The Socialized House Cat

A good friend suggested an appropriate analogy for describing the new breed of democratic socialists that seem to be rising in this country.  He described them as a house cat.

I know that many people have pets they keep in the house.  I'm not one of them.  I believe animals belong outdoors.  Most of you agree with me but seem to make exception for one species or, another.  I suppose one excuse for keeping a cat would be to control an infestation of rodents.  I mention rodents specifically because I don't know of anyone who wants them in their house.  I must remind you, however, that their presence really isn't any different than having some other furry creature underfoot.

Throughout much of history mankind has dealt with animals in ways that meant they often shared space.  Typically it was because they were protecting them from something -- either the environment, or perhaps some predator.  The purpose was to preserve them for personal consumption rather than to lose them to the elements or, some other elemental force which tended to cull the weak, or slow, or merely inattentive.

The problem with house cats is that they serve no purpose.  Oh, I suppose they are good for petting, or talking to if one is lonely.  They can at times be amusing to watch when being taunted with a toy on a string, but they really have no purpose in life except to meet some unfilled need of their master -- if a cat can truly have a master.

House cats tend to lose their survival instincts.  Perhaps it is a matter of selective breeding that chooses for domestication rather than useful skills.  Some small semblance of desire for their natural environment must exist deep within them, however, because they are often seen sitting on the furniture gazing out the window.  It is as though they know there is more to life than their sheltered existence but, they have no clue how to survive within it.  That view extends even to the neighbor's German Shepherd which is often seen romping across the yard in pursuit of a squirrel which usually, but not always, escapes up a tree.

The pampered feline gazes in wonder and perhaps curiosity at the occurrence while never making the connection with his own mortality and the danger presented by the scenario.  It does however, see the freedom of movement and perhaps somewhere deep inside longs to escape the confines of the walls which contain its entire world and enter into the "make-believe" land viewed through the window -- much as a human might daydream about some television presentation.

Many have been led to believe that democracy -- which is literally mob rule -- is the basis for our form of government.  That isn't the case.  We live in a Constitutional Republic which is designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.  Democracy doesn't even work within a family.  If the parent fails to retain control by veto, the children would vote themselves ice cream and movies and fail to recognize the impending loss of health and shelter due to wasteful and inappropriate spending.  The street would find them living in boxes while attempting to survive among the true predators which stalk and destroy.  Unfortunately, among our elected officials there are those who are both predators and democrats.

Socialism also has its appeal.  It reaches into the envious heart and says, "you should have what they have."  It pays no heed to true justification of the disparities that exist or their purpose within society.  It merely says, I deserve.

By educating the masses to serve as replaceable parts in the assembly line of productive enterprise which fills pockets with wealth unknown throughout the history of mankind, our system has created a huge number of "house cats" without survival skills and without knowledge of the dangers lurking beyond their sheltered existence.  Charles Darwin's theorizing regarding survival of the fittest has been circumvented -- at least temporarily -- by an affluence that finds house cats to be acceptable because it no longer fears the vagaries of a natural order that would find them easy prey if required to survive beyond the protective walls.  The allure is strong, but the consequences deadly.

We have created our demise by failing to educate succeeding generations of youth to the dangers beyond the walls. 

A Political Marketing Campaign

I've given a good bit of thought to the "Green New Deal" resolution offered by the Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Occasio-Cortez (AOC).  I am certain she likely didn't realize the brilliance of her approach but merely fell into it out of some "pie-in-the-sky" dream of youth -- or, her strings are being pulled by someone else which is entirely possible.  It is almost as if she took a page from the President's playbook, "The Art of the Deal."

Sometimes in negotiation, it is best to start with an extreme position.  Anything given up is seen to be more moderate, or even conservative by comparison.  Perhaps the only true goal is a carbon tax.  If that is the case, as each of the points of the proposal are negotiated away, that goal will begin to stand out as the non-negotiable one.  It will be the "line-in-the-sand" across which there will be no movement.

I fear AOC has been underestimated.  She ran an effective campaign, has made and continues to make national and international headlines.  She is establishing her "brand"by appearing as the absurd while effectively moving into a position of power.  Her Green New Deal isn't a power grab, it is marketing.  Marketing creates brand identity and begins to define the environment in which a sale will occur.  The transaction is yet to come and it will come with a high price tag.

Alongside the Green New Deal resolution we are hearing calls for extreme levels of taxation which are ostensibly aimed at the most wealthy.  Again, they are negotiating positions.  If the current level of taxes is at 30% and you believe they should move to 50%, you begin by asking for 70% or, higher.  Then begins the "horse trade" that will likely end up at a point somewhere in between 30% and 70% -- the midpoint being 50% which was the goal.

Don't underestimate these incoming freshmen Congressmen and women.  They are being coached and they will be effective.  They may be pawns, but often in a game of chess it is the pawn that takes the King.  I don't for one minute believe Socialism is the goal of AOC.  The textbook description of Socialism is appealing to minorities and to the poor.  It promises a redistribution of the wealth which has accumulated into the hands of the few upon what they perceive as the oppressed backs of those at the bottom rungs of the economy.  Socialism has never been implemented by a single government on this planet.  What began as a Socialist appeal has always evolved into Communism which is something very different indeed.

There are many things occurring that fit within a framework for a marketing campaign for Communism.  1) Continued erosion of the value of life -- i.e. late term, or post-birth abortion (New York and Virginia). 2) Calls for wealth redistribution (70% - 90% tax rates on wealthy). 3) Global climate alarmism that seeks centralized economic planning (Green New Deal). 4) Vilification of religious beliefs (confirmation hearings).  5) Lock-step adherence to political leadership/platforms (the white-clothed women).

It is time to wake up and smell the danger. 

Dancing With the Devil

[Below is an excerpt from another piece of fiction that I started some time back.  It seems timely...]

Mexico was never politically stable.  It drifted through the years after Spanish conquest from Monarchy to quasi-Democracy, but always with a strong culture of graft and corruption by which a few became obscenely wealthy while the majority existed on the edge of starvation.  Many abortive “revolutions” through the years merely served to tighten the hold of the powerful while diminishing the power of the impoverished.  It was a country ripe for Communism.

Juan Rodriguez was born into that poverty in a small village outside Guerrero in Coahuila.  At the age of 8 his father died at the hands of a local Cartel and an uncle took him east across the border into Texas, to pick vegetables in the valley.  Juan didn’t make much, but his uncle confiscated what he did and sent it back to Guerrero to Olivia, Juan’s mother.  Those meager earnings, along with what she could make in a local cantina were all she had to support herself and Juan’s six siblings.  It was a hard life.

Juan and his uncle had entered the U.S. illegally, but to them it wasn’t a matter of the law, it was survival.  You did what you had to do to provide for your family.  Contacts in Texas provided them with identities in exchange for about half of their first week of earnings and they lived with a group of other workers in a small, rundown house on the outskirts of Edinburg.  Juan was sometimes abused by the other men in the group, but he endured because he didn’t know any better.

Life was hard and the work was hard, but at such a young age there were few choices.  It was an age when he should be in school and playing with other children, but it was not to be.

Each day Juan would go out with the men to pick vegetables.  They were paid based on quantity, not on the number of hours they put into the job.  Juan’s share was small because he couldn’t pick as much as the older men.  His uncle took what he earned anyway.

In such conditions a friendly face and the semblance of caring were attractive to the wise-beyond-his-years youngster.  It was into that need that Rigo Carrales stepped.  He began to protect Juan from the most egregious of the abuses perpetrated by some of the more hardened men who lived with them in the common housing.

Rigo was part of a radical organization gaining popularity among the young of Mexico and the southern United States.  Their goal was to overthrow the Mexican government and replace it with a Socialist one.  Rigo was one of the more effective recruiters of the quickly growing movement and Juan was a prime candidate….

Quack, Quack, Quack!!

If it walks like a duck...


AP
We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says
Tuesday May 29, 4:41 pm ET
By Holly Ramer, Associated Press Writer

Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace 'On Your Own' Society

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure....(for complete article click here)

_______________________________________

In an appeal to those who struggle
With the concept of achievement
Through personal effort and responsibility
The liberality of the government
Is the answer given by the candidate.

Why is it that socialism holds such strong appeal
To the self-styled intellectual few
Who spend their lives living from the public dole
As politicians with a leftward view
Rather than earning an honest living?

It isn't as though they themselves are suffering
From poverty or discrimination.
In fact they are often wealthy from their
Fleecing of the people of this nation
By manipulating the power of their positions of trust.

Perhaps that is the reason for their economic theory.
By placing greater control of the wealth of our nation
In the hands of bureaucratic bumblers it is easier
For their skillful skimming inclination
To be exercised upon the people.