What if it's Poison?


Did you ever wonder why most cultures, even ones that were separated by vast oceans, isolated by the highest mountain ranges. or uncrossable deserts, or hidden within the deepest jungles, almost always seem to have similar moral codes?  How can that possibly be?  Their religions are different, their histories are different, their languages are different, their environments are different, their resources are different, their levels or technology are different, yet people of almost every culture, live by a similar code.  Why?

I can tell you why.  Here’s the long version.  (If you’ve been reading the Geese for the better part of a year, you’ve probably seen it.  If you’re a relative newcomer, click on it, and read it.  I promise you, it will be worth your time.)  Here’s the short version:

First you need to understand that we humans are as much a part of nature as a bald eagle, a dolphin, a tiger, or the weeds that grow alongside the road.  Secondly, you need to understand that everything naturally, eventually, returns to equilibrium.  You know what equilibrium is, it’s the state that something will return to, once some outside force that is acting upon it is removed.  No matter how hard we might try to prevent it, equilibrium eventually takes over.  Resistance may not be futile, but it certainly is impossible to maintain indefinitely.  Take a look at what happens if the influence of humans is removed from the world.

Not convinced?  Think that might just be speculation on might happen, but would be impossible to verify?  It has already happened.  Look how nature is reclaiming Chernobyl.

Man can influence nature, but he is also, part of nature, and people, particularly groups of people (cultures) will always return to their state of equilibrium, once some outside influence is removed.  That’s why almost all cultures have similar moral values.  That’s why the code of conduct of so many religions is so similar.  The codes of conduct that most cultures have were not passed down by some high priest, king, or group of elected government officials.  They’re the results of trial and error.  They’re the results of each society experimenting, and finding out, first hand, what works and what doesn’t. They're just the way the pieces just naturally fall into place.

Don’t be so naive to think that any person or group of people, are breaking any new ground, as far as acceptance of human behavior is concerned.  Everything has been tried, more than once, much of it, a very, very long time ago.  

Everyone experiments.  Every person, every group of people.  It’s part of the inquisitive nature of human beings.  Think about the experiments you conduct in your own life, like trying to find a shortcut on the way to work, or substituting ingredients in a recipe. If the experiment produces a desired result, the new course of action you tried, is adopted and endorsed.  If the new course of action produces more trouble than it is worth, you abandon it.

It’s the same way with cultures and societies,  The rules that have been set up to govern people’s behavior were not made up willy nilly, and are not arbitrary in any way.  There is a darned good reason for each and every one of them.  The only problem is that the experiments that were conducted and led to many of these rules have long since been forgotten, and only the rules remain.

The trouble with this is, that it is much easier for people to follow a rule, it they understand the “why” behind it.  Unfortunately, often the why has been lost in the sands of time, and we as a people, are in danger of having to go through the whole process of learning by trial and error, all over again.

Have you ever heard of George Bernard Shaw?  He if famous for being one of the first people to be seriously overrated.  I’m sure you are familiar with one of his many quotes that goes something like this:

You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"

I’m going to cut old George some slack here, he did say some brilliant things.  The quote above however, was not among them.  It implies that he didn’t understand equilibrium as it applies to human behavior  It does however, explain how liberals view the world.  If they see something they don’t like, they don’t even for a moment, ever consider that there just may be a reason why things are the way they are.  Any honest student of nature (and remember, we’re as much a part of nature as the birds in the sky) knows that there’s always a reason that things are the way they are.

“That was your short version?  What was that?  Like nine paragraphs?  Boy, I’m sure glad I didn’t click on your link to the long version.  Where are you going with this, anyway?”

I’m sorry, but please, bear with me.  I’m only about halfway done here, and I don’t know any other way to get my point across.  In order to do it, I’m going to have to discuss three things that might not at first, seem related at all; mouse poison, hate, and liberals.

I live in the country, and when you live in the country, you have to deal with mice.  The two most common ways to do so are to either have cats, or use poison.  There are disadvantages to either mouse control strategy you use.  With poison, you have poison around, and with cats, you have cats around.  Pick your poison.    

In order for mouse poison to work well, it not only needs to be deadly, it needs to be attractive to the mice.  So attractive, that the mice will pass other food sources by.  If they fill up on cheese, they will be too full to eat the poison.  If you are using a good poison, the mice will be under the impression that you are doing them a favor.
“Isn’t that homeowner nice?  He not only lets us live in his house, rent free, but he also feeds us!  What a great guy!”
By the time the mice realize that something’s amiss, it’s too late.

Now, let me take a minute to talk about hate.  When I was a young, I hardly ever heard anyone talking about hate.  Now I do admit, that maybe at first, I wasn’t paying attention.  However, it seems that since I have been, it has become the topic of conversation, more frequently with each passing year, particularly among liberals.  

At first I thought to myself, “ We must really have a problem here in this country.  Every year, people hate more.  We’re heading in the wrong direction.”  Then I realized that the liberals were just redefining the word, using it to describe less and less serious transgressions, to the point where they used hate to describe normal, everyday behavior.  Nowadays, having a desire to have a balanced budget, or require a photo ID for voting, is described as being hateful.

If liberals get away with it, and people accept the new definition of hate (now defined as: anything liberals disagree with), an obvious question will arise - “Is hate a bad thing?”  It used to be, but is it now?  If it’s hateful for people to believe that our federal government should not spend more money than it takes in, is hate a bad thing?  I think that any sane person would say,  “No, hate, now that hate has such a ridiculous definition, is not always a bad thing.

Alright, if all of us sane people are in agreement with that, what about liberal definitions of hate that are just one click lower on the ridiculousness scale?  Is requiring photo ID for voting, hate?  “No.”  Is judging job applicants on merit and credentials alone, hate?  “NO.”  Is criticizing public officials for pushing through laws that infringe on our freedom and put a drag on our economy, hate?  “No.”

You see where I’m going with this?  If you analyze each of the liberal’s charges of hatred, and any that are void of common sense, eventually you will have unravelled the whole liberal agenda for the past 40 years.  You will notice that most of the things that fall under their new definition of hate are not necessarily bad.  Suddenly hate doesn’t look so evil anymore, and and you will also start to notice how the liberals actually done more harm to the people that they claim that they are trying to help (and everyone else) than good.

Liberals have been proven wrong so many times.
  • They said that Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker’s policies wouldn’t work - but they did.
  • They said that gun control would reduce gun violence - but it didn’t.
  • They said government spending would bring us out of the recession - but it didn’t.
  • They said that tax cuts wouldn’t stimulate the economy - but Reagan, and even Kennedy, proved them wrong.
  • Their soft on crime approach - hasn’t worked.
  • Their soft on tyrants approach - hasn’t worked.
  • Everyday, we find out some new reason that their dream of socialized medicine is a disaster.
It might not be easier to think of all the things liberals were right about than wrong, but it sure would be a shorter list.

How many times would someone have to let you down before you lost all confidence in him and started to refused his offers of help?  This is what I don’t understand about people who as a group, tend to vote for Democrats.  Why do blacks support Democrats?  What have they done for them?  The Democrats have taken away so many black people’s independence, destroyed so many of their families, even destroyed the cities where many of them live, yet the vast majority of blacks still vote for Democrats.  This destruction didn’t come cheap either. Billions of tax dollars were spent. Everyone lost on this “liberals are going to make things better” deal.  Blacks, whites, and everyone of every race and culture who is an American citizen.  

Liberals have always done more harm than good to any group of people that they say they are trying to help, because they are not truly interested in helping them.  Liberals are interested in expanding their own power, and they get and keep that power by turning disadvantaged people into people who are dependent on government.  It’s like a good poison, it looks attractive, but by the time that people realize that things are actually getting worse for them, it’s too late.

I can’t blame blacks for feeling jaded.  I understand why they might be suspicious of anyone who claims that their way might be better for them, but you would think by now, they might be looking for some type of change out of sheer desperation. Kind of like hail mary pass.

         It has gotten the point where anything liberals say, should be treated with suspicion, even if it appears at first glance to make perfect sense. If you don’t yet believe what I’m saying, take a look at Detroit.  Fifty years ago, it had one ot the highest per capita incomes of any city in the U.S., but after fifty years of Democratic control, the liberals have not only destroyed the lives of many of the very people they said that they were trying to help, they destroyed the entire city.  Look at these pictures.  The liberals caused damage that most people would have thought could only be possible as the result of a natural disaster or war.  Liberals want you to believe that they’re all about fairness, and in a way they are.  When liberals gain control, everybody loses, and what for?  So liberals can have power?  So liberals can have their crack at creating a socialists’ utopia?  Can you think of anything more selfish?  More thoughtless?  More evil?  How many more examples are we going to have to suffer through before the general population understands this?

Human beings are part of nature, and like with any part of nature, things aren’t always pretty, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not necessary.  “Can’t we all just get along?”  Maybe not, and maybe we shouldn’t.  I’m not advocating a race war or anything like that here, but what I am saying is that no matter what race, culture, or group you belong to, there’s nothing wrong with saying that the one you belong to is the best, and if you believe it, that means holding the people of the group to which you belong, to the highest standards.

Saying, thinking, and believing, “People in my group should be above crime.  People in my group are above laziness.  People in my group are above dependency”, and shunning people in your group that don’t live up to these standards.  How can that possibly do harm to people of any other group?  It can’t, but do you ever hear liberals advocating such thinking?  No, and you never will.  Competition can improve cultures, the same way it improves industries.  It’s simply a matter of striving to be the best, compared to whoever else that’s out there.

If you were to ask 100 liberals how we might be able to make things better for any particular group of people it is almost certain, that you would not get one response that didn’t involve taking away something from some other group of people.  Wealth distribution is a disincentive for both the people on the giving and the receiving end.  It’s destined for failure, and everybody loses.

Now one last word for anyone out there supporting the gay rights, or feminism, or undocumented workers, or animal rights, or the environment, or whatever.  I’ve already explained to you twice now, why I think why things are the way they are, and you are free to reject my theory if you wish, but consider this.  Who are the ones that are pushing your agenda through government?  The liberals, right?   Now, ask yourself this -  What if the liberals are just offering something that looks good on the surface, but ultimately will cause you, or whatever it is that you support (and all the rest of us) harm?  What if they are offering more of the same ideas, false promises, and counterproductive strategies that have created a multitude of unintended consequences, and ruined the lives of so many other people?
No chance?  Some chance, but you’re willing to risk it?  Given the liberals track record, it is definitely worth consideration.  Before you sign on to the liberal agenda, you ought to be asking yourselves, “What if it’s poison?”

No comments:

Post a Comment