PDA

View Full Version : I have to hand it to the elites, they have every detail covered




AuH20
03-30-2011, 01:59 PM
Who wrote that the slaves will love their slavery in time? Creating a system of interdependency in which the middle class not only has to fight off the upperclass for independence, but repel the delusional lower class as well. I think John Galt was the smart one. This is a veritable ticking time bomb.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/30/tea.party.view/


The Tea Party movement's unfavorable rating rose 15 points since October among lower-income Americans, compared to only five points among those making more than $50,000. Roughly half of all American households have incomes under $50,000.

"It's possible the drop among lower income Americans is a reaction to the Tea Party's push for large cuts in government programs that help lower-income Americans, although there are certainly other factors at work," Holland added.

The Tea Party was born in early 2009, as a protest movement against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP or the Wall Street bailout, which was implemented by President George W. Bush in the autumn of 2008, and against the federal stimulus plan, officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that President Barack Obama passed through Congress in early 2009.

NewRightLibertarian
03-30-2011, 02:15 PM
We have our voice within that narrow tea party paradigm, but even if the tea party doesn't last the resistance will.

kahless
03-30-2011, 02:18 PM
Lower income working families spend so much time working they have no time to research. They therefore formulate an opinion and think they are informed from the propaganda that is rammed down their throat by the MSM, Hollywood media and Neocon talk radio hosts.

AuH20
03-30-2011, 02:32 PM
Lower income working families spend so much time working they have no time to research. They therefore formulate an opinion and think they are informed from what is rammed down their throat from the propaganda from MSM, Hollywood media and Neocon talk radio hosts.

It's not even that. They have been deprived of the ability to critically think, thanks to indoctrination. They have anointed others to think for themselves. Secondly, they look at things in the short-term as opposed to 20 years down the road. Instant gratification. The elites are aware of this primal weakness and simply exploit them to the hilt. Take for example the no money down mortgage frenzy. Anyone with a brain would realize that the bill would eventually come due with an exponential price attached to it. The upper upper class is a patient predator who knows the masses better than the public knows itself.

NewRightLibertarian
03-30-2011, 02:36 PM
It's not even that. They have been deprived of the ability to think, thanks to indoctrination. They have anointed others to think for themselves. Secondly, they look at things in the short-term as opposed to 20 years down the road. Instant gratification. The elites are aware of this primal weakness and simply exploit them to the hilt. Take for example the no money down mortgage frenzy. Anyone with a brain would realize that the bill would eventually come due with an exponential price attached to it. The upper upper class is a patient predator who knows the masses better than the public knows itself.

Indeed, they understand history, philsophy and psychology and use it to their advantage at every turn.

Icymudpuppy
03-30-2011, 02:42 PM
The proletariat will never revolt, Winston.

Orgoonian
03-30-2011, 02:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIjo-dWE1Jg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIjo-dWE1Jg

JCLibertarian
03-30-2011, 02:53 PM
The proletariat will never revolt, Winston.

No lower class populist movement that ignited revolution led to a freer society(ie. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution).

The American Revolution, a conservative revolution, was spearheaded by rich businessmen and plantation owners, and they drew their support from yeoman farmers and artisans. The notion that the poor are necessary to achieve positive change and the advancement of liberty is false, in fact, often times, they stand in the way. We don't need the poor, and don't need a majority to advance liberty. Remember, only 10% of the American Colonists verbally supported the American Revolution, only 3% directly aided the rebels/secessionists, and only 2% fought.

heavenlyboy34
03-30-2011, 03:00 PM
No lower class populist movement that ignited revolution led to a freer society(ie. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution).

The American Revolution, a conservative revolution, was spearheaded by rich businessmen and plantation owners, and they drew their support from yeoman farmers and artisans. The notion that the poor are necessary to achieve positive change and the advancement of liberty is false, in fact, often times, they stand in the way. We don't need the poor, and don't need a majority to advance liberty. Remember, only 10% of the American Colonists verbally supported the American Revolution, only 3% directly aided the rebels/secessionists, and only 2% fought.

Conservative? The "conservatives" of the time were leery of war/revolution and were pro-British ("loyalists"). I would describe it as a liberal (in the classical sense) revolution. The proponents of the revelation were influenced quite heavily by liberals of France, England, and America.

JCLibertarian
03-30-2011, 03:14 PM
Conservative? The "conservatives" of the time were leery of war/revolution and were pro-British ("loyalists"). I would describe it as a liberal (in the classical sense) revolution. The proponents of the revelation were influenced quite heavily by liberals of France, England, and America.

It was Conservative in that is was a revolution fought to restore colonial order prior to the French and Indian War. It was a war of separation and preservation, fought to preserve natural rights and restore the level of separation they had from Great Britain prior to the French and Indian War. It wasn't a war fought to affirm any set of positive rights or to assume control over a political body like the French Revolution. It was grounded in negative liberties and the principle of secession.

StilesBC
03-30-2011, 03:15 PM
The first few days of the election campaign in Canada prove how this works. Each day, every party releases one of their "policy positions." Invariably, each is a promise to some group of Canadians that they will get free money from the government. At the end, whichever party has promised more Canadians more free shit than the others wins the election.

Libertarians will always have a difficulty with the poor. We want to take away their free shit (which they feel they have a right to - somehow). It doesn't matter that this free shit is contributing to their plight. And it doesn't matter that they could still get it from elsewhere (private charities) if they are truly deserving of it.

This is what makes the poorest countries more vulnerable to authoritarianism. And its also what makes the richer countries more prone to liberty. The richer one is, the more educated they are likely to be - and therefore understanding that getting free shit now comes at a cost in the future. But it also makes them more difficult to win over with offerings of free shit. Most of my friends are just disgusted with the election campaigns. I'd wager that less than 20% of the electorate actually votes "for" one party or another. 45% don't vote at all. and the other 25% seem to vote for one party or another simply because they find the other option to be worse. Fewer and fewer are buying their BS.

Stary Hickory
03-30-2011, 03:21 PM
Well the Tea Party was never something you could attack anyways. They are trying to attack ideas now, and people will never give up these ideas....they will still be around and we have to carry them on if they are pro liberty. The Tea Party can reform and be something else, it's the ideas that count. What the left wants is desperately to stop any kind of organized resistance to the growth of the state.

That is why all these attacks occur so often and partly why I take most attacks against the Tea Party as a whole with a grain of salt. I understand the main motivation behind a lot of these attacks. Sometimes articles even get posted here, the big government folks would like nothing more than to cause dissension amongst the rank of file of the liberty movement, right now even with all its imperfections the Tea Party movement is one of the major players in bringing in small government candidates(to the extent it has happened). And they are getting attacked viscously.

Imagine if a truly libertarian movement got going to this degree....it would be a hellish onslaught like never seen before. As far as I can tell the left and those who love big government(left and right) are treating the hardcore liberty movement with kit gloves hoping it does not come into play at all. And little by little trying to keep it demoralized and ineffective by trashing anything that they might latch on to promote their agenda for liberty. The tea party is/was a vehicle for a lot of the liberty movement (especially in the beginning). Some attacks are against the small government theme itself but some are more sinister and are simply a divide and conquer strategy.