Copulating with Coprolites: The Unveiled Mechanism of Governance by Progressive Liberalism in California[1]

There has been much imbecilic blathering and blue sky gazing since our ancients attempted to organize various societies into some form of governable mass. Most of the attempts [and even histories of the attempts] are worth not so much as their weight in dry cat litter given even a brief reflection on how things turned out in many societies. The historians are not reliable, we find after some analyses and comparison of parallel accounts of the same incidents, as the temptation to redact the original records and to insert excuses and plain lies are irresistible. There are so many theories that the path forward to what some think might be a just and equitable society is merely an overgrown jungle festooned with toxic notions and far-away  pipe dreams lurking near every tree. The quest for firm solutions to such problems is like copulating with coprolites; there is no possible issue so to speak—unless you are a Californian.

The Greeks were marginally successful, arguably in a limited sense, until they lost hegemony of their security awareness and became slaves or all sorts and flavors to an interesting array of masters. The Romans did a bit better for a thousand years although they were practicing unvarying warfare with the known world and many times with themselves. We can wonder how societies progressed from cave dwellers to high priests and note, with some cloudy visualization, that most social systems were failures if you care to inspect the outcomes and compare them with modern notions of societies. In theory, we might want to put up a rigid set of metrics to measure and evaluate various governments based on human rights, murder rates, caloric intake, war, opera and other key parameters and bring into line governments from the ancient Egyptians to the present in some proper order. When we attempt this we tend, not surprisingly, to notice that nasty leaders like Attila, Hitler and Genghis Khan have had their counterparts all along the historical trail. It is difficult to ignore the similarities among Hitler, Stalin, Robespierre, James Jones, Pol Pot, The Ayotollah Khomeini and Robert Mugabe when you start to count bodies and look at the supply of food and tabulate who sleeps where.  The salient fact that these unsavory creatures are randomly spaced along the historical timeline from the earliest known periods of recorded history, or from legends, which is probably more accurate in some cases, thus this observation nullifies the perception that we, as a society, learn from our mistakes and misdeeds and make continuous improvement in our states. Actually, the data point to the reciprocal conclusion: we have learned nothing from the past. Repeating the past is good politics. Worse, we probably know less about the present[2] than the redacted past[3] and essentially nothing about the short-term future. [4] The ignoranti have a cornucopia of alternatives thus broad license to experiment.

Thus, we find a compelling reason to adjust or redact certain obtuse portions of history for social reasons and can safely ignore complaints about accuracy if the outcomes are potentially rosy or aligned with leftist wishes. Observers of our society like the Fabian maverick George Orwell have fairly well characterized the ultimate methods of governments with the following:

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past".—Slogan from 1984 by George Orwell.

There is much to be said about the political efficacy of this slogan. It contains all the necessary elements to fix up the present, future and past and roll then into one tight and juicy egg role for all to enjoy.  Karl Marx had a grand opportunity to meld the romantic elements of J. J. Rousseau with some vigilantly selected tidbits of history, glossed over, necessarily,  by forcing a strict theory upon the helpless little accounts, and thus by manufacturing  a grand plan to eliminate not only inequities in our production of goods and services but government altogether. You can have a nice administration that way if you merely use lies and firing squads to glue together some of the more flaccid elements of a given society.

Winston Churchill summed up the results of his opposing line of thinking some three years after the October Revolution:

"....But my hatred of Bolshevism and Bolsheviks is not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality. It arises from the bloddy and devastating terrorism which they practise in every land into which they have broken, and my which alone their criminal regime can be maintained...."— Text of Winston Churchill's July 8th, 1920, British House of Commons, Amritsar Massacre Speech By Winston Churchill  given July 8th, 1920[5] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Of course, he had a bad attitude. This inspection sweeps a lot of mystery, fluff and hokum away from the totalitarian chimera and unveils in bright lights the sordid prevarication that Marxism was making some contribution to society at that early date and, recall for a moment, that the acolytes of Bolshevism persisted until 1989 in the USSR alone. In Africa, it has flourished since 1948, or so, and is the most popular form of government on the southern half of that continent. In order to get positive results from the process of Marxism it is necessary to plaster up a stipulation that shooting the dissidents in order or at random provides extra staples and good times for the blindly obedient even though the theory for this positive outcome borders and brushes upon the recalcitrant capitalist supply and demand schedule that was summarily abolished. A little tribalism helps too. Pol Pot was able to homogenize his people by fairly and judiciously deselecting members of his society using a reverse cognitive skill scale. This worked out quite well and most of his people were finally essentially equal.  A lot of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

This, then, leaves us with a fine theory, although unworkable as it is in the primitive sate, to move forward and convince or intimidate the masses with the indomitable notion that capitalism is at the very root of all social problems. The obvious conclusion [and also the  posted premise before any tedious research], thusly, is that we must eliminate or suppress capitalism and that that commission, alone, will offer society the kind of relief from capitalist oppression and that we need to restructure government. California has reached that authentic shining pinnacle with their current government. [6] It has also broached a stubborn conundrum.  Can this process bear fruit? Can we continue to make political love to ancient rocks that bear opposing messages? Yes, in California!  All it takes is massive quantities of somebody else’s money in grand supply and some drugs.  It is as simple to understand as a late-term abortion.

Everything is running smoothly in California and other state entities that emulate the Sacramento government. They mature politically as they noisily proffer ‘concern’ for the Little Guy and lament the meager intake of tax returns.   Others can approach the apex of their educational skills and egalitarianism by exercising California-style norms. We offer examples such as New York[7], New Jersey and probably Maryland. Of this esteemed group, the wheels of education and levers of government are serenely greased by narcotics, high taxes, reverse racism and lofty song. They have solid majorities in the legislative branches, strong support in the executive and judicial branches in most examples and have fine educational and instructional programs in place to train or retrain, if necessary by force, the polis. The ballot boxes are overflowing with the absentee votes of illegal aliens who are thankful for the tax-free work environment, the state’s placid toleration of violent crime, which is a necessary element of their dope business, and free medical service. There is no reason that well-meaning Californian legislators cannot create fine ideas in the form of offspring from love-ins with boxes of rocks, some handy crack pipes or other phantasms. This is just a rerun of Woodstock.

This was all achieved by being generous and progressive with hiring state employees of the strictest union bent, of running the tax spigot at full throttle whenever possible and of showing benefits unseen in the world to date upon their loyal partners in government. Gladness is everywhere and the degree of happiness spreads arithmetically with each and every greedy capitalist who flees the state in search of a less hostile environment to do traditional business at tax levels that permit small profits. Profits are evil and CEOs are lazy and stupid. California is refining its society in the image of pure liberalism.

Everything wonderful has happened that could happen except that some Republican has signaled that the spending is too high and taxes cannot be raised high enough to pay for the current government. He was actually elected after a recall of a Democrat. There is a major error here. There is the tacky right-wing problem of debt. This unnecessary distress that has interrupted this melodrama of late is caused by the ‘rich’ avariciously avoiding taxes coupled with the constitutional inability of the state to tax them to such an extent that we can all enjoy prosperity and sing songs of joy at every special increment in the tax load. California’s progress is limited only by Winston Churchill’s aversion to devastating terrorism and the absence thereof. They cannot, for the moment, just whack their opponents Cuban style. Thus, we face some alternatives:

[1] The state can receive well-deserved alms from the federal government or elsewhere while the tax battle continues to whittle down capitalists, private property disputes and tax levels or…

[2] The state can confiscate wealth in any and every form and monetize those assets to pay for the current social programs and cover the 24 bln debt[8] or

[3] They can use the Cambodian Method of Social Cleansing to eliminate those excesses that clog the system with capitalists and their greedy corporations.

With [1] we return to bliss and continue on building the ideal society.  Why shouldn’t the Other 49 be charged for this advanced instruction in government? With [2], as only a few Republicans stand mired in the error of their ways, the natural flow into egalitarianism follows in due course.  The money will be properly collected and more properly spent. The greedy will be made to apologize for their abuses. But, [3] is still a little messy with the current state of talk radio and other communication avenues.  They cannot, as yet, pull a Waco in just any old political district in California without good cause. But, a tax revolt might set up such a tactic. Full control of the media is mandatory for a successful society as we find in Cuba and the shrunken remains of the USSR. Such programs were highly successful in Cuba and North Korea and continue today to offer a faultless example of how the best societies can be had only by solving the difficulties in identifying and promoting the right leaders to power with minimal opposition.

But, saved by the notion that ‘California is too big to fail’ we can press onward with our educational systems[9], confiscative taxation of the rich and control of most goods and services, particularly medicine, food and transportation. The hope that Obama will bring gifts of quantitative easements and such are promising and the only proper solution to the problems they face in the Golden State.

Thus, the direction is clear and we need to dig deep into our white male pockets and extract as much money and wealth as we possibly can to give the artists and innovators in Sacramento the freedom to create the kind of society they deserve. Call your legislators today and beg them to hike your taxes so Obama can send some of that to California. We have to be fair.

rycK

 Comments: ryckki@gmail.com