I wrote a long time ago that a major sign of the end of the liberal decades would be marked by many different signals and signs. I called them out so that when they happened in the future nobody could think I was just making up new theories to explain recent happenings.
To recap, the liberals push down workers and producers because doing so limits the power of the really important people in society. To do that, you have to uplift the weak, be they weak moral-ed, weak minded or physically weak. In this way you set yourself up to be able to take from the strong producers in order to buy votes from the weak non-producers who always look for someone to provide something to them so that they don't have to work for themselves.
It would be a mistake to think that I am judging the workers highly and the nonworkers must therefore be some kind of shit. No, that is not my place even if the logic of it does have elements of truth to it. For example, if all we had were freeloaders then civilization would die. That is just logic because if there are no producers then there can be no consumers either; there is no consumption without first there being production. But would we live in utopia if everyone was economically productive? I don't think that can be said. Keeping a rose garden is not economically productive yet I think the world is a better place for having some of them. So its all about the right balance. And all of us will be weak in our youth and in our old age. So there is clearly never going to be a world with 100% economic producers in it.
But I digress. My point was that liberal leadership seeks to take and retain power by pandering to the unproductive liberal members of society. And again, for new readers, your political leaning does not define whether you are liberal or conservative. There is a whole list of things that you do each day that are probably both conservative and liberal in nature. I am not conservative because I voted for Trump! Trump is a jerk in so many ways. And he is no conservative. But what were my choices? Liberal serial debt defaulter Trump or Career Criminal Clinton?
But I digress yet again. There have been many signs of how liberals pander to the weaker less productive (or unproductive) at the expense of the strong producers in order to gain votes and one of those signs that I mentioned some time ago was the number of handicap parking spaces that businesses had to have by law, even at places where handicapped are unlikely to go (like the gym, rock climbing center, etc). I wrote,
"You’ll know the die is fully cast (i.e. peak liberalism is in place) when they
start getting rid of most of the handicap parking spots. The 90s explosion of making everything "accessible" at great cost to businesses is my poster child for forcing producers
to work twice as hard in order to support the the weaker members of the herd. Not that I think there should be no support
for the weak. But I think that
is the
role of the church, not the vote buying corrupt state. The state
doesn't really care about the weak. It does care about controlling the
hard workers.:"
So now let's see what is happening in Oslo, Norway. This article says that the city is removing 700 parking spots and getting rid of cars in the downtown city center. So instead of having a gazillion handicapped parking spots, there are now only a few and the city is being set up for use of and benefit by the young and the strong. Essentially, if you can't walk or ride a bike you are no longer on the top tier of the social scheme anymore because everything downtown has been converted for the best and highest use by the young and the strong.
Which is really as it should be because after all, all of this is being paid for by their labor. I see this trend as new but up and coming. The strong will again get their just due because government will need to make friends with them again in order to get them to continue working and paying taxes - something which was not very important in past years when everything was paid for by debt...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That move seems more based in environmentalism than in apathy toward the handicapped.
Hi Drew (wow a non-anon comment!),
I don't disagree. The younger crowd is making the best of what they have. They might not be rich and they might not own a lot of stuff but they are embracing their own physicality (which is a good thing). They are enjoying experiences and keeping fit.
But that doesn't change the fact that all of a sudden the handicapped and weak are not being made center stage somehow in the new plan. At best, they are an afterthought. And as society makes it clear that the weak are no longer the focus of everything, the weak will get the message. In a couple years they won't even bother going downtown because it's just not highly skewed in their favor anymore. And then, based on lack of use of the few handicapped spots, the heads will get rid of all of them and tell the old and weak to take lyft, etc. It will be a stepwise unwind just as it was a stepwise wind up.
Remember, my thesis is that in a normal society the old and weak have a place,but it's on the periphery, not front and center. The liberals made them front and center to buy their votes and then shamed the rest of us (well, most of us) into buying into their agenda. My thesis suggests that the herd has now awakened and is no longer feeling shameful that the weak are not the center of attention. Did you see any handicapped or old people in the pictures from that article? I don't recall having seen any.
Finally, I never expected the government to stand up and make a public declaration about old and weak being taken down a rung in societal importance. Of course they will never say that. But follow the money and follow what they do as opposed to what they say. That will tell you where things are going IMO.
Post a Comment