One of the most popular memes used by CONservatives to deflect attention from their sociopathy is:
“It is about personal choices and responsibility”
While that meme sounds reasonable, it falls apart upon closer examination- just like every other CONservative meme.
First, the words personal choice imply that there are realistic and reasonably accessible choices for people. But is that true?
A rich white guy or girl caught with a gram of coke might end up doing some community service, while a poor black or white guy might serve time for that same “offense”- even if they had identical prior criminal records. So where is the equality of opportunity required to make a realistic choice?
It gets even worse once you realize that many so-called choices are scams. A good example is the medical community peddling low-fat diets to lose weight. Seriously, what percentage of people have lost and kept off excess weight by eating more vegetables or low-fat foods? Isn’t the whole fruit, vegetables and ‘healthy foods’ meme meant to deflect attention away from the medical professions inability to treat obesity under their current dogmas?
Another good example of widespread fraud perpetrated under the responsibility canard is “wealth management”. How many people have 401ks or other retirement investments which have kept pace with the predictions of the sociopaths who manage their investments?
The reality is:
“Personal choice and responsibility” is a cover to scam, rob, murder, rape and abuse other people.
This begs the question- should such sociopaths or their progeny be shown any mercy or treated better than the scum that they really are?
These links are NSFW.
Another CONservative meme is:
“Whites transfer wealth to non-whites through taxes, affirmative action, laws and insert your reason.”
But is this meme true? Can you really transfer wealth?
For starters wealth is not money- if it was, kings of old would not have died of diseases that we can now treat for less than a dollar. So what is wealth?
Wealth is what a society can achieve at any given time. It is about potential, possibilities and abilities- not money.
A white in a south american country might have more money than an upper middle class person in a western country- but what that person can get, achieve or do is constrained by the adversarial and poor environment around them. Because of the high level of inequality, distrust and resultant competition, their ability to live, move and perform large tasks that require cooperation is severely impaired. That is why brazil is brazil, and the west is the west.
But was the west always like it is now? or was it once more like, say, brazil. If you read enough history, old books, magazines etc it is obvious that the pre-ww2 west was more like brazil.
The west we know was made by transferring money from rich whites to poor whites.
Whether it was achieved through GI bills, “new deals”, labor unions, socialist programs- it was the transfer of money from rich whites to poor whites that made the west a wealthier, safer and more cohesive society. So did this transfer of money from rich whites to poor whites make the west less wealthier? If not, why not?
So why would transferring money from rich whites to poor non-whites make society any worser? It is not as if most rich whites made their money by being productive. Most rich whites have always made their money from rent seeking activities, sweet heart deals, scams, frauds and networking.