What happens when one party promises all manner of "free" stuff to their supporters? Answer: South Africa
What happens when incompetent, greedy or corrupt politicians exploit envy and racism to take over a once-great nation?
As you could probably guess, it ain't good.
And as it happens, we don't have to simply guess about that: We know exactly what happens--from the experience of... South Africa??
Yep. That nation--once the richest and most advanced in all of Africa--walked that path first, starting 20 years ago. So we can either study their experience, learn what triggered their collapse--and thus what we have to do if we wish to avoid following them down the same path, or...we can allow the usual Democratic and RINO politicians to block all efforts to take the actions necessary if we want to avoid South Africa's tragic fate.
Just so we're clear, if we don't act, the U.S. will see virtually the same results here as South Africa has suffered.
Of course you don't know what's happened in South Africa, so you don't know if what's happened there is a fate we should avoid. And the Mainstream Lying Media has been *very* careful not to tell you. So you can't be blamed for not knowing.
I'm about to change that. And you're welcome to verify everything for yourself. So you won't be able to say you didn't know what you were welcoming by supporting your Democrat masters in not acting to change the result.
So: South Africa has become a disaster, because the country's politicians--like many in other countries--told their followers that "the system" was *unfair* to 'em. They told their followers that together they could take over the country and put the allegedly "oppressed" class on top while making their alleged oppressors suffer.
They promised their followers that if the followers would help the pols take over the country, the pols would give their supporters loads of "freebies"--whether cash, services, cell phones, food--anything. This is the basis of the term "FSA"--free-shit army--and its appeal is obvious.
It's hardly surprising that millions of low-functioning people find the offer of power and "freebies" incredibly attractive. And once incompetent or corrupt politicians let this genie out of the bottle there are only 3 possible outcomes: either
Think about it: Ever hear Democrat politicians telling their supporters that our current system is totally unfair to 'em? And that as a result their followers deserve "free" shit? (Free to them, of course; they don't care who actually has to pay to provide it to 'em.)
Not surprisingly, when one party makes it a top priority to give their voters everything they need, people who don't believe work has any positive value--and thus don't want to work for a living--will stop doing so.
Of course liberals will counter that the standard of living for those on welfare is low--implying that no one would choose welfare over a job. But of course for many people the low income of welfare (in all its forms) doesn't lead them to try to find work. After all, work is hard. Far more fun to watch TV, have lunch with friends and sit on the porch drinking and getting high in the evening.
For people who don't see working for a living as particularly positive, this is a no-brainer.
So the free-shit-army invariably gets larger. Eventually the number of people working (and paying taxes) isn't enough to support the FSA, and the economy collapses.
Do you think the politicians stoking the flames of envy in the free-shit-army will suddenly realize that their scheme will destroy the nation? Not bloody likely, cupcake.
If you've worked most of your life and have a home and family you've probably started to realize that the only ways Democrats can get the freebies to give their followers are either by raising taxes on you, or diverting government spending from some other function, like defense or highways. Short answer is that they want to take what you have--whether by force or by forcing you to pay out the ass to support their supposed "freebies."
Democrats contemptuously denigrate this concern by accusing you of "fear of minorities."
If the Dems continue to fan the flames you'll be faced with one of three choices: You can either give the corrupt government everything you have that's more than the poor have. Or you can vote out politicians--in both parties--who are so morally bankrupt that they'd happily destroy the United States by supporting this scheme.
Or, if you don't feel the first two choices are likely, the only other possibility I can see is...civil war.
Let's see how well turning South Africa--once the most prosperous nation in all of Africa--over to the free-shit-army worked for South Africans. Certainly there was vast inequality of wealth in S.A, which liberals loudly proclaim is a bad thing. But isn't it interesting that you almost never see a wealthy liberal giving away his or her personal wealth, eh? Or inviting a hundred "refugees" or illegal immigrants to move into their palatial homes, eh Hillary?
But trust 'em, it's absolutely, totally *wrong* for some people to be wealthy when others are poor. The undeniable fact that rich Democrats don't give their wealth away is of course ignored. Cuz, Democrats.
South Africa was settled by Brits and "Boers"--Dutch. By 1960 it had become by far the most prosperous nation in all of Africa. Not surprisingly, blacks from all over Africa flocked to S.A. because the economy offered what Democrats and libs see as the most awful of curses: jobs.
By 1960 blacks outnumbered whites by almost ten to one, yet the government was still run by whites--which made the country a massive target for liberals in other western countries. It just wasn't *fair*, liberals argued, that the white minority ran the government. And in many ways the government certainly did oppress blacks. (And for the record I oppose actual oppression.)
So liberal western governments organized a total boycott of South Africa to pressure the white government into turning control of the country over to blacks. And the only black party at the time was the communist "African National Congress" (ANC) headed by Nelson Mandela.
Many western analysts were...um, highly skeptical that giving control of the country to the communists would work well. But just as with the momentum surrounding Obamacare here, skeptics were ignored. The liberal juggernaut said the white government must turn control over to the majority, regardless of the economic risk. And facing the disapproval of the entire western world, the white government capitulated.
The handover of control of the government to the ANC happened around 1994, and since then life in South Africa has gone straight downhill: First the new government seized thousands of white-owned farms and gave the land to their supporters. "Unexpectedly," South Africa's food production plummeted, and the country is now forced to import food. The nation's reserves of foreign currency are nearly exhausted.
Because the communist government spends far more than it grabs in tax revenue, the nation's currency has plunged to barely a tenth of its pre-handover value. The Los Angeles Times reports *official* unemployment--*not including* people who have "given up looking for work" (sound familiar?) is 27%. (And that's from a total Democrat-supporting paper, so it's virtually an admission against interest.)
Another indicator of total incompetence is electricity blackouts: Before the hand-over South Africa produced about 20 percent more electricity than it used, and it sold the surplus to neighboring nations. Today South Africa no longer produces enough electricity even to meet its own needs, and rolling blackouts are common. The only power production capacity is government-owned and totally corrupt.
Part of the problem is that a large number of residents in big cities simply refuse to pay their electric bills, since they know that the government won't cut off any of its supporters.
Even municipal water service is becoming unreliable, as the new government either didn't realize that keeping up with the needs of a fast-growing population meant *someone* would need to build more reservoirs--or far worse, simply ignored the obvious, predictable future demand because they wanted to spend the estimated cost on...something else.
Police corruption has become so bad that many white parents tell their children not to bother even reporting assaults, robberies or even rape to the cops. A murder can be witnessed by a dozen people and captured on video, yet the killer is freed before trial because the case folder mysteriously disappears from police custody.
So...can Americans learn anything from the bitter experience of SA (which is about to get *far* worse)?
Some of you can. Liberals / Democrats will probably refuse to learn because it would cause too much "cognitive dissonance." But we'll try.
You'd think it would be easy for most rational adults to understand that no matter how noble the *goals* of a program may be, if it's not soundly conceived--including the "how"--the results are inevitably terrible.
There's a great analogy if you've ever looked inside a computer. (If not it won't be useful to ya'): There's a big printed-circuit board in 'em, with lots of chips mounted on it. Imagine it's stopped working, and that you know one of the tiny joints has gotten unsoldered. (If you're not a techie, solder is a silvery metal that you melt to make a connection, like conductive glue.) You've got a soldering iron.
Whaddya think the chances are that randomly flicking molten droplets of solder onto the circuit board will fix the computer? So...great goal, poor method of achieving it--like so many ideas crammed onto a society by a command-style government.
But of course all Democrat leaders think *their* ideas are, like, totally faaabulous, so they don't pay a lot of attention to what they consider "trivial details." Like cost. Seems like their involvement usually ends with "Ooooh, this would make me look *so* good to my peers--and to voters! So we have to make the government do it!"
For example, Hillary's proposal to "make college free" for middle-class students sounds simply faabulous--unless you sit down and actually do the math.
Or take medical care. Whether you think medical care is a basic human right or not, conservatives warned voters that if congress passed a Democrat-rammed law that forced everyone in the U.S. to buy "special" health insurance (i.e. approved by the Obama administration)--and let the government give taxpayer money to people who couldn't afford the now-mandatory insurance, the result wouldn't work as the Dems claimed.
Predictably, the Dems rammed it through congress anyway--without a single Republican vote. In fact they had to use a series of parliamentary tricks to dance around clear prohibitions in the Constitution. For example, to avoid the Constitutional requirement that all revenue measures had to be introduced by the House, the Democrat leadership (Pelosi) took a bill on a totally different topic, removed EVERY WORD of its language, and inserted the language of Obamacare.
One of the main architects of Obamacare--Jon Gruber--was later caught on video (twice) bragging that the emperor's people were only able to pass it because they deliberately made the bill's language confusing, and Americans were too dumb to understand the details. Which allowed them to throw out catchy lies like "The average family will save $2500 a year."
And "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
And "If you like your current health insurance plan you can keep it."
But hey, great idea, eh?
So...If you don't want this nation to duplicate South Africa's fate you've still got three choices. You remember what they were, right?
You probably don't. But if you don't, don't worry--everything will be just fine. Hillary will continue the faaabulous policies of our current emperor. Even if Republicans should manage to hang onto a tiny majority in congress, they can't change anything because the new queen will simply threaten a veto, and the Repubs don't remotely have enough votes to override a veto, as now. So essentially it'll be a third Obama term.
Eh, no problem, citizen. Everything's fine. "The economy is booming, job creation is great" (all this is sarcasm, in case you weren't sure), "illegal immigration is at an all-time low" and race relations are better than at any time in the past. Well at least that's what your emperor has said--all caught on video. And like, has he ever lied to you before?
BTW, I'm *not* a Trump fan--I'll readily admit this election is between the lesser of two bad choices. I just know what Hillary is. With her at the helm, chances of the nation avoiding South Africa's fate are virtually zero.
As you could probably guess, it ain't good.
And as it happens, we don't have to simply guess about that: We know exactly what happens--from the experience of... South Africa??
Yep. That nation--once the richest and most advanced in all of Africa--walked that path first, starting 20 years ago. So we can either study their experience, learn what triggered their collapse--and thus what we have to do if we wish to avoid following them down the same path, or...we can allow the usual Democratic and RINO politicians to block all efforts to take the actions necessary if we want to avoid South Africa's tragic fate.
Just so we're clear, if we don't act, the U.S. will see virtually the same results here as South Africa has suffered.
Of course you don't know what's happened in South Africa, so you don't know if what's happened there is a fate we should avoid. And the Mainstream Lying Media has been *very* careful not to tell you. So you can't be blamed for not knowing.
I'm about to change that. And you're welcome to verify everything for yourself. So you won't be able to say you didn't know what you were welcoming by supporting your Democrat masters in not acting to change the result.
So: South Africa has become a disaster, because the country's politicians--like many in other countries--told their followers that "the system" was *unfair* to 'em. They told their followers that together they could take over the country and put the allegedly "oppressed" class on top while making their alleged oppressors suffer.
They promised their followers that if the followers would help the pols take over the country, the pols would give their supporters loads of "freebies"--whether cash, services, cell phones, food--anything. This is the basis of the term "FSA"--free-shit army--and its appeal is obvious.
It's hardly surprising that millions of low-functioning people find the offer of power and "freebies" incredibly attractive. And once incompetent or corrupt politicians let this genie out of the bottle there are only 3 possible outcomes: either
- people who have worked all their lives surrender and let the "oppressed" take what they have, or
- those who support the class-warfare pushers eventually realize that demanding freebies absolutely ensures the eventual death of the society; or
- civil war, as the people who don't want to surrender to the class-warfare pols resist having the pols take everything away from them.
Think about it: Ever hear Democrat politicians telling their supporters that our current system is totally unfair to 'em? And that as a result their followers deserve "free" shit? (Free to them, of course; they don't care who actually has to pay to provide it to 'em.)
Not surprisingly, when one party makes it a top priority to give their voters everything they need, people who don't believe work has any positive value--and thus don't want to work for a living--will stop doing so.
Of course liberals will counter that the standard of living for those on welfare is low--implying that no one would choose welfare over a job. But of course for many people the low income of welfare (in all its forms) doesn't lead them to try to find work. After all, work is hard. Far more fun to watch TV, have lunch with friends and sit on the porch drinking and getting high in the evening.
For people who don't see working for a living as particularly positive, this is a no-brainer.
So the free-shit-army invariably gets larger. Eventually the number of people working (and paying taxes) isn't enough to support the FSA, and the economy collapses.
Do you think the politicians stoking the flames of envy in the free-shit-army will suddenly realize that their scheme will destroy the nation? Not bloody likely, cupcake.
If you've worked most of your life and have a home and family you've probably started to realize that the only ways Democrats can get the freebies to give their followers are either by raising taxes on you, or diverting government spending from some other function, like defense or highways. Short answer is that they want to take what you have--whether by force or by forcing you to pay out the ass to support their supposed "freebies."
Democrats contemptuously denigrate this concern by accusing you of "fear of minorities."
If the Dems continue to fan the flames you'll be faced with one of three choices: You can either give the corrupt government everything you have that's more than the poor have. Or you can vote out politicians--in both parties--who are so morally bankrupt that they'd happily destroy the United States by supporting this scheme.
Or, if you don't feel the first two choices are likely, the only other possibility I can see is...civil war.
Let's see how well turning South Africa--once the most prosperous nation in all of Africa--over to the free-shit-army worked for South Africans. Certainly there was vast inequality of wealth in S.A, which liberals loudly proclaim is a bad thing. But isn't it interesting that you almost never see a wealthy liberal giving away his or her personal wealth, eh? Or inviting a hundred "refugees" or illegal immigrants to move into their palatial homes, eh Hillary?
But trust 'em, it's absolutely, totally *wrong* for some people to be wealthy when others are poor. The undeniable fact that rich Democrats don't give their wealth away is of course ignored. Cuz, Democrats.
South Africa was settled by Brits and "Boers"--Dutch. By 1960 it had become by far the most prosperous nation in all of Africa. Not surprisingly, blacks from all over Africa flocked to S.A. because the economy offered what Democrats and libs see as the most awful of curses: jobs.
By 1960 blacks outnumbered whites by almost ten to one, yet the government was still run by whites--which made the country a massive target for liberals in other western countries. It just wasn't *fair*, liberals argued, that the white minority ran the government. And in many ways the government certainly did oppress blacks. (And for the record I oppose actual oppression.)
So liberal western governments organized a total boycott of South Africa to pressure the white government into turning control of the country over to blacks. And the only black party at the time was the communist "African National Congress" (ANC) headed by Nelson Mandela.
Many western analysts were...um, highly skeptical that giving control of the country to the communists would work well. But just as with the momentum surrounding Obamacare here, skeptics were ignored. The liberal juggernaut said the white government must turn control over to the majority, regardless of the economic risk. And facing the disapproval of the entire western world, the white government capitulated.
The handover of control of the government to the ANC happened around 1994, and since then life in South Africa has gone straight downhill: First the new government seized thousands of white-owned farms and gave the land to their supporters. "Unexpectedly," South Africa's food production plummeted, and the country is now forced to import food. The nation's reserves of foreign currency are nearly exhausted.
Because the communist government spends far more than it grabs in tax revenue, the nation's currency has plunged to barely a tenth of its pre-handover value. The Los Angeles Times reports *official* unemployment--*not including* people who have "given up looking for work" (sound familiar?) is 27%. (And that's from a total Democrat-supporting paper, so it's virtually an admission against interest.)
Another indicator of total incompetence is electricity blackouts: Before the hand-over South Africa produced about 20 percent more electricity than it used, and it sold the surplus to neighboring nations. Today South Africa no longer produces enough electricity even to meet its own needs, and rolling blackouts are common. The only power production capacity is government-owned and totally corrupt.
Part of the problem is that a large number of residents in big cities simply refuse to pay their electric bills, since they know that the government won't cut off any of its supporters.
Even municipal water service is becoming unreliable, as the new government either didn't realize that keeping up with the needs of a fast-growing population meant *someone* would need to build more reservoirs--or far worse, simply ignored the obvious, predictable future demand because they wanted to spend the estimated cost on...something else.
Police corruption has become so bad that many white parents tell their children not to bother even reporting assaults, robberies or even rape to the cops. A murder can be witnessed by a dozen people and captured on video, yet the killer is freed before trial because the case folder mysteriously disappears from police custody.
So...can Americans learn anything from the bitter experience of SA (which is about to get *far* worse)?
Some of you can. Liberals / Democrats will probably refuse to learn because it would cause too much "cognitive dissonance." But we'll try.
You'd think it would be easy for most rational adults to understand that no matter how noble the *goals* of a program may be, if it's not soundly conceived--including the "how"--the results are inevitably terrible.
There's a great analogy if you've ever looked inside a computer. (If not it won't be useful to ya'): There's a big printed-circuit board in 'em, with lots of chips mounted on it. Imagine it's stopped working, and that you know one of the tiny joints has gotten unsoldered. (If you're not a techie, solder is a silvery metal that you melt to make a connection, like conductive glue.) You've got a soldering iron.
Whaddya think the chances are that randomly flicking molten droplets of solder onto the circuit board will fix the computer? So...great goal, poor method of achieving it--like so many ideas crammed onto a society by a command-style government.
But of course all Democrat leaders think *their* ideas are, like, totally faaabulous, so they don't pay a lot of attention to what they consider "trivial details." Like cost. Seems like their involvement usually ends with "Ooooh, this would make me look *so* good to my peers--and to voters! So we have to make the government do it!"
For example, Hillary's proposal to "make college free" for middle-class students sounds simply faabulous--unless you sit down and actually do the math.
Or take medical care. Whether you think medical care is a basic human right or not, conservatives warned voters that if congress passed a Democrat-rammed law that forced everyone in the U.S. to buy "special" health insurance (i.e. approved by the Obama administration)--and let the government give taxpayer money to people who couldn't afford the now-mandatory insurance, the result wouldn't work as the Dems claimed.
Predictably, the Dems rammed it through congress anyway--without a single Republican vote. In fact they had to use a series of parliamentary tricks to dance around clear prohibitions in the Constitution. For example, to avoid the Constitutional requirement that all revenue measures had to be introduced by the House, the Democrat leadership (Pelosi) took a bill on a totally different topic, removed EVERY WORD of its language, and inserted the language of Obamacare.
One of the main architects of Obamacare--Jon Gruber--was later caught on video (twice) bragging that the emperor's people were only able to pass it because they deliberately made the bill's language confusing, and Americans were too dumb to understand the details. Which allowed them to throw out catchy lies like "The average family will save $2500 a year."
And "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
And "If you like your current health insurance plan you can keep it."
But hey, great idea, eh?
So...If you don't want this nation to duplicate South Africa's fate you've still got three choices. You remember what they were, right?
You probably don't. But if you don't, don't worry--everything will be just fine. Hillary will continue the faaabulous policies of our current emperor. Even if Republicans should manage to hang onto a tiny majority in congress, they can't change anything because the new queen will simply threaten a veto, and the Repubs don't remotely have enough votes to override a veto, as now. So essentially it'll be a third Obama term.
Eh, no problem, citizen. Everything's fine. "The economy is booming, job creation is great" (all this is sarcasm, in case you weren't sure), "illegal immigration is at an all-time low" and race relations are better than at any time in the past. Well at least that's what your emperor has said--all caught on video. And like, has he ever lied to you before?
BTW, I'm *not* a Trump fan--I'll readily admit this election is between the lesser of two bad choices. I just know what Hillary is. With her at the helm, chances of the nation avoiding South Africa's fate are virtually zero.
posted by SF at
2:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home