Slouching into slavery

What the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protestors don’t realize (yet) is that they have been suckered into becoming the agents of their own enslavement.

Orwell had it so right in defining the Left because he was a man of the Left. The term “Orwellian” now refers to the Left’s use of terms to mean the direct opposite of the intention of an idea or act (“war is peace”, for example). Orwell also noted the need for the State to invent enemies as a means of deflecting attention away from its own actions. It’s all about deflection away from true agendas.

Let me explain. Granted that the OWS movement is defined by many grievances, one underlying theme of  the OWS protests is the onerous debt assumed by students. I have sympathy for this because, as many commentators have already pointed out, these students were sold a bill of goods. The idea was that, whether qualified or motivated or not, kids could simply participate in the university experience, supported with “generous” (i.e., taxpayer-funded) government aid, and exit with a paper degree and guaranteed, high-paying job bereft of drudgery. This is the siren song that led to the inevitable crash upon the rocks of debt slavery.

Universities, those bastions of entitlement, have made out like bandits, taking the students money in exchange for worthless promises and worthless degrees. The government financed this process using “free” taxpayers’ monies and, in the end, developed a class of dependents that will spend the rest of their lives working their way out of indentured servitude at the behest their government masters (the Golden Rule is those that own the gold, rule!). For, as these students are slowly realizing, government debt and dependency is forever…there is no escaping their obligations.

It used to be that students could tap loans from private lending institutions that assumed the risk of a student borrower’s success or failure. If the student went bankrupt, the bank suffered. That is how capitalism and free markets should work. Not so with Liberal government. When the Obama administration took over these lending services, it took away failure as an option. Today, neither students nor their parents can escape their student debt obligations and the total student debt outstanding has been estimated to approach $1.0 trillion.

Many of these OWS students are now answerable to their government masters for the foreseeable future and during their most formative years… a period when they should be free to work toward satisfying careers, saving to purchase their own homes, preparing to raise families and, eventually, achieving financial independence. Instead, as long as the government holds their debt, it can now dictate how these students will lead their lives in service to their government’s regime goals (as in, “we will forgive x-amount of your debt if you “agree” to work in only certain prescribed professions or government-approved public works programs under certain given conditions dictated by us, your master) Or, let’s try the Chicago Way: “as long as we hold your debt, you will only believe certain things, work for certain causes, and vote in certain ways” . Their indentured servitude has taken away their freedom to think, to act and to build their own futures. Even more sadly, for many of these students, their expensive college educations amounted to little more than indoctrination whereby to accept these circumstances as a good thing: witness the large number whose goal in life is simply to work for “non-profits”.

The especially egregious aspect of this is that it is poorer students that have so been hooked into government dependency. But then, that has pretty much been par for the course for Liberal government, hasn’t it? Government did this before, with poor blacks and the War on Poverty. Government programs enslave the poor through indentured dependency.  Rich or talented kids don’t have to worry about this: they have parents, scholarships or trust funds to ensure that they never become indentured government debt pawns. The especially pathetic part of these events is that these indebted students and graduates have been led to believe, through Orwellian deflection, that the agents of their servitude are banks, conservatism, political and economic liberty, and capitalism – the very agents that could yet free them – rather than the government and academia that shackled them.

I suspect that, deep down in their hearts, many of the OWS protestors are slowly coming to realize their predicament. They’ve been had. Eventually, I expect, they will come to learn the truth about their servitude. I hope that they will still have the strength to resist.

I think that it is safe to say that slavery, not democracy, has been a defining condition for the great majority of human history. This may not be a point stressed in the Orwellian halls of academia that groomed this new government slave class at these students’ own expense, but it is a historical truism, none the less. It would truly be sad if what we are observing at the various OWS rallies around the country and world is simply an age-old historical evil reasserting itself in modern drag. What we are now seeing as the product of the college experience is the emergence of two classes: a wealthy, highly educated ruling class and a subservient, dependent, servant class that got suckered into paying the Liberal/Left ruling class to deprive it of intellectual and economic choices under the Orwellian guise of “freedom”. The Liberal/Left has done a bang-up job of severely crippling a generation of our children. I would be hard-pressed to conceive of  a more gross corruption of the American ideal.

I hope that I am wrong. What do you think?

 

Is the Sky Falling? NYT Item Questions The One

Interesting item from the New York Times today about a “mischaracterization” (what we knucklewalkers call a “lie”) Obama made during the 2008 campaign. The lede:

“The White House on Wednesday declined to challenge an account in a new book that suggests that President Obama in his campaign to overhaul American health care, mischaracterized a central anecdote about his mother’s deathbed dispute with her insurance company.”

The Obama “narrative” is slowly unraveling. Even the true believers are getting sick of the guy. So expect more sniping at the edges as the whore media wait to see if Obama is losing his momentum. If so, they will throw him under the bus as fast as they can to make room for somebody else.

Speaking of—and I know this is a long shot—let’s say the Democrats do decide to toss Obama overboard. Who’s waiting in the wings? Could Hillary take advantage of the resentment among all the Demo women who saw how disgracefully the media and Obama treated her? Is there a Demo dark horse who’s been making waves off camera who could make a plausible case for being both the not-Obama and the not-GOP candidate? A superb tightrope walker?

How would the not-Obama position him/herself to get Demos and independents to the polls in large enough numbers to win the 2012 election? In a way we’re looking to design a successful campiagn from our opponents’ point of view.

Why are Americans so gullible?

BW will be back sometime this weekend, but let’s see if we can get in a few more good discussions before her return.  The last few days I’ve been bothered by how gullible the American public is.  Usually, when I think about gullibility I think of truthers, or Code Pink ladies or leftist who honestly believe that if we are just nicer to the jihadists they’ll be nice to us.  But conservatives, whom I tend to think of as more thoughtful and rational are, at least at times, just as bad.

What sent me down this road was an e-mail I got from my Dad the other day.  It was one of those on-line petitions that was all in a panic.  It lamented that the Senate had passed a bill to give Social Security to illegal aliens who had never contributed to the system.  It urgently pleaded with the readers to sign their name to the petition and pass it on to everyone they knew.  The 1,000th person to sign was suppose to e-mail it on to the White House. 

Of course, the truth was that the Senate had passed a bill that would allow illegals who became legal to get credit for amounts they had contributedwhile working here illegally.  What bothered me was that the petition had been circulating for two years and had 873 signatures.  That’s 873 people, almost all conservatives, I’m sure, given the subject matter, who had signed their name to a public document without bothering to check and see if the underlying claim was even true.  It sounded to them like something a Democrat Senate would do, so they gullibly believe it without any further thought.  873 conservatives!  Ouch!

Just yesterday I got one quoting a fictitious column by Maureen Dowd as calling for an investigation into Obama’s Internet fundraising.  Now such an investigation might be warranted, but you know full well Maureen Dowd would never write such a column.  I get these all the time.  The flat majority of them are untrue and snopes.com has articles saying so in most cases.  Yet they continue to  circulate.  Among conservatives.  It makes me wonder if there is something too trusting and gullible general in the American psyche. 

Maybe I’m too gullible myself, but I’ve always thought of Americans as hard-headed realists.  Part of our success came, I thought, from our ability to think and act rationally and objectively — maybe even skeptically.  It seems we are losing that capacity.  And I can’t imagine that bodes well for America’s future.

Truths too dangerous to tell

In a comment to an earlier post, BrianE linked to a quite interesting article about possible genetic differences between blacks and whites.  The article is about a book the title of which probably tells you all you need to know, “Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It.”  What is striking is the reaction of the critics who are, indeed, “afraid to talk about it.” As one critic (a college professor, of course) put it, “Some information has a more dangerous content than others.” In other words, some truths are too dangerous to tell.  The good professor even opposes efforts to find out the truth:  “Only bad things can come from research into racially based differences in sports performance.”

Personally, I have no idea whether there are significant differences between blacks and whites.  I have no idea about the science and, certainly, a good non-scientific case can be made to the contrary.  I know that there are many white volleyball players who can jump as high as black basketball players do.  I know that whites dominate in swimming just like blacks do in track.  I know there are as many world-class white high-jumpers and pole vaulters as black (though not as many good white long jumpers and triple jumpers).  

However, while there may or may not be real differences between blacks and whites, there are unquestionably real differences between men and women.  Men are bigger stronger and faster.  Women mature faster and live longer.  Oddly, no one suggests that by saying men are bigger, stronger or faster we are implying that men are less intelligent and that this is a terrible truth that should not be told.  If we treated the differences between the genders like we do differences (if any) between the races, there would be no Title IX.  In fact, there would be no girls’ teams at all.  There would be only one team in each sport, likely dominated by men, and we wouldn’t even be allowed to talk about it, just like we aren’t allowed to talk about the predominance of blacks in track, or basketball or football (or the lack of blacks in swimming, hockey or cycling for that matter). 

Does any of this make any difference?  I think it does.  The more we refuse to even consider scientific truth in any area, the less rational and mature we become.  Whether it’s differences between the races, the truth about global warming, the actual threat to America from Islamic extremists, the true state of decline of American capitalism, or whatever the subject, I think we should do all we can to discover the truth and face that truth squarely.  What do you think?