It is not entirely accurate to call Politically Correct economic theory socialist. Socialism is a theory of production. PC has no theory of production whatsoever. Politically Correct economics is one hundred percent distribution. All that PC has to say on the subject is, “The intellectuals will collect and all the money and distribute it.”
Don’t confuse this with an economic theory. Political Correctness says that “the Intellectuals should run everything.” Economics is just a part of everything.
PC believes that money comes from magic. In this they are exactly like libertarians and liberal churchmen. The official Catholic statement on economic begins on exactly the same basis that other church statements on the subject do, “THE LAND PRODUCES great wealth. I short every church begins its statements on income distribution with what Screwtape called, “a good, sound, resounding lie.”
The land produces little or nothing. Hunters and gatherers had “the land” all to themselves, and about twenty thousand of them scratched an existence out of the entire British Isles. More to the point, if “the land” produced all that the same churches would not be demanding that first world countries send enough to survive on to third world countries, which contain a lot more of “the land.”
Every church today, in this as in other areas, is not only a liar, but a psychopathic liar. But even a psychopath has a reason for lying. Ion this case they are following the Politically Correct line: There is no production, only distribution. No church EVER discusses why one system is more productive than another. No church would EVER imagine criticizing a Great Oriental Philosopher for talking about table manners while children collapsed from starvation within a mile of him.
All anyone discusses is distribution. You can hear a fat preacher bemoaning starvation, but you will never hear one mention that this is the first time in history when starvation is an unusual way to die.
Once again, what I am saying here is too obvious to be noticed. This is the only place you will see this point even MENTIONED.
#1 by Dave on 10/17/2009 - 10:58 am
You cannot really understand how evil this mentality (that only distribution matters) if you do not see the criminal justice system in an accurate light.
For example, no one is more in love with brutality, dereliction, and sub-human indignity than John Walsh, the host of TV’s “America’s Most Wanted”.
If you doubt me, watch “America’s Most Wanted” on TV and let that super-con artist John Walsh take you in. There is not a space in the universe where even a molecule could hide, that he would not want to spread criminal brutality and subhuman indignity. Without that, what need would there be for his annual awards for the “most heroic” police officers?
In years of programming, has John Walsh mentioned one word at all on at least one suggestion for an actual effective method of suppressing criminal derelicts?
Has John Walsh ever even considered the role of police unions and the BUSINESS of the criminal courts and the prison and jailers (unionized) industry in facilitating and spreading crime?
Has John Walsh ever mentioned the role of the income maintenance industry (food stamps, retraining programs, work release, HUD renters’ subsidies, low income medical clinics, etc.) in supporting cultures of criminal dereliction? Has John Walsh ever mentioned the fact that the jailer’s roof, the jailer’s beds, and the jailer’s three square meals a day are also a form of income maintenance? And that the shelter furnished by jails is a major motivator for criminals to commit crimes?
Has John Walsh ever mentioned the fact that large cities depend on property revenue collected from substandard and nonconforming rental properties that would produce no revenue if drug dealers were prohibited from occupying them?
I am a street smart person. Take my advice: If you want to meet some of the most evil people in any American community, just attend the next meeting of your big city rental owners association. They are a bunch of Republican (police) uniform worshipers you will love to hate (if you have any brains). Everything that happens is always someone else’s responsibility to them. Their motto: “Two minute police response time is the only standard that matters.”
The ratio of one blllion police officers to ten billion criminals is societal nirvana and utopia to them.
Of course, they are “rock-ribbed” conservatives, each and every one of them.
And like most of America, they love watching “America’s Most Wanted”.
#2 by Gator61 on 10/17/2009 - 1:17 pm
Dave,
Your comment reminds me of a couple of thing said by people whose onions I have l have a lot of respect.
My father, a war veteran with a purple heart, upon hearing someone state how dangerous police work was, he state, “Bullshit. If it were really dangerous they would get 18 year olds to do it.
The second was a cousin, who was a police capt. in a medium sized mid western city. Discussing legalizing drugs among family, he would never say this in pubic, he stated that “They would never legalize drugs because there was too much money involved in having them illegal.” He wasn’t talking about the money that the drug dealers made. He was talking about the money that police departments received for “fighting” the drug dealers. A huge amount of police department’s funding comes from fighting the drug trade. If there is no drug trade to fight then police get laid off.
You hear about mayors of mostly white cities doing things to promote a more divers populations. It is possible that these idiots really want higher crime rates so they can get their fair share of the giverment money.
#3 by Simmons on 10/20/2009 - 12:08 pm
Listening to Horus WR17 I think we could use a talking point that at once defines PC (beyond the declaration of its religiosity) and the Mantra.
I spent a week on the road recently and flipped thru several religous shows on the radio, and the one consistent message was distribution from whites to everyone else. Even a kid I know (30 something man-boy) was all a twitter about helping the helpless in Guatemala. I saved the kid from wasting his life btw.
But that took too long and he is a follower to the letter of its definition and not even a low level “PCO”, and I think we need a talking point dagger synthesizing PC and Mantra.
#4 by Wandrin on 10/27/2009 - 3:45 am
“It is not entirely accurate to call Politically Correct economic theory socialist.”
To be honest i think this is just wordism.
At their core socialism and PC are the same.
They want to turn themselves into an all-powerful hereditary aristocracy of what is effectively a feudal state. That’s what they always want and always have wanted.
When they lived in all-white countries where the biggest division was economic class they created a wordism around economics and class and used that to try and gain power.
When they came to a multi-racial country where at least one of the biggest divisions was race they created a new wordism around race and have been using that to gain power.
Socialism and PC: same thing, different audience.
The only effective difference i see is this: with socialism they prepared in advance how they would control their white peasantry, while their PC wordism seems to assume the eventual non-white peasantry will allow them to rule without any kind of complaint or resistance.
I find that quite odd.