The depressing part is socialism spreads because people like their freebies. They like being dependent. They will passionately vote for the candidate, party and agenda that keeps those freebies flowing. If anyone objects, they are called racist, intolerant and – oh yeah – "holding back the progression of mankind."
Free people are responsible people. They have to be. And the more responsible the people, the fewer laws are needed. But when we stop acting responsibly and start relying on the government for everything, we become a nation of whining victims where nothing is ever our fault and the government assumes the responsibility that should have been ours.
Government interference and the enthusiastic redistribution of wealth will bring this nation to its knees. And it's hard to progress anywhere when you're crawling on your knees.
But socialists will never agree. They simply do not grasp that the advancement of 5,000 years will never PROgress under their form of government. Instead, it will REgress.
So to those who honestly think that socialism results in the progression of mankind, I offer the best intellectual reply I can muster:
I was a college grad, in the Air Force, and trying to decide how to spend the rest of my life and career after I finished my 4 year commitment (which I extended for another 8 months). And then, in 1980, along came Ronald Reagan, who inspired me to understand why freedom is so important. I began to comprehend why America was the shining city on the hill. The United States was the beacon of freedom, where we had the opportunity to use our God given abilities to get ahead. Well, that was how I thought it was supposed to be. At the same time, I actually started learning about free enterprise, entrepreneurship, and capitalism, and in the same year, I joined Amway.
In the attempt to succeed at Amway, I learned about commitment. I found out that a lot of commitment was needed to succeed, no matter what vehicle you were going to use. I did all that I could to "share the plan by drawing the circles" to as many people as possible! In the process, I learned about failure despite our best efforts. Was it because I wasn't competent enough to teach people how to do the business? No. Was it because I just didn't have the charisma to lead an organization or to inspire people to do what it takes? Maybe.
But, before I explain what I think led to my failure in "the business," I need to assure you that I am not blaming anyone but myself. I'm only telling you about that experience because it fits perfectly with what Patrice explains in this column.
You see, my belief was in the American entrepreneurial spirit, and the precept that everyone has a dream, and if offered an opportunity, would do what ever it took. That was how I was raised. When I was a kid, if I wanted something bad enough, I'd mow a lawn. I did whatever it took. I had the impression that everybody knew that! So, I did my best to try to recruit (sponsor) people that didn't seem to have a way to get ahead. I knew that a lack of education or social status didn't mean that it was impossible to change our financial status if we wanted to bad enough. I believed that there were many people that just needed something that they could do (and I knew how "easy" Amway actually was!), and I was more than willing to help and teach and love them despite their current position in life, despite financial status, skin color or religion.
But when I learned how many people were thinking, it shattered my faith in the American spirit. It was disturbing how many people had lost their dream, and were "dead from the neck up." This was when I found out that if somebody was able to collect on some government entitlements, they weren't willing to even consider committing any effort toward bettering their lives. I found that their dreams were either never there, or had already been extinguished.
So, when you read this terrific column by Patrice, would you please keep in mind that if it was that way over 30 years ago, just how "progressive" are things now? Has "class envy" replaced the work ethic? Yes. And yes, it is really sad that somebody even tried to explain to Patrice why she is "holding back the progression of mankind."
So, how are we supposed to turn around a general societal attitude like that? Maybe there just needs to be a lot more Amway distributors out there, teaching a few people - or even ONE! - at a time about the differences between capitalism and socialism, and that we have to eventually choose between freedom or slavery. And that the truth is, freedom or slavery IS a choice! Nobody (yet) is holding a gun to anyone's head to make that choice. It's just about attitude and hanging out with people that will give you a hand up, rather than a hand out. I'm just sayin'...
* * *
I'm holding back the progression of mankind!
By Patrice Lewis
May 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
I got the funniest email this week. It seems someone found an older column of mine entitled "What is a socialist?" (I'll pause if you care to read it.) Then he sent the following: You're [sic] excerpt on socialism … is disgusting. Way to bend every little fact you can find to your bias. All you're doing is holding back the progression of mankind.
The sad part is the sender apparently believes what he wrote. Putting aside the amusing presumption that a north Idaho housewife is somehow responsible for arresting the development of the civilized world, I laughed heartily at his last statement.
If an aversion to socialism is holding back the progression of mankind, the corollary is that socialism will advance the progression of mankind. If this is the case, we need only to look at socialist countries, past and present, to gauge the success of how mankind is progressing under that form of government.
Let's see, there's the (former) USSR. North Korea. Venezuela. Cuba. Charming places, all of them. I can hardly wait to arrange my next vacation.
Then there are the (cough) "successful" socialist countries in Europe, which are slowly imploding because (to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher) they finally ran out of other peoples' money.
The usual progressive argument is, "Well, this time it will be different." Um, no. It can never be different because human nature never changes. Those in power will always wish to grow stronger and more in control. Those without power will, sooner or later, lose all incentive and motivation if the fruits of their labor are routinely taken from them. And those who are dependent on government entitlements will do everything they can to stay dependent, and demand more.
Ah, entitlements. That is the crux of the whole ugly scenario. Entitlements, as any sane person knows, means forcibly removing and redistributing personal wealth at the point of a gun. Far too many progressives are delighted to remove other peoples' money and pass it around. They cannot and will not admit that redistribution of wealth is a lose-lose scenario. The earner loses incentive to work harder because it only means more of his money is taken; and the receiver loses the incentive to earn his own because he is supplied with free money. Pretty obvious, right?
READ MORE at WND.com
Don't be afraid!
YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
WE the PEOPLEare the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear