The identifiable ilk includes without limitation two talking heads prominently featured on the various television stations that I call the
"Pravda"
of the Democrat Party (ABC, BLOOMBERG, CBS, CNBC,
CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, PBS, AND many
women and a few not so good men of the FOX NEWS CHANNEL). Of course, let's add Google, Facebook, and Twitter because they are "publishers" that present lies and punish
the truth by editing, censoring, or deleting the content of members. Combined with Socialist party leaders in the House and Senate, the conditions for a totalitarian revolution
exist in America since the beginning of the 21st Century.
These faces that when seen on any TV station cause the almost uncontrolable impulse to vomit. I refer obviously to the irritating, vindictive, spiteful behavior belonging to the
faces of Chuckie Shiner, D-NY and
Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, the
"representative" and propagandist who speaks of
passing Bills before reading them and of
"affordability" when she really means "robbing
Peter to pay Paul". Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the UK said, "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money."
Fourier complex is an extreme form of
egalitarianism in which the believer is prepared to accept, or actually wishes for, widespread
poverty, possibly even starvation, as the consequence or means of making the material wellbeing of every member of society equal.
In aggravated or more candid instances, this ethic is admitted or even proclaimed by the adherent. In other cases, the belief is held unconsciously as a contingent value and/or it is denied by a
person who in fact knows that he holds the view. The term was coined by
Ludwig von Mises in his 1927 book
Liberalism.
He took it from the name of the famous French socialist
Charles Fourier. In that the attitude does not accord with materialistic rationality or
self-preservation, Mises regarded and described it as a neurosis, or psychological disorder. Triggered most commonly by envy, it embodies a misanthropic viewpoint that may be compared with the
anti-human ethics of more extreme instances of
environmentalism
(also),
nationalism, and various other "isms" that can be emphasized beyond the point of providing
benefit to the human race or even to the believer himself.
It may be regarded as a
"dog in the manger" attitude extended to the scope of society, or even mankind.
[Editor's Note: Mises describes the psychological opposition to (classical) Liberalism as a psychopathological, neurasthenic condition. This article was compiled originally on
01 DEC 2014, but the introductory paragraph was added a month before today, 12 JUN 2018. As of today, the entire Democrat (Socialist) Party along with "Pravda" (defined above) are behaving
exactly like a "dog in the manger", mostly because the Socialists lost the 2016 election which prevents their destruction of America including without limitation high taxes, ridiculous regulations,
and the subversive, unconstitutional "deep state" bureaucracies. Of course, subversion exists in public schools where Socialist teachers indocrinate naive, easily influenced students into thinking
that hard work is not necessary to achieve success. Socialist subversion exists in universities where Socialist professors and their teaching assistants influence students to violate the 1st and 2nd
Amendments of the Constitution. If permitted to continue, the greatest country in the history of the world will be destroyed!
This Mises quote describes 19th century Liberalism versus today's various bastardizations of the former foundation of the American Republic and consumer based philosophy:
Today the tenets of this nineteenth-century philosophy of liberalism are almost forgotten. In continental Europe it is remembered only by a few. In England the term "liberal" is mostly used to signify
a program that only in details differs from the totalitarianism of the socialists. In the United States "liberal" means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the
opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceeding generations. The American self-styled liberals aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and
advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism. These "Liberals" are anxious to emphasize that they disapprove of the Russian dictator's policies not on account of their
socialistic or communistic character but merely on account of their imperialistic tendencies. Every measure aiming at confiscating some of the assets of those who own more than the average
or at restricting the rights of the owners of property is considered as liberal and progressive. [Editor's Note: Today, there is no difference between the two major political parties.]
Practically unlimited discretionary power is vested in government agencies the decisions of which are expempt from judicial review.
The few upright citizens who dare to criticize this trend toward administrative despotism are branded as extremists,
reactionaries, economic royalists, and Fascists. It is suggested that a free country ought not to tolerate political activities on the part of such "public enemies."
[Editor's Note: CONgress' excuse to further restrict Free Speech, i.e. the Internet.]
Surprisingly enough, these ideas are in this country viewed as specifically American, as the continuation of the principles and the philosophy of the Pilgrim Fathers, the signers of the Declaration of
Independence, and the authors of the Constitution and the Federalist papers. Only few people realise that these allegedly progressive policies originated in Europe and that their most brilliant
nineteenth-century exponent was Bismark, whose policies no American would qualify as progressive and liberal. Bismarck's Sozialpolitik was inaugurated in 1881, more than fifty
years before its replica, F. D. Roosevelt's New Deal.
[Editor's Note: Bismarck's political philosophy is the forerunner of government intervention and "central planning" in every aspect of American life. As Mises wrote in the above quote:
"Practically unlimited discretionary power is vested in government agencies the decisions of which are expempt from judicial review." Each president and his "rubber stamp" CONgress has created more
AGENCIES. If citizens (voters) want more and bigger government, they currently have their wish. The more one decries the failures of their own lives to government pleading for "help", the more they
will lose their independence, liberty, and FREEDOM!
Freedom is a black-or-white, yes-or-no, either/or, zero-sum proposition. There are no gray areas or lukewarmness when it comes to freedom.
But the concept of freedom of the individual, or individual liberty, has been shoved down the memory hole and replaced by a popular mentality
of diminishing the individual and independent thinker to a collectivist mind (mentality) which can be esoterically swayed, directed and channeled against his own best interest. The virtue
and sanctity of the individual person and ego is no more, and anathema to the state.
What does it all mean? It means that a state of mind is developed and nurtured that freely gives oneself and one’s production to the state. Each
individual, in order to be a good citizen of the state, must contribute most of his means and be grateful for the services the state returns — whether they are necessary or useful or not.
The result is that even so-called conservatives have come to not only accept socialism but to embrace it in many forms. Oh, they’ll reject it when
it’s called what it is, as conservatives have chimed in to reject and ridicule proposals by self-avowed socialists like Bernie Sanders and the new communist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
But they readily accept socialism in its many forms, especially when it’s proposed by socialists masquerading as Republicans.
Recommendations
I recommend two (2) movies for interested viewers. If Democrat voters (or any voter) want to understand what is wrong with their
party, I recommend a documentary movie that contains a completely corroborated history of the Democrat Party. The documentary's title is:
Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. The documentary was produced by Dinesh D'Souza who was 'railroaded' by the Obama Administration into a
kangaroo court controlled by a corrupt judge and sentenced to prison for producing another documentary,
2016: Obama's America. All FACTS presented in these documentaries are the historical evidence of the failure of the Democrat Party although the Democrats have many allies that support these Communist/Socialist attempts to destroy
America, and no group of FAKE NEWS companies can deny the FACTS.
Professor Carol Swain, Poli. Sci. & Law, Vanderbilt U. for Prager University. Professor Swain appears in Dinesh D'Souza's aforementioned documentary.
While America has a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech, it doesn't guarantee an everyday political education. If Americans believe in their freedoms guaranteed by the
Bill of Rights, if Americans believe that Capitalism is the greatest creator of individual wealth the world has ever experienced (historical facts prove this assertion), then Americans
should know the people and organizations who want to destroy America from within. Therefore, the best documentary available that exposes and identifies these enemies who have grown
much stronger since the Russian Revolution is The Enemies Within.
Also near the end of The Enemies Within documentary, the video requests that citizens call their Senators and Representatives (those NOT affiliated with the Muslim
Brotherhood and other subversive Marxist organizations) to support
S. 68: Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017 and
H.R. 377: Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017.
After watching the video, you will clearly understand why the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to destroy America from within. Many current Representatives and Senators are affiliated with persons
and organizations whose precepts, behavior, and speech are as Marxist as Vladimir Lenin without identifying themselves as Marxist. One of these organizations has infiltrated America like a final
stage cancer. These un-American organizations must be excised like a massive tumor. This is NOT McCarthyism since you will SEE and UNDERSTAND the evidence presented in the video.
"The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history." —George Orwell
John Adams said, “Without [term limits] every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey”. That being said, here are some of the reasons we believe our country needs Term Limits.
Term Limits can help break the cycle of corruption in Congress. Case studies show that the longer an individual stays in office, the more likely they are to stop serving the public and begin serving their own interests.
Term Limits will encourage regular citizens to run for office. Presently, there is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate. Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office. Without legitimate competition, what is the incentive for a member of Congress to serve the public? Furthermore, it is almost a lost cause for the average citizen to try to campaign against current members of Congress.
Term Limits will break the power special interest groups have in Congress.
Term Limits will force politicians to think about the impact of their legislation because they will be returning to their communities shortly to live under the laws they enacted.
Term Limits will bring diversity of people and fresh ideas to Congress.
[Editor's Note: If you want to get rich, i.e. advance from a low paying government bureaucrat job on the local or state level, THEN GET ELECTED TO THE US CONGRESS (House or Senate). Once you're elected, it's easy to steal from your campaign contributions or the Congressional budget allocated to your seat and staff. You can go on a government-funded junket with 'lavishly' paid expenses. The list of ways to steal from the government while in office is inexhaustible. There are only a few Congressmen who left Congress just wealthy instead of a multi-millionaire. Of course, there are several who arrived in Congress as multi-millionaires and don't need to steal from the government.]
