Obama made simple

This bumper sticker was observed on the back of a minivan in Georgia in 2009.  How long did it take you to realize the obvious?

What's on your bumper?

Barack Obama is increasingly ‘distant’ because he is a con artist who holds the American people in deep contempt.

The news is increasingly running stories questioning why Barack Obama seems to be so distant.  There is a crisis on the southern border – and he skips it to go to a fundraiser with his billionaire pals.  The Islamic crazies that he armed in Syria are now running amok and we may end up invading Iraq yet again – and Obama is on an extended vacation in Martha’s vineyard and golfing with his billionaire pals.  What’s up with that?

The answer is simple.  Obama is a con man.  Obama was paid to sell out the American people for money, he did so, and now that the con is over, he feels no need to maintain any pretense.  This is how cons always end.

The United States is now almost completely controlled by the oligarchs.  The rich have opened the southern border to effectively unlimited immigration, the laws against illegal immigration are not being enforced at all, and there is nothing the American people can do about it.  They are not even allowed to know how many people are being let in, or take pictures of the border, or know where the government is paying to disperse these illegals around the nation. 

We are not talking about secret codes here – we are talking about not being allowed to know what our own government is doing in our own country.  Obviously, it’s not our own government any more.  It belongs to the rich and is no longer answerable in any way to the average citizen.

So the government gives trillions to wealthy bankers, refuses to enforce the law against corrupt bankers, yet screws little people over the tiniest flaw in their increasingly labyrinthine tax laws.   Anti-American trade treaties are negotiated in secret – well, the foreign countries know what’s in these treaties, as do Obama’s billionaire patrons, it’s only the American people that are not allowed to know what their government is doing.  Again, it’s not their government any more, is it?

For refusing to protect the nation from foreign invasion, Obama should be impeached and tried for treason, but he knows that he is safe.  The Democratic senate would never approve, and in any event he has powerful friends.  Even now, press coverage of the new open-borders immigration policy is almost nonexistent.  Similarly, the press won’t talk about how mass immigration is causing California to run out of water, or keeping wages low, and so on. 

Suppose that some Islamic nutjobs crossed the now-open southern border and blew up a chunk of a major American city.  Obama could care less.  The mainstream press would never dare to connect the dots, they would never blame Obama for this – no, they would blame someone else for not letting him drop enough bombs on Syria, or Vladimir Putin, or something else irrelevant.

Suppose that people infected with Ebola crossed the now-open southern border and created a pandemic in the United States.  Obama would sail over this issue like a hawk over a swamp, he would continue to golf at luxo resorts and the corporate press would prattle on about compassion and how the whole problem is due to global warming or gay marriage or something. 

Obama doesn’t care anymore, because he knows that he doesn’t need to care.  He will never face the voters again.  He will play out his term, and do anything he wants by executive action, while bleating that his hands are tied by ‘gridlock’ – hah!  Completely opening the border to uncontrolled immigration is hardly doing nothing, it is a radical action by an executive who realizes that he now possess effectively unchecked power. 

When a farmer listens to his cattle moo, he doesn’t care what they are saying.  As long as they remain cattle, they could be expressing their displeasure or debating Wittgenstein or anything, the mooing of cattle and the baaing of sheep are nothing to the farmer.  And if the country falls into misery and chaos, and the people whine and complain, what is that to Obama?  He doesn’t care.  It doesn’t affect him.  He’s got his, and that’s that.

When a person does harm to others, how do they live with themselves?  Sometimes they are useful idiots, that is, people who truly believe in what they are doing but who have been selected by more deliberately evil people to play a role.  Sometimes they rationalize what they are doing, and convince themselves that what they are doing is a good thing.  But a true con artist lives with themselves by holding their victims in contempt.  Their victims are stupid and gullible and weak – they deserve to be taken advantage of, just as a rabbit deserves to be eaten by a wolf.

When Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he criticized Hilary Clinton for supporting the anti-worker NAFTA trade treaty, and promised to renegotiate it.  However, at the same time his agents were making the rounds of the rich and powerful and promising that he didn’t mean a word of it.  This is not the action of a man who made promises that, with the press of events, he realized he was not able to keep.  This is the action of a man who with malice aforethought was lying plain and simple.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that Obama has knifed the average American in the back, something like 40% of the American people still think he is doing a good job – and a majority STILL think that he is a ‘liberal’!  If the nation falls into rack and ruin, and terrorists run riot in the streets, and there are epidemics of preventable diseases, and people are going hungry, I suspect that these numbers will not change.  Obama could probably reinstitute slavery and order striking workers machine- gunned and have the contents of Fort Knox given free to the Koch brothers and he would still not be impeached, or pay any price at all for that matter.  Because he knows that the American people will do nothing, except keep voting for people like him ‘because the Republicans are even worse’.

Barack Obama must have the deepest contempt for the American people.  The sad thing is, he might have a point there.

"If the people insist on behaving like sheep, it would be sacrilegious not to shear them" - old Mexican proverb.

The Ferguson Riots – (almost) everything you hear is wrong or stupid.

Well, a policeman killed an unarmed citizen.  That was surely unfortunate, but in a country of over 300 million people no matter how hard we try things like this will happen.  Hopefully a careful investigation will uncover how exactly this occurred.  If the policeman really did shoot an unarmed man for no good reason, then he is guilty of murder.  If there was a good reason, then the policeman should be exonerated.  If the issue is murky, then a jury will have a difficult call to make and I don’t envy them.  That’s how these things go.

Almost everything else, however, is such a jumble of nonsense and not connecting the dots that I really don’t know where to start.  In particular, the comments on the ensuing riots and the police response to them are effectively incoherent.  Let’s try and cut through the nonsense.

1. The police response to the riot was way over the top.  Let’s ignore the Iraq-war surplus military toys that the police used and their absurd arrests of those snotty reporters and focus on one simple thing:  armed police pointed loaded weapons at civilians that were not a threat.  That is an outrage.  When a human is taught to handle a firearm, they are told to never point a gun at anyone – even if they think it is unloaded – unless they mean to use it. 

Imagine that you are a regular person walking down the street minding your own business, and for whatever reason the police want to clear it.  You expect that they might take out their megaphones and say: “Your attention please, for blah blah reason everyone needs to clear the street.”  But suppose that, without provocation, they unholster their weapons, release the safeties, and point their guns at your head and start screaming at you.  You would be pretty freaked out, wouldn’t you?  Guns go off.  They are dangerous. 

When a policeman points a gun at a person who is not a threat, and the gun ‘accidently’ goes off and kills them, that’s not an accident.  That’s manslaughter.

2. The police response to the riot was pathetically weak.  Store owners were left to fend for themselves, and only store owners with their own guns were able to prevent their property from being looted. 

So on the one hand the police were pointing guns at non-threatening people and generally carrying on like an occupying military force, and on the other hand they were refusing to maintain order and protect the property of law-abiding taxpayers.  The worst of both worlds!  It should have been the other way around.  What are they smoking out there anyhow?

3. The rioters were mindless scum.  That’s self-evident.

4. The rioters have a point but it’s not racism, it’s class war.  The problem here is that people can’t earn a living through honest work.  No, really, they can’t.  Middle-class whites with advanced degrees and a strong work ethic are increasingly unemployed and many past the age of 50 will NEVER work again in any capacity, not even running the night shift at a Walmart.  Telling poor blacks to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is bullshit.  THERE ARE NO JOBS.  LOW-SKILL JOBS HAVE ALL BEEN GIVEN AWAY TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. At least, the ones that have not been shipped overseas have.   Higher-skilled jobs have increasingly been given away to legal immigrants. 

When people are crushed into the dirt, when they have no hope for the future, why shouldn’t they get angry?  Frankly, the main problem is that not enough Americans are angry.  Are you all sheep?

THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN SYMPATHIZING WITH THE RIOTERS AND DESPISING THEM. If a person whips a dog, it will become vicious.  You blame the person who whipped it.  But you still don't trust the dog, and probably want to keep it locked up so it won't bite you.  Yes?

5. The riots are just another bad effect of an open-borders immigration policy

From the corporate press we hear about compassion for all these third-world refugees flooding on over the border.  What about compassion for your own fellow citizens whose jobs these illegal immigrants will steal?  What about compassion for the poor black children whose parents will never be able to support themselves, whose fathers have been rendered useless by their inability to earn a paycheck?  What about children who, unless they are fortunate enough to be affirmative-action legacies like the Obama kids, will never be able to aspire to anything?

What’s happening to poor blacks is effectively a pogram.  The rich have decided to replace uppity unionized black laborers with docile servile Latin Americans.  Blacks have been cut off from their source of income, herded into ghettos, and left to rot.  But don’t worry; it won’t stop with the blacks.  You’re next.

6. Al Sharpton is a disgusting corrupt corporate tool.  Blacks should be outraged at the cheap-labor open-borders immigration policy, they should be screaming about all these anti-American trade deals, and livid about giving trillions to Wall Street while starving the real economy of capital.  But that would never do.  So the rich use their shills to deflect the legitimate grievances of poor blacks (which are the same as the legitimate grievances of poor whites, and poor Asians etc. etc.) into endless talk of ‘racism’.

Why do you think Al Sharpton gets so much coverage in the corporate press?  Why do the rich give him the spotlight?  Because he works for them!  Maybe deliberately, maybe as a useful idiot, it doesn’t matter.

Don’t look at the rich person stealing your jobs and your savings – no, lets be angry about poor white trash!  Al Sharpton and those like him serve a useful function in deflecting legitimate anger into dead-ends, and playing divide-and-conquer between working class blacks and whites.

Blacks: Don’t talk about how the rich are driving you into the ground, no, instead worry about white policemen killing your unarmed children!

Whites:  Don’t talk about how the rich are driving you into the ground, no, instead worry about black rioters raping your women!

What a load of chumps.

7. Even if the rioters have legitimate grievances, they have to be put down.  If an angry mob rips you limb from limb you are still dead no matter their reasons.  It would be better if we could have a society where anyone willing to do some honest work could support a family, but that’s not the society we are living in.   As the screws tighten on the working class, we will have to run our society like a slave labor camp – because our society will BE a slave labor camp.  Brutal uncaring militarized police will be part of that society.

8. You, and people like you, are going to be the ones rioting next.  Regardless of whether it is due to nature or nuture, American blacks are on the bottom rung of the economic totem pole, and have the least social cohesion.  So of course they will be the first to riot.  But not the last.

Imagine that it is you and your family that has been confined to a ghetto, that you have no job, no prospect of getting one, you scrape by on increasingly threadbare ‘welfare’ and one day some Nazi police officer guns down your best friend.  Would you riot?

Perhaps you are made of sterner stuff.  That’s OK, the downwards pressure won’t stop there.  Now imagine that food is running short, and one of your children dies of a disease that could have been easily cured but the medicine is unaffordable to you, and another of your children has a bad cough that won’t go away and you can’t get them enough food for them to recover their strength, and your knees hurt, and there is no work, and you see some rich bastard making fun of a poor beggar with no legs.  Still think you won’t riot?

Different people and different cultures have different breaking points – but there is ALWAYS a breaking point.  Every racial and religious group has a record of riot and rebellion when the misery gets too bad.  Pity we couldn’t have pulled back when there was still plenty to go around.  But then how would the rich make more money if people were getting paid more than fifty cents an hour?  I mean, you've gotta have your priorities.

Billionaires for Open Borders

Here is a link to a pretty interesting and well-reasoned set of articles on the wealthy dirt balls who want to turn the world into an overpopulated slum so they can lord it over the rest of you humans:

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_24_4/index.shtml

Especially notable is the article on the billionaire who appears to have bribed the leadership of the Sierra Club to take population off the table in talking about the environment.  That's like NASA refusing to factor in gravity when planning a space mission: no wonder public discussion of environmental issues is so incoherent.

It's also a reminder that the old Classical/Keynesian principle that, for societies without an open border, sustained high fertility rates guarantee poverty, was not overturned by logic or objective evidence.  It was overturned starting around 1970 due to bribes and influence - both subtle and gross - from rich people whose only gods are the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor.

That's also why the people pushing the idea that rapid population increases is a good thing, have no objective evidence behind their assertion.  When challenged they will accuse you of racism, or just not getting it, or being obviously ignorant, and if you keep talking that way you will lose your job.  That's it, there is nothing else there.

What labor unions really do, why they are important, and why they are whithering away

In their desperation to avoid talking about population, progressives will often claim that the solution to poverty lies in the workers organizing and forming labor unions.  Unions are indeed useful.  Unions equalize the bargaining between individual workers and massive centralized corporations.  There is nothing anti-capitalist about unions: think of them as corporations whose product is labor and whose shareholders are the workers themselves.  Perhaps the best arguments for unions comes from that famous progressive Adam Smith, from The Wealth of Nations:

“Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad.  They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits.  They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains.  They complain only of those of other people”

“What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same.  The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible.  The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.  It is not difficult to forsee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute and force the other into a compliance with their terms.  The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it”.

Even in a tight labor market, where labor is intrinsically valuable, an individual worker could get screwed in negotiations with a centralized corporation that has a big legal staff.  Unions are vital in making sure that workers get their fair share.  However, unions cannot make what is worthless valuable!   Unions can only ever get traction in a tight labor market.  There is effectively no record of unions ever making significant gains in a third-world style economy.  First labor becomes valuable, then unions ensure that workers get their fair share.  It is never the other way around.

No matter how bad the overall labor market, in a competitive professional sport there is only ever one best player, and the labor of this person is therefore of high economic value.  But these champion athletes still need competent agents to avoid getting a raw deal, or signing one-sided contracts.   However, the most skilled agent cannot get an elderly male with a bad back and sore feet and poor vision and no particular athletic talent, a multi-million dollar contract with the National Basketball Association.  Agents for professional athletes, like unions for more ordinary workers, must first have something valuable to negotiate with.  When impoverished people line up around the block desperate for any work at any rate, unions cannot negotiate better wages.  In this case unions only add extra costs and fees to the workers, which is pointless because they cannot negotiate better deals, so the unions inevitably fade away.  Nobody beats supply and demand, not even unions.

Unions do not work miracles.  They are only agents for average workers.  They cannot turn Bangladesh into Finland.  End of story.

The only chance for workers in a third-world labor market lies not in unions, but in guilds.  A guild may superficially resemble a union, but it operates according to very different principles.  A guild protects its members by keeping secret the skills and knowledge needed to perform a certain job, strictly limiting the number of people who can join the guild, and thus creating a monopoly of that class of labor.   Guilds are negative: they only carve out small islands of prosperity in oceans of misery, and they cannot raise the level of an entire society like unions and a tight labor market can.  Guilds are also anathema to the free exchange of information which underlies modern Western culture. 

Guilds mostly faded away a couple of centuries ago (although medical doctors in the United States and petrochemical workers in Mexico are effectively guilds), but as the pressure on workers increases – as it becomes increasingly obvious that the person you have trained in your skill today will likely take your job from you or your children tomorrow – we should expect guild-like behavior to slowly make a return.  This turning away from intellectual openness, this meanness of spirit, will be just one more symptom of a coming dark age.

Who’s afraid of 19-year-old Salvadoran MS13 drug gang members?

The southern border of the United States is now effectively open, and third–world refugees are streaming across it in increasing numbers.  Only a small fraction of these are unaccompanied minors, and of those, most are teenagers (or adults lying about their age).

So obviously, Obama has to let all these adults and adults with children in because the law says that he must admit unaccompanied minors!  I mean, his hands are legally tied, right?

Of course Obama is not bound by laws he doesn’t like, such as deporting foreign nationals that are in the country illegally.  But that doesn’t change the fact that it is the law which is making him admit all these third-world refugees into the country, refusing to police the borders, and flying them around the country so that it will be impossible to deport them ever.

Obviously if people object it is because they hate children – who could be afraid of a 19-year old Salvadoran MS13 drug gang member who lied about his age?  We should be giving the poor dears teddy bears.  Only a vile person would object to stealing resources from American children to help these poor third-world gang members.

And even more, who could possibly object to a horde of people escaping the poverty and violence that always comes from too-rapid population growth?  Who could object to lower wages, or water shortages, or crowded schools, or congested highways and decaying infrastructure, or higher rents, or chronically high unemployment and underemployment?  Obviously, only a vile populist racist could object to this.  Don’t you realize that ‘diversity’ will make it all better?  That the people stealing all that Americans have built up only want a better life for themselves and for their vast numbers of children that they could not be bothered to make a decent life for in their own lands?

I mean, look at how great having a large and rapidly growing population has worked out in Mexico and Bangladesh and Pakistan and India!  Unlike those dismal impoverished low-fertility countries like Switzerland and Australia and Japan.  America NEEDS the eager and abundant labor supply of the dynamic third world or it could end up being like Finland or,  even worse, like America in the 1960's, where real wages were double what they are today and real unemployment a bare fraction of current levels and  anybody could earn a decent living through honest work - and how terrible that would be.

And as to the possibility that this mass of people entering from countries where diseases are endemic, and not being medically screened in any way, could possibly spread diseases in the United States, well, such talk is so racist that it should be outlawed.  Communicable diseases are not spread by infected people, they are caused by global warming and climate change!  And racism.  Certainly every scientist whose job depends on their saying this, says this.

Of course, trespassing on the grounds of the gated communities and private country clubs of the rich is still forbidden.  The rich are allowed to defend their property from invaders without apology, and if some kid gets beaten up or even killed climbing the walls around a mansion, well, trespassing is trespassing.  And of course poor Americans cannot be allowed to send their kids to rich school districts in search of a better life – because that would hurt the rich.  Poor third-worlders entering poor Americans school districts in large numbers will not of course hurt poor Americans – because the rich say so. 

Sacrifice in the name of compassion is so only for little people.  Only the vilest racist would ever object.  Because the rich say so.  How many times has the sociopathic CEO of Facebook been publicly asked how much he personally is willing to sacrifice to help all these third-world refugees?  Zero.  Because the corporate press believes in journalistic responsibility.  To the bottom line.

We are fortunate that the corporate press is so socially responsible.  Even as the United States is being invaded, and a population explosion is being stoked that will doom the American populace to a third-world standard of living, the headline in Google News is that Obama is getting ready to bomb the Islamic militants in Iraq that he previously armed, as a follow up to our ousting of Saddam Hussein, whom we also previously armed.  And a football player suffered a minor gunshot wound. 

Let us hope that when Obama attacks the people who we previously armed in order to fight the people that we armed before that in order to fight the people that we armed before that in order to fight the Soviet Union, that he offers more than mere pinpricks.   Otherwise who will we fight next time?

America’s national security depends upon its fighting to preserve the borders of countries on the other side of the world that nobody cares about.  The notion that the American military should be used to actually defend the borders of the United States is so utterly insensitive and racist that it should never be given voice to in public.  Although the American military could certainly be used for internal policing and riot control, that’s fine, but defending the border against foreigners?  Why do you hate children?

If only the DrudgeReport would stop stoking fear and hatred by publishing the truth.  There should be a law against internet sites like that.  Fortunately the Obama regime has classified how many third world refugees are streaming over the border, and where they are being resettled.  Why do some Americans still have this quaint notion that they deserve to know what their own government is doing?  But then how could the government do things against the interest of the American people if it couldn’t keep secrets from them, answer me that smarty-pants!

Francis Fukuyama was right, we are truly at the end of history.  Facts, as they used to be known, are so passé.  Logic, is only the refuge of the racist and the damned.  Reality is what the oligarchs say it is.  History is writ in water.  Things are important only to the extent that the corporate owners of the New York Times say that they are.  Cause and effect are what you are told.  

We don't need to worry about all those third-world refugees coming over the border, because prosperity doesn't depend on resources or capital investment or anything physical.  Prosperity is caused by 'social development'.  So you see, if only we would legalize Gay Marriage, we could attain utopia. Or if we outlawed it.  Either way, it's true.  Because the rich say so.