover for their robbery. Out of the current democratic presidential candidates - only one - Denis Kucinich - says he would cut a big branch - any big branch of the looters. Denis wants to cut the Pentagon by 15%. The rest want the looting to continue in various proportions. The looting is targeted at the wealth of their opponents in the competition for the title of chief looter.
Our congresslooters thank God daily for the good cover that Bush provides while rolling around in their looted wealth.
The congresslooters have even laughingly redefined looting as wealth creation:
For the first time ever in the history of economic thinking, economists - that is, American economists - are claiming that growing asset prices represent fully valid wealth creation. In 1996, an article in Foreign Policy entitled "Securities: The New Wealth Machine" effectively explained that the financial markets have become the most powerful generator of wealth.
The financial damage of the commie:
In terms of economics, communism - robbery at the point of a gun - can not improve the average wealth of a man - ever. Although a poor man may celebrate the accidental largesse of a rich looter, the poor man can never maximize his own wealth in the presence of robbery. As soon as the poor man earns money, it is immediately collectivized from him. Therefore a poor man can not maximize his own wealth unless he can keep the fruits of his labor. Let us consider the total amount of money looted vs the total amount of money distributed after looting. Since the process of redistribution is always inefficient and wealth destroying, the amount of total money in the presence of looting must always be less than the amount of money in a capitalist society. Therefore, the average of income of man is always lowered by looting. However, the median income may be raised by looting, just like it can be raised even further by decreasing looting. Hmmmm.
The amount of looting going on in the United States is the greatest in known history, making the United States the most communist country ever. In particular the State of Texas has richly deserved its title as Soviet Texas. Communism (i.e. looting and slavery) is virtually an American Disease at this point:
Thousands of the richest, most leisured people in the history of civilization have become self-absorbed, ungracious, and completely divorced from the natural world - the age-old horrific realities of dearth, plague, hunger, rapine, or conquest.
As I have said many times, if democrats and republicans walk, talk and plead for their life like commies - they are commies.
COMMIE -> STAB
STAB STAB STAB
Here is more about communism for the museum of communism.
And for the idiots that agree with me, here is the Pravda:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy - the list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Comments: Post a Comment