We all realize that the primary campaign for the nomination is very different from the electoral campaign. That is one of the first rules one learns in politics.
But the big lesson is, with most people the lesson stops right there.
A Mantra Thinker will START with a rule in one area, and test it out in other areas.
As soon as you start doing this you realize that a rule set is critical in others. One of the major reasons potentially successful movements fail is because the way its adherents choose the people they will pay attention to is totally different from the process by which they would choose leaders and speakers who would be successful in making the movement public.
Communism is sort of a total inversion of this rule. From the first Lenin had his eye on complete power.
The whole history of Communism is that it has been brilliantly, expertly SOLD but, once in power, it is a disaster which, if it were not so horrible, would be funny.
The actual Soviet economy was a horrible joke, planting summer wheat in winter, setting glass quotes by the pound so that it came out in useless thick slabs, then by the square meter so thin that it shattered as soon as they picked it up. Because America had a hula hoop craze, the Soviet Union produced millions of hula hoops, all if which ended up in warehouses.
But at that time EVERY SINGLE PAID SOVIET EXPERT was declaring that the USSR was rapidly gaining on the United States in per capita income, just as NOT ONE SINGLE SOVIET EXPERT predicted the fall (No, the one you heard about didn’t, either) of the USSR.
Which means that the left was very good at weeding out those who got paid as “Soviet experts.”
Outside of the University of Chicago and the University of Virginia, the latter of which was “cleaned out” by a new liberal dean, every economics department in America and especially in Europe declared that the Soviet Empire and the Chinese economies were advancing by leaps and bounds.
I saw those figures in the official UN statistics under “Centrally Planned Economies.”
After it fell, all economists admitted that the maximum size of the Soviet economy was about half that of the Netherlands.
Suddenly everybody forgot there ever was a debate on this subject between the whole economics profession and those of us at UVA.
If the left were a hundredth, a HUNDREDTH, as good at RUNNING countries as they are at selling their stupid programs, they would have been running the world for a century already.
#1 by BGLass on 08/27/2011 - 9:34 am
with any promising product that breaks, buyers feel lied to, sold a false bill of goods. their lives would have different had they been told the truth about the system; Instead, they stupidly played in accordance with the rules they were told, so they were cruelly set up to fail.
Sometimes, all it takes is a showcase of “products” to show how great it is, though. Like a store of countless sugar products, or one more cookie cutter shopping mall. Even just movies with these things. See the bright lights! the parades!
Communities may be the thing, though. Even if it did work, and it really was the way to run economy, would it be the way to run a LIFE? this question never gets asked though, but people stay bogged down in whether it works or not. There is at least one happier poor african couple who has one donkey and go miles to a well for water, than some american blacks with running water and big city jobs. that’s why all the stuff about “whites made inventions!” can seem silly. even if they didn’t, wouldn’t they like their community?
Communism cannot buy the security of extended kinship groups and genuine ethnic sub-group cohesions. Even if it did work (for bringing the best products) which it doesn’t anyway.
Also, average people resent being guinea pigs for economic and social experimentation, which is one aspect of central plans, (who the “public” becomes in relation to the “elites.”) many people just don’t want to be guinea pigs.
So it’s about community and relationship, not products.
#2 by BGLass on 08/27/2011 - 9:55 am
And Selective Consequentialism, “double-think,” requires maybe too much psychological energy on the part of the public.
White “backlash” of “nativism” is a constant threat. But 9-11 may never be connected as “backlash,” a result of what has been done overseas. Theee Natives are good, nativism (which is only whites) is bad.
people having to maintain this Selective Consequentialist mindset, have to rest too much and waste time, maybe.
#3 by Simmons on 08/27/2011 - 3:14 pm
The only thing “scientific” about the left is their efforts to find a name in which to demonize their enemies. That is it, nothing more than a gaggle of mean girls acting like animals intimidating other girls (male and female) with made up names.
You can skip any boring debate with a lefty by just asking them what name they are going to call you in their pathetic efforts to sound “wise.”
You think we got it tough, imagine being inside one of those cults with psychopaths on the loose and waiting to pounce at a moment’s notice if someone shows a bit of trepidation about the cult.
#4 by Genseric on 08/29/2011 - 1:18 pm
Selective Memory and Selective Consequentialism
And we see this through realizing and monitoring the political symptoms associated with this phenomenon. Such as the near COMPLETE media blackout of Ron Paul and his sound political fundamentals which appeal to both sides of the aisle.
Paul made the mistake of – in the first, or was it the second, debate – implying that 9/11 was a byproduct of our, for lack of a better term, American Interventionism. Try applying this ‘hands off’ approach to Iran and ‘fuhgettabouit.’ The Santorums and the Bret Baiers of the World will SHUN you and brand you as Fringe (looney). It’s a done deal, Ron.
Many in the media and the anti-White establishment quietly handle it as Taboo. Normal, coherent and conscious people refer to it as reality. However, mention it in the political stratosphere and you WILL quietly disappear into the classified nether regions of every newspaper.
Political capital is something which is not only purchased with money. It can only be secured by possessing and touting The Right Ideas.
#5 by BGLass on 08/30/2011 - 8:07 am
@ ‘Normal, coherent and conscious people refer to it as reality…’
one reason for giving up this double-think is that it just requires too much energy. Selective consequentialism and memory requires knowing and not-knowing, seeing and non-seeing—- it’s a real drag on vitality. one must be emotionally and mentally “shut down” in a way, the visceral quality of a human is sapped.
slowly, the grass roots just sees it’s easier to be honest, life is less hard that way; sacrifice of money and status is a small price to pay for getting your vitality back.
so— honesty should be marketed as the road to vitality, maybe. like, you’ll feel good when you come clean and get honest