"For who is it that would decline a perfect existence?"
It may be the root question upon which all other means of the so-called progressives are based and defended; propose Heaven on Earth and then demand from your enemies an explanation as to why they oppose it.
Rhetoric and phraseology are critical elements, for they play on the emotions of the sound-bite generation, relying on support for an agenda that will ultimately destroy the very people from whom that support is sought. The idea has always been to deliver that which they were tricked into requesting.
When enough people are convinced that they are about to be deprived of their wishes - even though those wishes were foisted upon them - they instinctively turn on those who stand in opposition. So it is that our current government is shaping the debate leading up to the mid term elections, and also how they have remained as sympathetic figures in the main stream press. Granted, that media has bought the lie wholesale long ago, but I truly wonder now if they are not a part of the duped masses. The message is powerful.
Draconian restrictions on the lives of ordinary Americans have trumped the concept of liberty for decades with the clarion call being the salvation of our basic needs. Capitalists are successfully portrayed as enemies of clean air and fresh water, regardless of their equal dependence on such staples. Stupid notions of equating massive amounts of monies to the quality of education our young receive have become unassailable.
Common sensibilities have succumbed to a culture of fallacious emotion, fed by the lies of power-hungry politicians, and exploited by the masters of the "campaign du jour". Everything from slavery to education to global warming has been co-opted by the Left as a means to shame us into accepting the false premise that Man can achieve Utopia, and those who believe such rubbish are automatically and sufficiently enraged to the point of violent protest.
Irony is lost on them, however, as turmoil is the first casualty of a Utopian environment. Theoretically, "Utopia" is a place devoid of conflict of any kind. In a Utopian world, no one has wants, no one has needs, no one suffers. While it may sound like a wondrous place, it is inherently impossible in the physical world unless administered by a regime completely absent of conscience. What kind of ruling class would have such a sterile view of governance? What kind of society could maintain that level of enforcement?
The answer lies in Dystopia, probably a few exits down on the highway to Hell.
Dystopia is a place masquerading as Utopia. It has all of the same traits, but is maintained by the brutal suppression of dissent. Liberty and personal expression are viewed as detrimental to the "peace", and are therefore not tolerated. Equal poverty is the norm, and complaints are forbidden. The entire concept is that of a massive collective, where protest is punishable by incarceration.
This entire exercise should be needless, as I should not have to point out the obvious, but the evidence points in the opposite direction. Too many people applaud the approaching exit, apparently relieved at the journey's end, where we pull off the Interstate and into the small town of subjugation, from which we shall never escape.
Personally, I was just thinking of getting a full tank of petrol and hitting the fast lane again. I'll welcome Utopia when my "car" finally breaks down and God - the only Mayor of that town - hands me the key to the city. Sphere: Related Content