It Is S.A.D.- The Leftist Brain Exposed

by Rooster Bradford

  Religious intolerance: This is certainly a Leftists goal. Not of all but most. A true Leftist will deny with spittle flying all over the place that he or she has a God, but they do. It is Government. We know that Communism clearly tries to stamp out religion and when it cannot, it restricts and taxes it almost into the dirt. Confiscation of church property without compensation (Known as stealing) has been practiced in all Communist Countries. This is really like the enemy list. It is an attempt to deny debate, as well. Why? The only logical conclusion is they want to control and do not want another loyalty that might be a threat---a Church. On this point one of the complete mysteries is why the majority of people of the Jewish faith continue to support Leftists. The Jewish faith has fought yearly, no daily, against all manner of attacks to remove or restrict their religion. Why do they support Leftists who dislike and want to destroy their worship? It does not make sense. This is simply another example of non-sense. The Leftist stance on evolution over creationism, or alien planting, is simply a part of the religious attack. Take the faith of God and replace it with the Faith in Government….. Cradle to Grave. It has always failed.

  Free Enterprise” Leftist attacks on free enterprise have to be seen in the same light as their attacks on Religion and debate. It seems there is no logic except a desire to remove a different way, a different reward, than the ones the Leftist will hand out. It is a continued attempt to remove opposition, and obtain control. It is the spoiled child thinking. The problem with this approach is that all history tells one, it is impossible to remove opposition. It will go underground, it will side step, it will masquerade, but it will not go away. Even genocide will not work, because newborns will grow up to resist control. The point is their quest is not logical, It is something less than logic…..it is logicaless.

  The issue of spending more than you have does not fit the above analysis. It is not breaking a law, it is not avoiding a law, and it is not so much the doing of something to entrap a person (enslavement) or gain control. This willingness to spend and tax is reckless. It is like driving a car, at high speed, into a concrete wall. The final act is painful, and deadly. Spending too much means the destruction of an economy as much as it means the destruction of your family. There is and cannot be any difference. Economics is a law of nature. It is, as if the Leftist believes by spending a government into bankruptcy he or she can create such chaos that they can take complete control. It is why so many Leftist blogs today want Obama to be a Dictator. Remember the ramblings of Woody Allen to the same effect. So what we have is intentional assault on opposition using as a weapon, insolvency. The assault itself is reckless because they have no assurance they will win complete control. There is another way to achieve their desires, but the Leftist knows they are not good in the battle field.

  The fact that Leftist are not good in battle is well demonstrated in History. I have pointed this out in the war analysis, under the title “Leftists make bad Generals and Commanders in chief”. There are many other examples. The Spanish civil war pitted a strong communist movement vs. a strong totalitarian movement led by Franco. Franco won. The Soviet Union left Afghanistan with its tail between its legs. It can win a civil war only when it has brought the existing government to its knees and has split the opposition and bought the people with promises of lollypops in every kitchen. Divide and conquer. Leftists and spoiled children know it well, but they are not the same.

  The issue of Energy is again different, but has as its ultimate goal, control of the resources of the Country. If it was really about the environment then the issue should be population reduction and that means an all-out frontal attack on Religions. A Leftist knows this can only happen when he or she is fully in charge......So he uses the indirect approach, curtail this industry, curtail this use, and curtail that, use money to save this or that which cannot be saved. Of course they do work on population control indirectly. It is called abortion, and a women’s right of privacy, and governmental allowance against the desires of the people and religions. The same analysis can lay with their approach to energy. They know battery powered cars, wind machines, solar electricity are not economic. If they can bleed the country on these issues, all the better. Deep down in the Leftists soul they desperately want control by any means. Never let a good Chaos go unattended, so said Obama’s Left hand man, and every other Communist coming down the pike. Is wanting chaos normal? You know it is not, but it is part of their manipulation.

  Global Warming is man-made, so says the Leftist. This is an emotional issue which is hard to prove or disprove, but is very effective in gaining more and more control. In fact it can be said this is a major tool to obtain global control. Of course the blind spot is that no one can control the world’s population of Human beings and make them all jump at the same time and sing the same song. The long story of the human being is one of conflict. Not even Soma will do the trick, but the Leftist thinks so. Anyway it is simply another tool to gain control, via guilt and emotion. If it is not slavery then Global Warming is our fault.

  The issue of Humor or the reduced level of it in a Leftist is very different. This is a personality quirk which is not assumed. The Leftist is born with it in varying degrees and this is most important. It helps explain the disobedience, the subterfuge, the hiding of a real issue with guilt, emotion, racial conflict. Etc.

  I do not know how you cannot reach the conclusion that something is short circuiting in the mind of the typical Leftists. Anyone who believes a Governmental God will be benevolent is the same person who will idolize John F. Kennedy, and create Camelot around him and his family. They then will not see that JFK’s brother Edward Kennedy was an abuser of woman and drink. How else could they not take him to task for Chappaquiddick and the lifeless body of Mary Jo Kopechne, the young lady he left to die? Leftist pretended it did not happen. He too was put on a pedestal. They called him the Lion. They are the same ones who flocked for Moa, Fidel Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and many others. They do not see the world as it really is, but as they dream it should be. They love movies and plays and any other make believe. I wish it was Fantasy Island, but it is not.

  Redistribution of Wealth: Leftist need for taking from the rich to give to the Government for doling out to the poor is not done because they are clear thinking or benevolent. It is done to bring down the size of a threat to their control. When you debate with a liberal and tell them redistribution of wealth is not necessary, because it happens naturally, they look at you as if you had a large wart on your nose. Even with examples the Leftists stand in denial.

  What do I mean when I say wealth redistributes itself naturally? I explained this to a liberal lady once and she looked shocked. She said she had never thought about that. I will bet, she worked her way back to sanity. Here is the deal. All wealth is held by human beings. All human beings die. Some of the wealthy humans have children. The overwhelming number of such children go no place, but instead use up the wealth of their departed wealth keeper. Some die with no children to carry the torch. Some leave a lot to charity. Charities seldom grow big. Even they wear out because of the sappers who run them. Now this does not just happen with rich folks. It happens to us all. In your family of siblings and cousins how many were real go getters and wealth obtainers? Darn few. Take a look at the really big wealth keepers of our Country. After their death, wait 20 years and count their kids who took over the wealth. How many kept the wealth on track or increased it. Do not worry. You only need to count to 10. Some of the names which come to mind are Stanford, Huntington, Crocker, Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Mellon, bla bla bla. Although Howard Hughes took his father’s mantel and ran with it, he crashed into a world of paranoia. He had no kids as well. Oh, yes we must not forget the Kennedy Dynasty. Old Joe, the rum runner, had a passel of kids. Only JFK was really famous. The others either died tragically or because of a brain tumor, and none of them took up the mantel of Joe the wealth keeper. Any grandkids worth a plug nickel? I do not see any. JFK did not create wealth. He used dad
dy’s wealth and abused it….. that’s all.

  See I told you the Leftist cannot get their eyes off the imaginary wart. They cannot get beyond that to the truth. Truth to a Leftist is hurtful.

  Finally I want to restate a Conservative belief. All humans are different and function in different ways. This will not change. We can only generalize as we try to better understand the huge canyon between a typical Leftist and a typical Conservative. Let’s move on.

  CHAPTER 5

  “America will never be destroyed from the

  outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms it

  will be because we destroyed ourselves”

  President Abraham Lincoln

  THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE

  We have discussed many of the more common differences between the Leftist and the Conservative thinking in Chapter 2 and the inconsistencies in Leftist thinking in Chapter 3.

  It is time to address the most significance difference and that has to do with their respective choices in Government. Essentially the two choices in the United States are; Socialism/Communism (a form of government which controls all aspects of life.); and a Constitutional-Republic. (A form which does not try to control all aspects of life.) Conservatives, in American, want the latter and understand government is necessary to provide common necessities (such as roads and ports) and defense. Leftist want Socialism. In full bloom Socialism always fails taking with it too many lives and gobs and gobs of value. In spite of all the lessons of history, Leftists are attracted to it like moths to a flame. It is their fatal attraction.

  This type of major difference has always existed from the beginning of social living. Of course it has had different names and occurred at different places. For example in the earliest of tribes the members gathered together to cooperatively do the common needs and to provide defense from the enemy. A solo act was sure death. There has always been an enemy. Other human beings will always want what you have. Even in a Tribe this greed and desire to live off of others work was a problem. The earliest Shamans figured a way to have others provide food and shelter. They learned to presume to predict the future, with incantations and assemblage of rocks and stuff. When they did, they went on welfare, under a different name. Of course they had to lie good and that too has not changed. Some non-shamans tried their best to secure comforts from others. The Chief or head guy’s main problem was keeping the hunters and warriors in line. Keeping them in their own Hogan or bed, keeping them from not taking others food, tools and weapons etc. Some were gung ho and others were laid back. In all the thousands of years of human existence these differences have always been there. In any population there has always been about 1/3 who want to be taken care of, about 1/3 in the middle, and about 1/3 who want to do their own thing, as much as they can. It is the same in the United States even now. A way to use this 1/3 analysis in today’s world is to look at the polls attempting to show a President’s Popularity. The President will automatically get at least 1/3. If his popularity is 43 % then only 10% of the middle or other side also supports him. In a Republic or Democracy a Presidential candidate cannot just run for the Middle 1/3. If he or she does they will fail. Such a candidate has to go for the automatic 1/3. That is they have to declare they are Leftist or Conservative. Then the trick is to try and pick up enough of the others to win. Sometimes there is a lot of misleading going on. The most notorious example today is Candidate Obama, saying he would not raise taxes on certain folks, and he represented Change. Somehow he failed to mention the Change was to Socialism. He won partly because his opponent refused to say or do the things to keep his 1/3 in line.

  Socialism/communism are names given to the Leftist of today. There is a slight difference in the two. In Socialism there can exist private property. In Communism, at least in theory, no private property beyond your personal effects can exist. In other words Communism is simply the ultimate togetherness.

  The concept and definition of Socialism as we know it did not exist until well into the Industrial Revolution. There is no agreement as to the exact year the Industrial Revolution began, but it is agreed it started in England and Scotland and then spread to Europe and America. It began sometime in the 1700s and ended in the late 1800s. What caused it were the major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and transport. The change had its linchpin in harnessing energy to multiply a man’s labor and change materials from one form to another. It was not wind, hydro, or solar power that supplied the energy, but coal and gas. Fast, efficient, and affordable.

  During these dramatic changes in how we did things, cultural shock took its toll. No longer were we land bound. We had to gather in places of industry and travel became common. What happened to our families and the general conditions of labor were extraordinary and certainly never experienced before. There was no history to fall back on. There was no real comparison to ancient empires, such as the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, or Assyrian. This was different and many strains and sprains occurred. Certainly one of them was the relationship between the business owner and the worker. The owner capitalized and invented the business, and developed the network of supply and demand. The workers came to make it happen. Their goals were not the same and the advantages and disadvantages were likewise askew. In some places the conditions of the worker were ignored by the owners. Many times the workers lack of cohesiveness and togetherness was taken advantage of by some.

  In one place a new concept grew where the owners would act like government (there was very little Government in those days) and provide better conditions for the workers. Now this should not surprise you. Some owners would surely realize that if the workers were happier they would work better. Understand government in those days did not provide much oversight, sanitation, etc. Governmental responsibility seemed to end with the fall of the Roman Dictatorships. If workers were to have a better place to live, raise a family, educate the kids etc., the Governments of the 1700s were not going to do it. Private enterprise was the only one which could, financially and through leadership.

  In Scotland, the seed of socialism was born. The man’s name was Robert Owen. He was born in 1771. As was the custom he began labor at age 10, and soon moved to the developing textile industry. Because he was honest, hardworking, and responsible, he became the youngest Mill manager in Manchester, England. When he was 20, he bossed over 300. He saw that a happy worker produced more. As a developing owner he wanted to take advantage of that fact. He became an advocate of creating the happy worker with benefits and a share of the profits.

  Soon, Mr. Owen obtained the chance to buy the New Lanmark textile Mill, in Scotland. This place is still there. It is near Glasgow and is now open to the public. Owen was a part of a partnership at that time, but his was the dominate voice. He set about taking advantage of the “happy worker”. He improved housing with company built facilities, stopped employing young children, installed safety equipment, and opened a company store which did provide the lowest possible prices for his workers. In 1816 he opened his first infant school, two years before Karl Marx was born. It was the first of its kind in all of England and Scotland. Owen was swimming upstream. Some owners did not want to go this extra mile and grumbled. Many of his workers did not like his regulating how much alcohol they could drink or that they could not work their children in the mill for additional income. They grumbled. However, he persisted and other owners came to copy him. His workers went along, especially when the Mill had to close for 4 months, because of no raw material. He paid their wages anyway. He went public with his ideas and was the most important man to push and obtained the 1819 Child Employment Act which regulated their employment.

  He was not a religious man and the churches were not fond of him as he made no special arrangements for his employees except to not work them on Sunday, most of the time. He did help workers form trade unions in line with his belief that “Labor, not capital, is the wealth”. Of course labor is nothing without capital, but he did not see that. Probably just too close.

 
; Mr. Robert Owen is considered by most as the father of modern Socialism/communism. After Owens death in 1820, his son or son in law continued his humane concepts until the mill was sold. He son or son in law, took the idea of Utopia to American. After all things would be better there, and certainly these idealistic feel good concepts could be taken to the extreme, (communist like) and all would be well. He founded “New Harmony”, Indiana in 1824. He purchased it from a failed communal group known as the Harmony Society. Of course harmony was elusive. New Harmony was a pure socialist/communist place. It lasted two years when infighting brought it down. It is S.A.D. that Robert Owen himself could not have lived to see what happens when you try to do the nice things from the bottom up. It fails each and every time. He was successful because he had the power and the capital from the top down.