There are several subjects in modern America that have become icons for the masses, whose merits are believed to be self-evident and therefore beyond reproach.
Two of those subjects are women's suffrage and the civil rights movement.
Throughout our adolescence, our well-intentioned teachers prepare us to accept that the political evolution that has transpired within the United States has expressed the manifest destiny of righteousness and divine providence.
We are made to believe that policy changes and movements have expressed the undeterred courage of humanity toward progress and the shaping of a better world.
It's easy to think this way, because we are so desperate to believe it is true; we are so desperate to shut our eyes at night under the warm blanket of blissful ignorance.
Unfortunately, the machinations of politics have much more in common with sausage-making than with any stairway to heaven, and still the results are not nearly as satisfying, let alone edible.
From a strictly pragmatic point of view, the women's suffrage and civil rights movements together served to mobilize the female and minority demographics to fortify the Democratic Party's voting bloc during the twentieth century, after the Republicans had promptly secured the black vote during the Reconstruction era.
The nascent Republican Party appealed to the average black voter after championing emancipation and the postbellum Reconstruction Amendments, which overlapped with strict policing across the southern states to ensure compliance with the new laws, conveniently — for the Republican Party — instigating racial tensions that would only further inspire political support for the new sheriff in town: that one nation "under God" and "indivisible."
After an epic losing streak lasting a couple of generations, the Democratic Party finally reformed its strategy to compete with the Republican dynasty: women's suffrage, civil rights and welfare were just the lowest-hanging fruit available for the picking, and it's virtually been a race up the tree since then.
Today, the Democrats continue their deployment of the same strategy by expanding upon the so-called War on Poverty, born principally out of the New Frontier and Great Society epoch, and by currying favor among immigrants — and dejected voters — and by subsidizing higher education in order to influence and socialize the impressionable youth, incidentally dismantling the family unit by "empowering" their constituency through the rejection of family values and personal responsibility.
Truthfully, there is nothing categorically "wrong" with the conventional household composition of a working husband and stay-at-home wife who performs housework.
We've merely replaced this arrangement with a nine-to-five or double-shift workload whereby both parents are absent from the home for extended periods of time each day while working for somebody else or some other company instead.
Meanwhile, the home and house chores are regularly left unattended, and the average family is left with an increasingly expensive tax burden to boot; of course, the rising tax burden's coincidence with the burgeoning female labor force participation rate illustrates what exactly has occurred here: women weren't as much liberated as necessitated by the burdens of high taxes following from government largesse.
What's more, the modern baby is lucky if he is even born into a life with both of his parents.
Today, more than two-thirds of black children live in single-parent households in the United States, while unwed childbearing in the U.S. has eclipsed 40 percent in total, up from 5 percent before the proclaimed War on Poverty officially began in 1964.
In modern America, more than at any time in its history, a child is more likely to grow up without one of his or her parents in the household, regardless of race.
And, you guessed it, the data show that single-parent households are more economically unstable, more receptive to the promises of government, and disproportionately supportive of Democratic candidates.
Of course, the United States is also experiencing record-low fertility rates, indicating yet another shift in terms of cultural priorities and toward economic instability, which the Democratic Party is fully prepared to thoroughly enjoy and continually exploit.
In the words of the Joker from the 2008 thriller The Dark Knight, "It's all part of the plan."
The political machine isn't stupid, and it's not controlled by complete imbeciles who lack basic insights into statistical analysis, Microsoft Excel or Google Sheets.
These are relatively intelligent people who know exactly what they're doing and how to manipulate voters and the minds of future voters, and there's a ton of money to be fetched by those who are proficient in the trade.
It's called propaganda, and it's not a term reserved for study in your high-school history class; it's ongoing and living in the mainstream of the material you read, watch and later entertain in conversations with those who've done the same, where it's most insidious, operating with what appears to be the certification of those fellow humans whom you mistakenly trust.
In the modern context, propaganda takes the form of repeated utterances and nudges that cumulatively inspire an unsubstantiated emotional response on the very basis of continued exposure to positive or negative stimuli.
Even when faced with some semblance of truth, the propaganda overcomes reason with the power of fear or peer pressure.
As one famed politician once uttered, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies," another novelist wrote.
It's simply too difficult to face truth when something more agreeable can be sported in its place, especially while the advantages of wielding truth are so slim, and while your associates will scarcely notice the difference.
For example, the political embrace of the female demographic through the former suffrage movements, and the continued protests for ill-defined equality, presents an amiable facade for the loaded and destructive package of implications it really contains.
In the pursuit of a form of equality that conflicts with nature and science, let alone our limited capacity to even vaguely imagine it, the agenda concomitantly serves to feminize the populace in order to bring it more thoroughly under the government's control, both materially and psychologically.
This primes the populace for further encroachments upon liberty by subtly numbing constituents to the costs while consistently inundating them with their promises of nirvana.
The propaganda machine accomplishes this end by virtue-signaling and delegitimizing masculinity in order to condition strong and protective men to relinquish those traits across generations, rendering the subsequent generations of men more docile and deferential toward the budding power structure.
This type of non-threatening populace is easier to govern and enslave, and government agents will have fewer opponents, fewer questions to answer, and subservient acolytes unquestioningly doing their bidding on their behalf.
Totalitarianism is the ultimate destination, and democracy is nothing more than a fashionable vehicle that will take us there; it's also a brilliant distraction for those who've been convinced that they maintain control through its generous process, which appears to also bear out the concerted will of their neighbors.
And how could they possibly question that?
The truth is this: while most people have no business voting, democracy has no business existing at all.
It's a fool's errand.
Ultimately, government ought to be kept so small as to render inconsequential every uninformed vote, every ill-equipped candidate, and every electoral circus to return funds to those people who originally earned them, where they can be productively invested instead of being squandered on special interests, the hefty costs of government boondoggles, and the propaganda efforts in pursuit of the massive payout.
We can do better with freedom, and truth.
Two of those subjects are women's suffrage and the civil rights movement.
Throughout our adolescence, our well-intentioned teachers prepare us to accept that the political evolution that has transpired within the United States has expressed the manifest destiny of righteousness and divine providence.
We are made to believe that policy changes and movements have expressed the undeterred courage of humanity toward progress and the shaping of a better world.
It's easy to think this way, because we are so desperate to believe it is true; we are so desperate to shut our eyes at night under the warm blanket of blissful ignorance.
Unfortunately, the machinations of politics have much more in common with sausage-making than with any stairway to heaven, and still the results are not nearly as satisfying, let alone edible.
From a strictly pragmatic point of view, the women's suffrage and civil rights movements together served to mobilize the female and minority demographics to fortify the Democratic Party's voting bloc during the twentieth century, after the Republicans had promptly secured the black vote during the Reconstruction era.
The nascent Republican Party appealed to the average black voter after championing emancipation and the postbellum Reconstruction Amendments, which overlapped with strict policing across the southern states to ensure compliance with the new laws, conveniently — for the Republican Party — instigating racial tensions that would only further inspire political support for the new sheriff in town: that one nation "under God" and "indivisible."
After an epic losing streak lasting a couple of generations, the Democratic Party finally reformed its strategy to compete with the Republican dynasty: women's suffrage, civil rights and welfare were just the lowest-hanging fruit available for the picking, and it's virtually been a race up the tree since then.
Today, the Democrats continue their deployment of the same strategy by expanding upon the so-called War on Poverty, born principally out of the New Frontier and Great Society epoch, and by currying favor among immigrants — and dejected voters — and by subsidizing higher education in order to influence and socialize the impressionable youth, incidentally dismantling the family unit by "empowering" their constituency through the rejection of family values and personal responsibility.
Truthfully, there is nothing categorically "wrong" with the conventional household composition of a working husband and stay-at-home wife who performs housework.
We've merely replaced this arrangement with a nine-to-five or double-shift workload whereby both parents are absent from the home for extended periods of time each day while working for somebody else or some other company instead.
Meanwhile, the home and house chores are regularly left unattended, and the average family is left with an increasingly expensive tax burden to boot; of course, the rising tax burden's coincidence with the burgeoning female labor force participation rate illustrates what exactly has occurred here: women weren't as much liberated as necessitated by the burdens of high taxes following from government largesse.
What's more, the modern baby is lucky if he is even born into a life with both of his parents.
Today, more than two-thirds of black children live in single-parent households in the United States, while unwed childbearing in the U.S. has eclipsed 40 percent in total, up from 5 percent before the proclaimed War on Poverty officially began in 1964.
In modern America, more than at any time in its history, a child is more likely to grow up without one of his or her parents in the household, regardless of race.
And, you guessed it, the data show that single-parent households are more economically unstable, more receptive to the promises of government, and disproportionately supportive of Democratic candidates.
Of course, the United States is also experiencing record-low fertility rates, indicating yet another shift in terms of cultural priorities and toward economic instability, which the Democratic Party is fully prepared to thoroughly enjoy and continually exploit.
In the words of the Joker from the 2008 thriller The Dark Knight, "It's all part of the plan."
The political machine isn't stupid, and it's not controlled by complete imbeciles who lack basic insights into statistical analysis, Microsoft Excel or Google Sheets.
These are relatively intelligent people who know exactly what they're doing and how to manipulate voters and the minds of future voters, and there's a ton of money to be fetched by those who are proficient in the trade.
It's called propaganda, and it's not a term reserved for study in your high-school history class; it's ongoing and living in the mainstream of the material you read, watch and later entertain in conversations with those who've done the same, where it's most insidious, operating with what appears to be the certification of those fellow humans whom you mistakenly trust.
In the modern context, propaganda takes the form of repeated utterances and nudges that cumulatively inspire an unsubstantiated emotional response on the very basis of continued exposure to positive or negative stimuli.
Even when faced with some semblance of truth, the propaganda overcomes reason with the power of fear or peer pressure.
As one famed politician once uttered, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies," another novelist wrote.
It's simply too difficult to face truth when something more agreeable can be sported in its place, especially while the advantages of wielding truth are so slim, and while your associates will scarcely notice the difference.
For example, the political embrace of the female demographic through the former suffrage movements, and the continued protests for ill-defined equality, presents an amiable facade for the loaded and destructive package of implications it really contains.
In the pursuit of a form of equality that conflicts with nature and science, let alone our limited capacity to even vaguely imagine it, the agenda concomitantly serves to feminize the populace in order to bring it more thoroughly under the government's control, both materially and psychologically.
This primes the populace for further encroachments upon liberty by subtly numbing constituents to the costs while consistently inundating them with their promises of nirvana.
The propaganda machine accomplishes this end by virtue-signaling and delegitimizing masculinity in order to condition strong and protective men to relinquish those traits across generations, rendering the subsequent generations of men more docile and deferential toward the budding power structure.
This type of non-threatening populace is easier to govern and enslave, and government agents will have fewer opponents, fewer questions to answer, and subservient acolytes unquestioningly doing their bidding on their behalf.
Totalitarianism is the ultimate destination, and democracy is nothing more than a fashionable vehicle that will take us there; it's also a brilliant distraction for those who've been convinced that they maintain control through its generous process, which appears to also bear out the concerted will of their neighbors.
And how could they possibly question that?
The truth is this: while most people have no business voting, democracy has no business existing at all.
It's a fool's errand.
Ultimately, government ought to be kept so small as to render inconsequential every uninformed vote, every ill-equipped candidate, and every electoral circus to return funds to those people who originally earned them, where they can be productively invested instead of being squandered on special interests, the hefty costs of government boondoggles, and the propaganda efforts in pursuit of the massive payout.
We can do better with freedom, and truth.
Comments
Post a Comment