iustitia
12-28-2013, 02:43 AM
A Review of the State: Do You Trust Government?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C. S. Lewis
“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” - Plato
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken
Social Justice 1
5096
I'm going to start this topic off with a reference to some past topics-
You Live to Serve the State: Education (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19815-You-Live-To-Serve-The-State-Education)
You Live to Serve the State: Gun Control (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19990-You-Live-To-Serve-The-State-Gun-Control?p=453120)
You Live to Serve the State: Eugenics (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19537-You-Live-To-Serve-The-State-Eugenics)
We've determined before that things we champion today like public education, "common sense gun laws", even birth control and Planned Parenthood, have really just been government scams for dehumanizing individuals, violating their rights, and maintaining a population obedient to the state. Education was meant to brainwash the youth into servants of the state and business, gun laws were created to keep people subjugated (especially blacks, slaves and the conquered), and eugenics was intended to cleanse the human race of undesirables. This all ties in together in this topic, and more topics will expand on what will be discussed here.
First off, let's have a short lesson on colonial history. We'll be briefly looking at British involvement in Africa.
The Second Boer War lasted from 1899 to 1902, fought between the British Empire and the Free Orange State and South African Republic. It was the age of imperialism, and Great Britain was ever looking to expand its territory. Long story short, the Dutch set up shop in Africa some time back, and these whites became the Boers - white Africans. There was gold on the land, diamonds, and even a dynamite monopoly. The British wanted it. The Boers said no.
So for over 2 1/2 years the British waged a war on the people there. The British resorted to using concentration camps against the Boers. 100,000 people were confined and starved, killing 30,000 Boers most of whom were children, and 14,000 Africans or color (though the number was likely higher considering black deaths weren't considered important). Why was this needed, though? The Boers were armed, galvanized and bogged the British down in a terrible insurgency that they were not prepared for. Over the course of the war it is estimated that the British deployed half a million men to suppress less than 90,000 rebels from what would become South Africa. And even though the Boers lost, the British had twice as many combat deaths (4,000 Boers to 8,000 British). So what the hell happened?
It was determined that, because the British utilized a draft to maintain their troop numbers, the young from poor neighborhoods were often put in uniform. Poor usually means malnourished. Malnourished means unfit for combat. Roughly 40% of British troops were physically unfit and came from the slums. Thousands of young British men died to help their government profit off stuff that wasn't theirs, and they died from many things but 28,000 especially died of disease and starvation which is why the British had to routinely rotate their troops against a much smaller enemy. What was the point of bringing this up, though?
This is where free school lunches come from. The British created school lunches for poor kids, not to help the poor, but to ensure that when there's another war that the youth wouldn't be malnourished when they're drafted to fight. The United States copied this program for its schools afterwards. But at least America did it because it cares about poor kids, right?
Here's an interview of Michelle Obama by Mike Huckabee. Pay attention to the first 40 seconds-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnAZ2h-srn0
When Mike Huckabee suggests that childhood obesity is a "national security issue", does Michelle Obama pause for a second and say "Well, hold on Mike, this is important but I wouldn't go that far"? Nope. She immediately declares "YES!" She completely agrees with his insane suggestion that kids being fat is dangerous to our national security. Why? Because if kids are out of shape they can't join the military. She blatantly comes out and says that that is why the school lunch program was created in the first place. We copied the British model of feeding poor kids, not because the state gives a shit about poor people, but because malnourished kids can't be drafted.
So here we have an example of a program created to "help the poor" when in fact its sole purpose was to ensure the protection of the state's interests. Let's continue...
The British and Americans did more than just implement school lunches. Like compulsory state education, which we've seen before was a creation of the Prussians, the modern welfare state also originates in Prussia.
Otto von Bismarck was the most influential person you've never heard of. He created the modern welfare state during his tenure as both the Chancellor of Germany and the Prime Minister of Prussia. He was not a fan of the socialists in the country, and socialism was gaining a lot of traction in Europe at this time. So he gave them the socialism they wanted but without the revolution. He created the first national pension programs, public insurance programs, welfare programs, modern education system and his policies would eventually influence both Britain and America. Really he set the stage for the western world's move towards welfarism. But do note that Bismarck, the nationalist, was at odds with the socialists in his country. He fought their influence politically, but blatantly used their policies to win support away from radicals towards the conservatives. The socialists lost support to Bismarck and they refused to support the socialist legislation he promoted because it would deprive them of their grievances against him. But this is important- I want to share a portion of Bismarck's Blood and Iron speech:
"The position of Prussia in Germany will not be determined by its liberalism but by its power ... Prussia must concentrate its strength and hold it for the favorable moment, which has already come and gone several times. Since the treaties of Vienna, our frontiers have been ill-designed for a healthy body politic. Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided - that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 - but by iron and blood."
What historians call his pragmatic realpolitik doctrine was essentially the threat of force backed by centralism/nationalism with a tendency for Machiavellian machinations. Otto von Bismarck was the Henry Kissinger of his day. And it's really a reflection, in my view, of today's Democrat-Republican dichotomy/left-right paradigm. This man, supposedly against socialism, creates socialism to stop socialism. Does that sound familiar? This not only reflects today's tendency of politicians to say and do whatever it takes to maintain support, but it also demonstrates the nature of politicians that have no true principles to guide them other than power.
Otto von Bismarck gives the socialists everything they wanted besides power, and he walks away with his reputation among conservatives. This is exactly how politics is today, where politicians on the so-called left or right say one thing, do another, sell it to the one's that are against it, and seem genuine to hordes of sycophants. Bismarck shows us why most sides in politics have distinctions without differences. But that was a rant of mine. The point being, the welfare state like anything was created to quiet discontent among the population. Now I'm no socialist so I can understand not wanting them in charge of the state, however, the entire move by Bismark was calculated so that he could give his enemies what they wanted and still walk away with power - more power than before in fact.
We all know welfare programs keep the poor poor, create entitlement, bleed the treasury and so on. The point here, though, is to demonstrate how truly lacking in compassion the state really is. Nothing the government does is for the benefit of the people, no matter how many times we claim it's "for the children." Oh, wait, speaking of children... child labor laws. Actually, I'll get to labor laws and regulations tomorrow. Way too much to cover. For now though, know that laws passed by the state more often than not exist to maintain a monopoly on force.
I leave you with this- What is the real purpose of politics?
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.“ H.L. Mencken
Can you really, safely assume that the state's machinations are not diabolical?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C. S. Lewis
“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” - Plato
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken
Social Justice 1
5096
I'm going to start this topic off with a reference to some past topics-
You Live to Serve the State: Education (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19815-You-Live-To-Serve-The-State-Education)
You Live to Serve the State: Gun Control (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19990-You-Live-To-Serve-The-State-Gun-Control?p=453120)
You Live to Serve the State: Eugenics (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19537-You-Live-To-Serve-The-State-Eugenics)
We've determined before that things we champion today like public education, "common sense gun laws", even birth control and Planned Parenthood, have really just been government scams for dehumanizing individuals, violating their rights, and maintaining a population obedient to the state. Education was meant to brainwash the youth into servants of the state and business, gun laws were created to keep people subjugated (especially blacks, slaves and the conquered), and eugenics was intended to cleanse the human race of undesirables. This all ties in together in this topic, and more topics will expand on what will be discussed here.
First off, let's have a short lesson on colonial history. We'll be briefly looking at British involvement in Africa.
The Second Boer War lasted from 1899 to 1902, fought between the British Empire and the Free Orange State and South African Republic. It was the age of imperialism, and Great Britain was ever looking to expand its territory. Long story short, the Dutch set up shop in Africa some time back, and these whites became the Boers - white Africans. There was gold on the land, diamonds, and even a dynamite monopoly. The British wanted it. The Boers said no.
So for over 2 1/2 years the British waged a war on the people there. The British resorted to using concentration camps against the Boers. 100,000 people were confined and starved, killing 30,000 Boers most of whom were children, and 14,000 Africans or color (though the number was likely higher considering black deaths weren't considered important). Why was this needed, though? The Boers were armed, galvanized and bogged the British down in a terrible insurgency that they were not prepared for. Over the course of the war it is estimated that the British deployed half a million men to suppress less than 90,000 rebels from what would become South Africa. And even though the Boers lost, the British had twice as many combat deaths (4,000 Boers to 8,000 British). So what the hell happened?
It was determined that, because the British utilized a draft to maintain their troop numbers, the young from poor neighborhoods were often put in uniform. Poor usually means malnourished. Malnourished means unfit for combat. Roughly 40% of British troops were physically unfit and came from the slums. Thousands of young British men died to help their government profit off stuff that wasn't theirs, and they died from many things but 28,000 especially died of disease and starvation which is why the British had to routinely rotate their troops against a much smaller enemy. What was the point of bringing this up, though?
This is where free school lunches come from. The British created school lunches for poor kids, not to help the poor, but to ensure that when there's another war that the youth wouldn't be malnourished when they're drafted to fight. The United States copied this program for its schools afterwards. But at least America did it because it cares about poor kids, right?
Here's an interview of Michelle Obama by Mike Huckabee. Pay attention to the first 40 seconds-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnAZ2h-srn0
When Mike Huckabee suggests that childhood obesity is a "national security issue", does Michelle Obama pause for a second and say "Well, hold on Mike, this is important but I wouldn't go that far"? Nope. She immediately declares "YES!" She completely agrees with his insane suggestion that kids being fat is dangerous to our national security. Why? Because if kids are out of shape they can't join the military. She blatantly comes out and says that that is why the school lunch program was created in the first place. We copied the British model of feeding poor kids, not because the state gives a shit about poor people, but because malnourished kids can't be drafted.
So here we have an example of a program created to "help the poor" when in fact its sole purpose was to ensure the protection of the state's interests. Let's continue...
The British and Americans did more than just implement school lunches. Like compulsory state education, which we've seen before was a creation of the Prussians, the modern welfare state also originates in Prussia.
Otto von Bismarck was the most influential person you've never heard of. He created the modern welfare state during his tenure as both the Chancellor of Germany and the Prime Minister of Prussia. He was not a fan of the socialists in the country, and socialism was gaining a lot of traction in Europe at this time. So he gave them the socialism they wanted but without the revolution. He created the first national pension programs, public insurance programs, welfare programs, modern education system and his policies would eventually influence both Britain and America. Really he set the stage for the western world's move towards welfarism. But do note that Bismarck, the nationalist, was at odds with the socialists in his country. He fought their influence politically, but blatantly used their policies to win support away from radicals towards the conservatives. The socialists lost support to Bismarck and they refused to support the socialist legislation he promoted because it would deprive them of their grievances against him. But this is important- I want to share a portion of Bismarck's Blood and Iron speech:
"The position of Prussia in Germany will not be determined by its liberalism but by its power ... Prussia must concentrate its strength and hold it for the favorable moment, which has already come and gone several times. Since the treaties of Vienna, our frontiers have been ill-designed for a healthy body politic. Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided - that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 - but by iron and blood."
What historians call his pragmatic realpolitik doctrine was essentially the threat of force backed by centralism/nationalism with a tendency for Machiavellian machinations. Otto von Bismarck was the Henry Kissinger of his day. And it's really a reflection, in my view, of today's Democrat-Republican dichotomy/left-right paradigm. This man, supposedly against socialism, creates socialism to stop socialism. Does that sound familiar? This not only reflects today's tendency of politicians to say and do whatever it takes to maintain support, but it also demonstrates the nature of politicians that have no true principles to guide them other than power.
Otto von Bismarck gives the socialists everything they wanted besides power, and he walks away with his reputation among conservatives. This is exactly how politics is today, where politicians on the so-called left or right say one thing, do another, sell it to the one's that are against it, and seem genuine to hordes of sycophants. Bismarck shows us why most sides in politics have distinctions without differences. But that was a rant of mine. The point being, the welfare state like anything was created to quiet discontent among the population. Now I'm no socialist so I can understand not wanting them in charge of the state, however, the entire move by Bismark was calculated so that he could give his enemies what they wanted and still walk away with power - more power than before in fact.
We all know welfare programs keep the poor poor, create entitlement, bleed the treasury and so on. The point here, though, is to demonstrate how truly lacking in compassion the state really is. Nothing the government does is for the benefit of the people, no matter how many times we claim it's "for the children." Oh, wait, speaking of children... child labor laws. Actually, I'll get to labor laws and regulations tomorrow. Way too much to cover. For now though, know that laws passed by the state more often than not exist to maintain a monopoly on force.
I leave you with this- What is the real purpose of politics?
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.“ H.L. Mencken
Can you really, safely assume that the state's machinations are not diabolical?