Skip to main content

That's an observation credited to Chief Joseph, after it turned out that the treaties he'd signed with Washington didn't mean what he'd been led to think. That history seems relevant to some Europeans who aren't happy with where the European Union is taking them.

I woke up thinking about how bi-lateral or bi-polar or bi-partisan thinking lends itself to deception.  If every concept or element of reality has an alternative that's the opposite of the preferred, then it's possible to talk in terms of preference and support even as the objective is to destroy.  For example, if there are only white men and black men and the white men are good, then not only are the black men bad, but expressing support for the white men implicitly means that the black men are to be destroyed.

But, and I think this is important to note, it's not a matter of deception; it's an inevitable consequence of the code.  That is, if a person thinks in terms of good and evil, then some things (whatever is classified as evil) are bound to be destroyed. If there are only two alternatives, then, to get one, the other has to be removed.

That's a rather harsh position.  Perhaps that's why the term "creative destruction" was invented -- to suggest that wanton destruction was not the intent.  However, for people who have no talent or practical skills, creative intent is a no-go.  So, whether they want it or not, the destruction they orchestrate or countenance is wanton.

Another clue can be found, I think, in the more recent formulation, "create an environment."  While, on one level, both "create" and "environment" are concepts which are widely attractive and have a positive connotation, "create an environment" is really an oxymoron.  The environment is like the universe.  It exists.  While it may not have existed in its present form at one time and may have been created by a "big bang" or God, the notion that man has the potential to create an environment is either blasphemous, hubristic, or just plain stupid.  Of course, if create an environment is merely the alternative to creative destruction and destruction, albeit not admitted, is what's really on the agenda, then what we're hearing is merely new verbiage for an old habit.

Conservatives speak with forked tongues.  But, they can't help it.  If you're a guy that can't say 'no,' and all that's left is 'yes,' then saying 'yes' is better than nothing, especially if what the person to whom you are speaking wants is of no importance. One of the advantages of being self-centered is that the environment and all the persons in it do not count.  Man at the center of the universe is an illusion, but it doesn't matter, because the self-centered person is not aware of his environment. Which would explain why the notion that man's actions are affecting his environment is so upsetting to, and seems to be in contradiction to, the "create an environment" population, until one understands that "creating an environment" is a synonym for destroy.

So, what does it mean in the context of jobs?  Well, if jobs are a private sector product and the negative alternative to the private sector is the public sector, the support for the private sector doing its thing implies the destruction of the public sector. In other words, "create an environment" to induce the creation of jobs means "drown government in a tub."  Or, to put it another way, the people are not going to be put back to work until their power to govern themselves is destroyed.  And, in a sense, that's literally correct, if your definition of "work" is labor that's coerced by the necessity of following orders to access the necessities of life -- the only definition that suits persons whose physical skills are insufficient to sustain themselves.  People who can't do anything for themselves have to be able to force others to do for them. The idea that people would do for them without being coerced is just too scary.

On the other hand, expecting people who can't even look after themselves to serve the public is pure idiocy. Of course, it's also true that "they also serve who need to be waited on."  "It is better to give than receive," but there have to be willing recipients for the givers to be able to give.  Otherwise, all our good efforts just go to waste.  It's letting the recipients decide what gets made that's the big mistake.  

Letting conservatives run the country is a big no-no.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

    by hannah on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 04:58:22 AM PDT

  •  OK, I'll try to say this gently... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cacamp, radmul

    bi-lateral, bi-polar and bi-partisan MEAN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS then you seem to think they do, and you can not equate them unless have zero grasp of the english language. Wtf.

    Aren't they amazing? They could go on forever, aimlessly talking about pointless subjects. Even I'm beginning to admire them for it. -- Nagisa, A Lollipop Or A Bullet

    by Dom9000 on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 05:12:58 AM PDT

  •  why the Native American reference? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    why bring my people into your diary with the video? The pictures have nothing to do with your thesis and the drumming is very stereotypical. Indians hate that sort of unauthentic BS even though the pictures were pretty.

    You could have just said "lie" and left us out of the whole disjointed thing you've written. Sometimes trying to be cute just don't work.

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 08:13:01 AM PDT

  •  Enjoyed your effort at alliteration stream (0+ / 0-)

    of consciousness.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site