|
The same basic principles, with regards power and hatred, are also forthcoming from the structure of the national economy. Ranging, as usual, from general arrogance (the reason poor people are poor, is because they don't work hard enough), through to outright hatred toward the oppressed. The controller/s of the structure (politicians), attempt, and usually succeed, in sharing their hatred of those they oppress, with their cohorts as they pander to the base instinct of the electorate and, in particular, those above the point of balance, the middle classes.
In the case of the national power structure, certain claims, thoughts and beliefs are invariably forthcoming from the politicians and even, on a perhaps unsurprisingly large scale, the middle classes. It is here were we can see definite cases of hypocrisy forthcoming from certain individuals, namely, the politically correct brigade. For example, certain females within the structure, championing the cause of sexism, are in actual fact themselves, guilty of everything they condemn. It is not uncommon, for just such individuals to start moaning about the cost to them as taxpayers, of the ever growing number of single mothers struggling to raise their children to the best of their abilities on state benefits, with claims of "Why should I be expected to pay for the upkeep of their children?", "What should we do about these women who breed with no visible means of supporting their offspring?" etc. Such claims, and various ones of this ilk, are common traits, and blatant signs of arrogance, within that particular structure, with regards their thoughts, views, and opinions of those below them. They're more often than not, accompanied by claims of not being able to afford such payments within their personal taxation, and yet the reverse is true. In their arrogance, they actually believe that they are doing poor people a favour by giving them benefits (such state benefits are nothing more than allowing the recipient a small portion of their God given right to their fair share of the national/global economic wealth, allowing others to cream off the excess to finance their opulent lifestyle), and are blissfully unaware of the purposes behind such economic conditions as poverty. Taking a closer look at the economic structure, and the part that poor people play in it, we see that far from those above the point of balance doing those below it a favour, it is those that exist below it, that are actually doing the favours for those above it. Looking at such a structure, and such claims that are invariably forthcoming from those that control it thus:-
In the above standard theoretical economy, we see as is usual, that the oppression currently being experienced by those below the point of balance is an equal counterbalance for the power that is being experienced above it. And taking claims of those above the point of balance doing those below it a favour into account, with their cries of "We simply can't afford to support these peasants", "There are just too many of them", "They are a burden to society","They are strangling the economy" etc. We can see just exactly what would happen if the controllers of the structure waved goodbye to those currently experiencing oppression (poverty). Whether such an action came by way of letting poor people set up their own economy, whereby they had absolutely no connection, or any subsequent 'reliance', with the rest of the nation, or whether the controllers of the structure took the much more simplistic step of shooting dead all peasants, isn't really important. The fact of the matter will remain, that the poor people of that structure would have been removed from it for good, by whatever means the controllers of the structure saw fit:-
As we can see, the point of balance has shifted right up the scale, as has the base line of that economy, resulting in some of those that had previously been above the point of balance, now finding that they are below it. But this is not the end of the story. Whilst the structure has contracted on the grounds that there are simply less people within it, the action of removing the poor people hasn't actually run it's full cycle. The reason so much power was being extracted and shared out by those in power, was simply because that was the amount of power that they enjoyed experiencing. And with the shifting of the point of balance, the subsequent levels of both power and oppression (riches and poverty), within that structure have been altered and contracted accordingly. And taking into account that those controlling the structure enjoyed experiencing that amount of power in the first place, there is no real reason to believe that they should suddenly see the error of their ways, and accept what has effectively been a huge drop in their previous standard of living. With that in mind, the controllers of the structure will promptly set about 'putting things right', whereby they will reclaim their original levels of power, and so their original standards of living. The knock on effect being, that in order for the same amount of power to be extracted from the structure as before, then the same amount of oppression must be forthcoming from within that structure, and with the same amount of oppression now being shared out amongst a lesser number of individuals, the amount of oppression being experienced by those now below the point of balance, individually speaking, is even greater than before, thus:-
So, as can be seen, those above the point of balance are in no real position to lay any claims of doing those below it a favour, just as the rapist cannot legitimately make any claim of doing his victim a favour, in fact quite the reverse. Further examples of the emotive feelings toward those they oppress, within the context of the national economy, are exhibited by the controllers of the structure, and encouraged within their cohorts, the middle classes, as in the cases of health care. We undoubtedly hear claims from just such people, along the lines of "Why should I pay for life saving surgery for that peasant?". The particular peasant, or grouping of peasants, will vary dependant upon the current fashion, most commonly in today's society with the case of the smoker. No doubt in their quest to justify such appalling statements, such people cry "Self inflicted", but then, so is the soldier returning from the battle front on a stretcher, he knew the risks when he took the job, and there's little point patching him up now, when he'll only come back in the same condition at a later date. As is the case with any car accident victim, they knew the risks when they got in their cars. Public transport is freely available, and if they can afford to buy and run a car, then there is no reason why they can't afford the bus/train fare. What annoys the perpetrators of such claims most, isn't the fact of whether or not such conditions may be avoided, more the fact that they have to pay. Allowing us to see them in their true light. When confronted with a sick or dying person laid out before them, and asked to do the decent thing and exert some form of effort in order that such an individual may be helped, these are the ones who stamp their dirty little feet, with their offensive little cries of "Why should I?". Whether or not such life threatening conditions were self inflicted, is not the primary concern of such a bleating individual, more the disturbing fact that they have to pay and, as such, will try every conceivable trick in the book to escape their responsibility, and do the decent thing. Such pathetic bleatings are also exercised by those that fester within the insurance industry, with their refusal to honour their bet citing their tiny little get out clause, one of many millions taken from the book 'How to freeload your dirty little way through life without bloody well paying'. Whenever some innocent individual attempts to make a legitimate burglary claim, they are invariably met with claims of "Oh, you left a window open, therefore the burglary was self inflicted, henceforth we refuse to pay". Presumably the same ducking out would occur should such a company offer personal insurance protection against unpleasant experiences, i.e. rape, with the obligatory "Oh, you were wearing a short skirt, therefore the rape was self inflicted, you were asking for it, and we therefore will not pay". As in all the above cases, as is usual, the justification for such blatant acts of abuse is shifted squarely from the shoulders of the abuser and on to the abused, with such claims as "We are refusing you health care, and consequently telling you to fuck off and die, on the grounds that 'you', whatever", "We are refusing your insurance claim on the grounds that 'you', whatever", just as in the standard rapists claims of "I am raping you because 'you' are walking/talking/looking like that". As is usual in all such cases, the reason why the abused experienced abuse, wasn't because the abused anything, more for the fact that the abuser was an incompetent, psychologically inadequate runt. It isn't the fact that such people are contracting such life threatening conditions, nor the fact that they are being cured of them, which after all is what cures were invented for. It is the fact that they have to pay, or at least in part, out of their pocket. A fact which they dislike intensely, they're starting to enjoy this power game, so much so in fact, that they want more. Eager to bury their snouts in the trough, if they can't increase their incomings, they'll decrease their outgoings, leading to them sucking up to any political pervert who offers decreased public spending on just such activities as life saving medical procedures, and indeed any public spending, especially so on the peasants, benefits etc. For with that, comes a decrease in the already poor standard of living experienced by just such peasants, by way of the higher levels of oppression being forced upon them, which surprisingly enough, allows for greater levels of power, and subsequent riches, to be extracted from the structure as a whole, and dished out in whatever manner seen fit by the controllers, amongst their friends above the point of balance, who, coincidentally, do not require such expenditure from the public kitty, on the grounds that they are wealthy enough to indulge in private health care.
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||