Our neurotic political policies don't approve of discrimination and regard every individual as sacred and important. In the world of moderns, there are no parasites or destructive criminals, only "unique" people with "certain problems" that easily can be helped thanks to social reforms. Ironically this social safety net is currently breaking down, precisely because the number of people abusing it instead of contributing to it is growing.

It's very simple: a healthy society actively weeds out parasites and onlys offer social safety to healthy people who temporarily need it to move on, not to chronically poor, unemployed, criminal or otherwise dysfunctional individuals/families that don't contribute to society and resent those who can/do. Their nature is to take whatever they can and then run off to the next host. They need to be expelled from society. If they manage to survive on their own, fine. If they don't, who cares? We'll live a happier life without them.

Liberalism arises from human self-pity, and causes us to think backward, so that instead of working toward a goal and liking ourselves for the attempt, we consider ourselves superior for reasons unrelated to reality, and this makes us neurotic.

The basic idea behind liberalism is that life is bad. Nature is bad, and life is bad, because they are scary. We the individuals could die at any minute. Even worse, we could screw up.

Liberalism is a counterattack by human beings against the cruel, cold, evil world. Since we have these big brains, and in them we keep track of the world in our holographic mind-maps, we can choose to edit the map instead of acting on reality. Why strive, when we can just say we did and go home?

The oldest form of this attitude is a kind of social non-aggression pact. It says that we all accept each other and ignore our deficiencies so we can keep the peace. It may be essential in really bad situations to have this type of social order; if all of your friends are morons, and you are one too, it's best not to compete for least moron status.

Liberalism takes this attitude to a new level. Instead of waiting for results, we assume that results prove we as individuals are good, and then whatever happens becomes officially Not Our Fault. You tried to vault a cop car on a motorbike and ended up in a coma? Probably a faulty bike wheel made by a large corporation with ties to Israel or worse, the Church.

Most of our human activity consists in establishing this Not Our Fault level. We do this by not talking about results, but how nice, moral and friendly we are.

This creates a large mob of people committed to denying reality and being useless because they pity themselves. They feel horrible about how evil life is, and how cute little bunnies get ripped apart by fast mean eagles. They start to idolize being useless and nice, instead of possibly mean -- but also smart. Because their thinking is already inverted, they quickly turn this into hating the smart because they could be evil.

When this hits a culture, it invents for itself a further justification -- it's progress, liberal thinking, big-mindedness, open-mindedness, whatever. That's all just advertising and is as sincere as the words of a prostitute or used-car salesperson. People of this mentality like to sabotage any order, authority or consensus as to what reality is, because that way they can hide behind the chaos. Anarchy, libertarianism, weird sex, postmodernism... these are all justifications, not positive and constructive reasons for living.

As part of this whacked-out backward logic, it's important to always champion the underdog. The underdog after all has suffered, and so knows things those of us in comfy homes with stable lives cannot. We didn't die on the cross -- they did. But all of that is the tail end of the backward thinking, with the real goal being this: if we accept the most screwed up people on earth, and with pity make them equal to us, then no matter how screwed-up we are, we should accept and like ourselves.

Chant it with me now: who's going to save us? The slums are going to save us! The sharecroppers will save us! The dropouts, the addicts and the insane! Let's accept everyone, so we can accept ourselves.

This is the psychology of liberalism, leftism, progressivism -- whatever you call it, the origin is crowdism, or the will of the mob to have it be Not Our Fault. Instead of simply fixing themselves, they're seeking external scapegoats and self-esteem builders. The scapegoats are the powerful (God, Kings, corporations, Nature) and the self-esteem builders consist of lifting up the underdogs, praising the neurotic, and of course liking themselves. Backward thinking means you start by liking yourself; you don't like yourself because of anything you've done, learned, conquered or achieved. It's the loser table at high school appointing themselves Fuehrer.

I don't want to boil it all down to money, but money reflects the degree of organization in our society. A sensible society thinks forward: it looks at reality, tries to understand it, and then sets reasonable goals and charges forward to accomplish them. A sick society thinks backward: it congratulates itself on being brilliant, and finds a reason why it is owed money by government or some other large scapegoat. The healthy society thrives and gets more organized; the sick society lapses into greater degrees of disorganization until its population breeds itself back into gibbons and flings poo at the camera.

I think I'd like being a liberal more -- but it's hard to turn my mind off to the consequences of my actions. Because, if you can get over the fact that life ain't fair and we all suffer, you can see this world as a mostly blank canvas in which great things can be constructed. But the liberal psychology turns its back on that, and from fear of it, hopes to destroy it.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan

It's very simple: a healthy society actively weeds out parasites and onlys offer social safety to healthy people who temporarily need it to move on, not to chronically poor, unemployed, criminal or otherwise dysfunctional individuals/families that don't contribute to society and resent those who can/do. Their nature is to take whatever they can and then run off to the next host. They need to be expelled from society. If they manage to survive on their own, fine. If they don't, who cares? We'll live a happier life without them.

<< There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.>>

- Margaret Thatcher

The basis of every totalitarian state is a belief in this fiction idea of "society" and that the "state" must be stronger by ridding itself of paracites:-

- In 1917, Lenin referred to the Middle Cllasses as "paracites".
- In the 1930's, Stalin referred to family farmers as "paracites" and sent them to labour camps.
- In the 1940's, Hitler referred to the Jews and gypsies as "paracites".
- In Rwanda, the Hutu referred to the Tutsi as "cockroaches".

The answer is always the same - mass killings.

Furthermore, even with liberal state intervention, a culture of dependency is built and the average Joe feels no reason to help his fellow man as the state will do that for him.

With the concept of "society" removed, one moves responsibility back to the individual and each of the homeless becomes a person again. It is a tough situation then for the homeless person, particularly if unemployed, but all efforts by individuals to assist will generally move him to a position of self-sufficiency at least whilst ensuring that the true criminals and those where they are through amorality end up where they should be, behind bars.

Originally posted by tigpoppa
These life long slackers can finally be trained in how life works and how america works and how to be a fixture ina society and not just try to skate by on our welfare system.

I understand your frustration with "slackers" and I agree with the other poster who feels liberalism helped bring about what we see today.

What you don't understand is that while the economy was going good the welfare system became a huge money making entity. It's original intent came second to the money that could be made. Now it's purpose is to justify a budget. Employees of the department want to keep just enough people in the system to keep the money flowing. It doesn't matter if some are slackers in fact the system seems to encourage it.

The medical industry has a huge hand in the welfare pot. The department employs vast numbers of people. Welfare is probably the biggest industry in this country.

So while liberals are for social services to a fault, it's the conservatives who find ways to make money off it. The system is full of welfare lifers. The taxpayers are sick enough of welfare how many of these new homeless are very much aware of this fact and won't even ask for help?

Please don't confuse the new homeless families with career welfare recipients. One comes from a family with a work ethic the other does not. The career welfare person is not homeless and probably lives better than most of us.

From what I've read it's school age homeless children that's on the rise. Imo this means it's been a recent development. If the children are in school now they must have had a home when they enrolled. I believe proof of residency must be provided for school enrollment. How many of these kids won't be able to attend school next year because they have no permanent address? If we don't send our kids to school we go to jail then social services steps in...... Instead of work camps we better start building orphanages for all the homeless kids. We're going back in time.

Originally posted by dizziedame
I know this sounds unbelievable but every homeless person is not of good character.

Wow...

So every single homeless person out there is not of good character huh??

I guess you think they all deserve to be homeless?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
So what ever happened to the phrase "Beggers can't be choosers"???


I guess now, by law, beggers can in fact be choosers.

Oh well...I'll still give them an extra apple if I have one.

It isn't the homeless that are usually complaining.

It is the elites doing much of it. They want to control everything and they use this as one of the excuses.

---

---

I have found this whole thread totally vulgar, unecessary and nasty!
This is not just being homeless, this is about absolutely having nothing, apart from the clothes you stand up in.
I work with the homeless and have done for the past 15 years. Believe me i have met them all, from the over qualified Professors, teaterring on the edge of madness to the idle rich, who have lost it all through sheer greed and over endulgence. It's a mixed bag alright?
Work camps? whats that all about? Some people have some funny ideas?
Well take my advice, don't piss anyone off on the way up, cos you never know, you might meet them on the way down!