National Health: all the care some bureaucrat feels like giving you.
Why would any government ever do anything for a primary reason other than to benefit those who run that government?
Our self-anointed owners - the real proprietors and beneficiaries of "government" at every level - face a fierce conundrum.
It's painfully well established that the freer the market is, the more wealth it produces. Thus, the more loot for the rulers. Thus Sweden is richer than North Korea (although, granted, heedless exploitation of abundant natural resources has a lot to do with Sweden's "success" as well.)
But socialism provides a far more efficient means of extracting that wealth from the many for the benefit of the few - conducing to outright looting, all while actually convincing many if not most people that it's being done (why would it be?) for their own good.
One thing I've seen for years has been that the people who really rule us have long been caught in a manic-depressive frenzy: swinging from wild-eyed optimism, that they'll soon exert total, unbreakable control over the populace and the planet; and utter, bleak despair that they're about to lose their power, privilege, and profits for good. Let's just say that for at least the last ten years I've seen nothing to contradict that.
Oddly, those opposite states promote the same behavior: our rulers getting all they can as quickly as they can.
Now the bipolar crisis has reached extreme frequency and amplitude. One sign of our rulers' rising madness is that they've now switched the dominant political rhetoric to socialist. Meaning they want to grab everything they can now. Because even the dimmest of them see the disaster they're steering us for.
It's not coincidental that "defense" spending, already bloated beyond reason, is actually increasing under the new sock-puppet administration: "social programs" and war (and what could be more socialist than war?) being the proven fastest conduits whereby wealth can be piped to the plutocrats.
That's also at the same time that, while generating plenty of smoke with "debate" over a penny-ante "bailout," the Federal Reserve has shipped trillions more dollars to the needy ultra-rich and powerful.
A personal observation: despite unprecedented highs in "defense" spending, none of my many friends in that industry seem to be benefiting from it. They're almost all facing cutbacks if not getting laid off themselves. Wherever all that loot's going, it isn't to them.
While I lack real evidence I suspect that might soon be seen across the board: the money's bypassing the middlemen ("employees," "the poor") and going straight to its intended destination: the pockets of the truly powerful.
Meanwhile, the greatest ripoff by the elite of everybody else - hyperinflation - is probably launching.
What can we do? Dig in. Stock up on non-perishable necessities: food, meds, water. Buy silver and ammo. And start figuring out what you'll do when government quits even pretending it provides services to the governed.
If you get nothing else from this screed, please absorb this: the sole purpose of all government, everywhere and ever, is to centralize benefit and socialize cost.
So the Holocaust Museum shooter is a Neo-Nazi and "anti-government?" Wait - how is that possible? Did you miss the Twentieth Century?
What is Fascism - and its brain-damaged butt-baby Nazism - about if not complete and total worship of the State?
I see how the "left" and the "right" in this country are engaging in a slap-fight because certain "right-wing" commentators have pointed out that fascism is a form of socialism. Guess what? It is. As is Nazism - no, "National Socialism" is not some kind of false front. It was what the Nazis were all about. It still is.
The concept that "socialism" and "fascism" are somehow opposites is just World War II propaganda bullshit.
You want to read anti-capitalist screeds? Try The Turner Diaries. Or the writings of Francisco Franco. Or, hey, Joe Goebbels.
So the "right-wing" sock-monkeys are right, for once. Then again, it's becoming so piteously obvious that the whole Left/Right thing is a scam I'm starting to read about it daily online. The "Right" is anti-government? Then where were they while George W. Bush was expanding everything about government - spending, scope, and power - at a nearly unprecedented rate?
Oh, that's right: with their noses firmly clamped between his asscheeks. Where the Left is with Obama now that he's doing the same thing and telling different lies about it.
It has some figures, too. Like the upwards of a quarter billion people it killed in the 20th Century. And that doesn't even count wars - in many ways the ultimate expression of government doing good.
It is the slogan, the motive, and the means for history's greatest murderers: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot (socialists all.) And for the last US president, and the current one, and their admirers and apologists.
It's what those who rule us intend to come to your block soon.
So ... what part of government is evil were you having trouble understanding?
I know this is old news. But life and the need of sustaining it have kept me pretty preoccupied for the last month or two. As readers of this blog (provided they exist), my real blog, and my Forum can attest.
As you may be aware, toward the beginning of the month NM governor Bill Richardson withdrew from consideration to be the new commerce secretary because of allegations of influence peddling.
My question: how total a fuckup do you have to be to get caught acting so corrupt a Chicago politician won't hire you?
Update: Maybe it isn't such old news after all.
Also, a good point made.
That's the one thing you need to take away from today's investiture of the new Führer: you can't afford him. Not you, not me, not your family, not your friends. Certainly not the American people.
The good news is, the United States - the Empire - can't afford him either.
Of course the O-Bomber is a "post-partisan uniter," as reason puts it, snarkily and correctly. That's because there's no difference between the parties - not in practical terms. Not in terms of what they actually do.
Both parties do what governments are instituted among men to do: to preserve and increase the power, privilege, and profit of the ruling classes. What rational reason is there to suppose government would do anything but serve the interests of its proprietors?
And as if there was any doubt that, as I've told you before, "Change" means "More of the same, only harder and worse," recall that the newly anointed Dear Leader has voted for or otherwise endorsed pretty much all of the evil things his predecessor did - when he hasn't outdone him in militaristic zeal, as when he proved himself far to the right of even the rabidly anti-freedom Sarah Palin on issues like killing brown people in Afghanistan and Iran to make them better.
He endorsed war, torture, spying, and the real war which is being waged against American liberty - not to mention American property and American lives.
And most of all he, like his mentally-deficient sock puppet of a predecessor, vigorously supports a "bailout" of 8.5 trillion dollars, and rising. Which constitutes history's greatest known transfer of wealth to the very wealthy.
Really, could he be any worse than McInsane or O'Bomber? How?
They both stand four-square for war, torture, domestic spying, and massive welfare for the rich. Or hadn't you noticed?
Anyway, click on the link to buy the swell shirt. I'm happy, at least, to be able to plug my pals Ray and Barb van Tilburg and their wonderful Offworld Designs. Ray's an excellent artist who does tee-shirt designs for a lot of Midwest cons, including Archon. Plus they have tons of non-con specific designs, such as the above, which are nifty and wicked clever.
Even if they're distressed by my usage of their design, if, like most people, they cherish the belief there's an actual difference between the sock puppet on Leviathan's left claw, and the one on His right.
But relax. It's nothing to the pain that your guy will cause if elected. No matter which he is.
(And then again ... not even a Great Old One can prevent the implosion of the Unitedstatesian Empire.)
You can't parody such times as these.
A few days ago I was out walking with my dog (whose innocent name I won't sully by mentioning in such a foul and murderous context as politics) when it struck me that, for a lark, and since the two entities in question can't seem to muster any actual disagreement with one another, I ought to publicly propose that Obama select as his running mate John McCain.
Then he went and did.