Alternatives to collectivism

COLLECTIVISTS BEAT conservatives handily in two areas: profanity and propaganda.

charityThat leftists curse like sailors was beautifully illustrated in the last presidential campaign. I addressed the issue then with a post titled What the (bleep)?! which links to a couple of NDP (New Democratic Party) television spots starring foul-mouthed celebrities who love Barry.

It is unthinkable that the Republicans would have countenanced something similar for Mitt Romney.

We are nice, polite people.

Collectivists also beat the pants off conservatives with propaganda. Collectivists have effectively pounded into the noggins of low-information voters (who are legion) that conservatives don’t care about poor people, that we want to end Social Security and Medicare which is, of course, arrant nonsense.

Conservatives want to modernize Social Security, for instance, bring it into the 21st century and make it more financially viable for the long haul. Right now, it is not, of course. And Medicare, which has served many people well, including my mother, needs reform too. Losses to fraud are scandalously massive.

Conservatives advocate improving that type of social program. The NDP says otherwise, and that’s baloney.

Let’s look at poor people. The NDP would have you think conservatives want poor people to starve in the streets. This too is malarky. Conservatives simply favor private-sector charities to government. Given the well-documented fraud and waste in Medicare, the conservative preference for private charities makes sense.

Conservatives are not fond of government coercion, and you should not be fond of it either.

That welfare programs, run by government, are spectacularly abused is no secret — unless you get your information from HuffPost, the Nation and MSNBC. Conservatives want assistance, preferably via the private sector, to go to those in need only. That, almost exclusively, means old people, the chronically ill and the handicapped. People who truly cannot help themselves. Private charities do this more efficiently.

Private charities do not put ne’er-do-wells on the public tit.

There are many privately run charitable organizations that touch the needy around the world. Here are two:

1. Kiva. This provides micro-loans. I was a contributor for a few years, withdrew to participate in another organization, but I have recently returned to Kiva. It does great work. My new team (Team Mexicano) could use some more members. You just need $25, for Pete’s sake. Join us.

2. Heifer International. This outfit provides worldwide help to the poor in a very novel way. Check it out. I recently discovered this group via a link on my ex-wife’s Facebook page. Gracias, Julie.

The opportunities to share the wealth (a collectivist goal) are countless, but it’s best to do it without being coerced, and it’s best to do it efficiently, with the truly needy getting the help, not folks like the Surfer Dude.

Conservatives aid the poor intelligently. And they don’t cuss up a storm while they’re at it.

Don’t be fooled by NDP propaganda. Be smart.

The collectivists’ vastly superior talent at propaganda is beautifully illustrated by their use of the word “immigrant.” They do not use the phrase illegal alien, of course, nor even illegal immigrant if they can weasel out of it. They love to say conservatives “hate immigrants.”

Of course, this is bogus. All but the most extreme xenophobes, who are no more numerous on the right than Bolsheviks on the left, have no problem with immigrants. It is lawlessness that we oppose. Illegal aliens, not law-abiding immigrants. Conservatives do not “hate immigrants.”

22 thoughts on “Alternatives to collectivism

  1. Zapata, my dad told me when I was just a kid, “Don’t cuss.” People curse because their vocabularies are so weak they fill in blank spots with curses. It’s a sign of ignorance.

    I’ve had the opportunity to see The Heifer Project at work, interesting concept. There’s another one called “Give yee them to eat” that’s similar. Their idea is that it’s better to teach a man to fish than just to give him a fish. They need to practice this more in the States also.

    So-called illegal immigration needs to be fixed here in Mexico. Close the barn door before the horse is stolen.


    1. Señor Mystic: I’ve never been much for cussing, but I’ve grown more adamant about it as I grow older. I think a part may be just due to growing older, but the primary reason I oppose it is the increasing degradation of society, something that likely happens in historical cycles. I don’t know. In the U.S. and Western Europe, this current cycle likely began in the let-it-all-hang-out 1960s. We’ve been letting more and more hang out ever since. The anonymity available on the internet has not helped either. In many respects we are flying out of control. Not gonna end well.

      Thanks for the link to the other organization. There are scads of ways to help poor people without having the government strong-arm you into it, and then misspend your money. That collectivists so embrace that approach never fails to amaze. And then they call us unfeeling.

      As for illegal immigration, I think the best approach would be secure border controls on the U.S. side. Don’t believe it’s realistic to think Mexico is going to do anything about it. A large percentage of Mexicans (not Central Americans who have far more severe problems) do it simply because they can, plus it’s a cultural issue. It’s been going on so long they don’t even see it clearly for the criminal act that it is. As you surely know, it’s simply “el otro lado,” the other side. They feel they have every right in the world to go there. This is in spite of the countless opportunities in Mexico that increase yearly. Jobs, education, scholarships, business opportunities, large and small.


  2. What a vastly different country we would have should the country require all voters to demonstrate a minimal level of proficiency in civics prior to being granted the privilege to cast a ballot. Ignorance is relevant!


    1. Mark: Not just a brief civics test but a photo ID. And, of course, get-out-the-vote campaigns are dreadful. If you have to be dragged to the polls, I don’t want you there. You will almost invariably vote for the NDP, the party of take-my-money-and-distribute-it-badly.


  3. Sadly, liberals view the cause of poverty to be the success of others. Rather than address the real roots of poverty, they see wealth transfers to be “the answer.” This keeps the poor poor, but it gives the impression of “caring for the poor.” It is a band aid on a cancer.

    It also empowers those who think they have a right to make decisions for all of society. These decisions invariably benefit those in control.

    The root causes of poverty are never addressed. Rather, people are hooked on the opium of social welfare. They see it as their right to live off of the system. I dread the day that the government cannot or will not fund those EBT cards. Those people will not be denied.

    This cannot endure. The end will not be pretty.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. As much as I dislike Barry and his band of coercive collectivists, I still feel a wave of nausea when I see any reference to Mitt Romney. I think the public is finally beginning to wake up to the contempt the collectivists have for the perceived stupidity of the electorate with Gruberism.


    1. Andrés: Were I the GOP god I would not have chosen Romney as the candidate. He ran a weak, overly confident campaign, convinced he was going to win. Many people shared that sureness. I am one. But he would have been 1,000 times over a better president than Barry.

      As for Gruber, were someone to get most news from the left-wing media, which is to say most of the media, Gruber would be totally unknown.


  5. In Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he offers 5 reasons for their decline:

    (1) Undermining of the dignity and the sanctity of the home.
    (2) Higher and higher taxes, and the spending of public money for free bread and circuses for the populace.
    (3) The mad craze for pleasure and sports becoming every year more exciting ,more brutal, and more immoral.
    (4) The building of great armaments when the real enemy was within: the decay of individual responsibility.
    (5) The decay of religion, fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and losing power to guide the people.

    Not much of a stretch to see these around us today….huh?

    Liked by 1 person

      1. There is a way out for America. Someone has stated it this way:
        Philosophy says: Think your way out.
        Indulgence says:Drink your way out.
        Politics says: Spend your way out.
        Science says: Invent your way out.
        Industry says: Work your way out.
        Communism says: Strike your way out.
        Fascism says: Bluff your way out.
        Militarism says: Fight your way out.
        The Bible says: Pray your way out.
        Jesus Christ says “I am the way (out)…”


  6. Romney lost because he was not supported by the born-again people. Instead, they voted for a crypto Muslim and for food stamps and increased unemployment benefits.

    About half the people in the U.S. pay no income taxes. They say they pay their taxes, but then they get it all refunded plus the earned income benefit.

    Romney would have put people to work. He would have used the shale miracle to our benefit. The Arabs’ day in the sun would have been over.

    China will no longer buy our debt. Instead, the Treasury Department sells bonds to the Federal Reserve for more Obamabucks. The result will be more inflation. When the world catches on, they will dump the U.S. dollar. The dollar’s day as a reserve currency is over. Then we will have hyperinflation.

    The U.S. government can produce dollars, but they cannot print loaves of bread and jars of peanut butter. It will be a sad day when the U.S. government seizes the IRAs and retirement plans. Google the Ghirlarducci Plan.

    Think it can’t happen? It did in Argentina, Poland and a lot of other countries.


    1. Richie Rich Romney alienated too many people, because he was perceived to be tone deaf to the needs of the under class, the lower middle class, minorities, and people surviving on Social Security. He was and is unelectable. He was perceived as an advocate of social darwinism, which holds that the life of humans in society is a struggle for existence ruled by “survival of the fittest.” Romney was also perceived as a hawkish interventionist and pro-war. Unfortunately, this is why Obama won.


    1. Señor Gill: Actually, I am shifting investments to Mexico as fast as I can. Have to do it slowly due to tax considerations. Started last year, and it will take about five years more.


Comments are closed.