Posted on 01/24/2011 7:10:40 PM PST by callisto
Speaking at Guilford College in Greensboro, North Carolina former Green Czar Van Jones defined “social justice” as opposed to legal justice.
“Here’s how you know if you live in a society where there’s social justice: Would you be willing to take your life . . . write it on a card, throw it in a big pot with everybody else . . . reach in at random and pull out another life with total confidence that it would be a good life?
“Well, then you got some work to do.
“In other words, not to say that you would wind up exactly where you were before, but that you’d be able to have a good life . . . that you would be able to put it together . . . figure it out. If you don’t have that confidence then you don’t live in a country where there’s social justice. Because in a socially just, as opposed to a legally just . . . in a socially just world, since we’re all pretty much born equally ignorant we should have roughly equal chances to have good lives.
“You didn’t do anything particularly spectacular at the point of birth, such that you deserve all this. [He] That’s a high standard. What it means in a country like ours is we will constantly be striving. We won’t ever arrive there in all likelyhood. We’ll have a more perfect union, we won’t have a perfect union, but it can be more perfect and every generation has to figure out a way to move us closer to the reality of liberty and justice for all and not just the rhetoric.”
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_-vgtYkJdA
Their football team was a bunch of Yankee knuckledraggers.
Guilford College has no limits to stupidity and libtard idiocy. =.=
As clear as can be that this clique does not believe in private property (unless, of course, the property is theirs).
.. since we’re all pretty much born equally ignorant we should have roughly equal chances to have good lives.
Hey ya bonehead Marxist, in America we DO all have an equal chance.
Van Jones proves Einstein was once again correct, to wit:
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
Have a 5th Grader(1) explain that to you Van.
(1) From any Suburban school in the USA.
You could NOT pay me to live in NYC! I do not care the amount of money you had to offer, there is NOT enough to get me to go! PERIOD!
His statement/argument STARTS on a very FLAWED footing (as many have pointed out): a “good life” is everyone being the SAME! As a computer programmer all I can say is GIGO! Garbage In, Garbage Out!
*********************************************************
I agree and all this talk frightens me, I feel somewhat comfortable this won’t happen in my lifetime, but I do fear for my kids and their children.
I don’t see how they could have their utopia of ‘sameness’— without herding us all into living in a big city situation.
I would have to find a way to off myself if it came to that, as I would never live in a big city, never.
Everyone will see me around here periodically, posting under this nick to promote the theory behind a book I wrote. The whole theory which is the subject of the book is free on my profile page, for those who are interested. It basically explains exactly why Van is imbued with this whole idea that everyone should have an equal life, and there should be no disparities between the successes of individuals.
This is not ignorance, it is not an intellectual decision he made, it is not even about his own personal power. Van’s brain developed to exhibit this psychology, as it is a Darwinian strategy, designed to increase the competitiveness of uncompetitive specimens. You see it throughout nature, and just as in more primitive species, Van is like a programmed robot, designed to pursue the behaviors this psychology produces, absent all logic and reason. There is no reaching him logically, as nature has programmed him this way. To view Van’s thought processes as anything close to ours, to try and understand his behavior through the prism of the forces which drive our behavior is a huge mistake.
Click on my nick, and check the page if you are interested in why Liberalism infects some people like this. We are far more different than Liberals, and in a far bigger war than people realize, and no, we cannot exist together happily.
Like I said regarding VJ... shallow speaks unto shallow...
I'm not following - increase the competitiveness of uncompetitive specimens?
You see it throughout nature, and just as in more primitive species, Van is like a programmed robot, designed to pursue the behaviors this psychology produces, absent all logic and reason.
What is seen in nature? Specimens within a species that strive for becoming competitive when they are not? This doesn't even make sense. Specimens within a species which do not compete die off. My understanding of Darwinism is that species which do not compete die off. Perhaps I missed something?
Basically, in nature, you will find that any species which exhibits evolutionary advancement, got that way because the individuals in it competed amongst themselves in competitions designed to develop the traits that species is noted for.
I use as an example, the Australian Giant Cuttlefish, and describe the mechanism as well as I can on my profile page.
I'm not following - increase the competitiveness of uncompetitive specimens?
Yes. Within the cuttlefish, there are individuals who cannot compete in their mating competition. These individuals are small, weak, cowardly, and they do not exhibit the well developed skin structure males use to gain mates, and which the species uses to camouflage themselves. These cuttlefish are destined for failure. They are uncompetitive specimens. If they competed, they would lose. To render themselves competitive, these weaker, less capable specimens adjust their skin's color to the color of a female, pull in their tentacles so the tentacles look like a female's small tentacles, and then, dressed as a female, they swim in and mate with waiting females. Competing males see what they think is a female swimming by another female and ignore it.
This ploy renders an uncompetitive specimen competitive. It destroys the species, as it allows weaker, less capable specimens to pollute their species' genome with weak, less capable genes, but it allows the small loser to selfishly get his genes passed forward, at the cost of the species' vitality.
What is seen in nature? Specimens within a species that strive for becoming competitive when they are not?
Yes, but not in the way you mean. I used poor terminology here. Our species evolved two psychologies. Our Conservative psychology has a purpose. We Competitors compete amongst ourselves, everywhere. Economically, in sports, even in self defense. We are programmed with a sense of honor, which makes us abide by the outcomes, even if that is not in our best interest. We do this, because we are programmed to make our population, and our species great through competition, even at our own expense. If you open a business, and another guy opens a business, and his makes him more money, you are programmed to not want government to take his money and give it to you. You are a competitor, and you will endure defeat, rather than advance your own interest, at the expense of our species. I want you to be able to carry a gun right alongside myself, though obviously, I would be better off if you were disarmed, and only I was armed.
The Anticompetitor is the polar opposite, and is exemplified by Van. As a child, Van was molded into an Anticompetitor. He saw cues indicating he would be uncompetitive, and his brain adapted him into this Anticompetitive psychology, molding his psychology to his abilities. In the book, I discuss him, and what set him on this path.
In an interview with the Collage Foundation, he said, "I was basically a nerd.........when I was younger I was really small and I was always picked last for Phys. Ed, sports teams and stuff. I was a bully magnet, so I grew up with a really strong hatred for bullies and people who abuse their power."
These cues, indicating he would get creamed in free competition with otehrs, molded his psychology. He couldn't handle sports, and had to watch as others excelled. Like Pavlov's Dogs, the Narcissism of childhood mixed with his failure in play, and left him conditioned to hate the competitive environment, and envy the successful, who thrived in it. He was a small, unathletic child who was bullied. He learned to appease the bullies, and this too became a conditioned behavior. Suddenly he is running anti police organizations, like Bay Area Police Watch, where he can castigate the jocks of our society (police), while appease bullies who threaten (Criminals, gang members, etc.)
Suddenly, due to this childhood conditioning, he is an uncompetitive specimen who has found a way to render himself competitive with peers.
You see this throughout the Left, and it is just like the cuttlefish, and all other organisms which exhibit this primitive behavioral drive. Individuals who received cues in their childhood indicating they would be uncompetitive, and then adopted this rigorously Anticompetitive psychology, just like the cuttlefish.
I am sorry if I was unclear. I think this theory is important, as a whole discipline can flow from it, showing how to manipulate this Anticompetitive psychology to do what we want them to do. They are much more programmed than people realize, and it is much easier to manipulate them than it is to manipulate Conservatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my theory.
Would this scenero play out for any person who experienced what VJ's experienced? Would anyone who had the same background become emessed in this anti-competitive psychosis? I ask because I was just like VJ - a nerd who escaped into books and reading because I wasn't able to compete in sports, and I was bullied a lot.
Also, how does this square with the liberal mindset of people who were not nerds as children, and were not bullied? People such as John Murtha (former Marine) and John Kerry (former Navy officer). Obviously they were not in the group who would be identified as non-competitors. However, they share the same mind-set as VJ.
This is what always puzzled me about the Liberal, and part of what brought me to this theory. I could never figure how the Liberal survived. Weak, cowardly, and at the mercy of any Horde who wanted to take their stuff, and yet they castigate every Military guy who is defending them, and seek to lock up every cop, who is the last line of defense between a pathetic Liberal, and the Criminal who would savage them.
I viewed it as a straight up Darwinian competition, and could never figure how the Liberal survived.
This Anticompetitive psychology is how. They are that weak, pathetic transvestite cuttlefish, seizing that Anticompetitive advantage. Of course, when you factor in group competition, Anticompetitiveness becomes like the Stockholm syndrome. Don't compete, just sell out your own side for favor from the enemy, while playing the part of patriot in front of your own people.
Conditioned through the mechanism which produced Van (and which yields extreme envy for the successful among your own, and a fierce desire to appease bullies), this theory is one which can be seen in more primitive organisms in nature, explains Liberal behavior perfectly, and which has a simple mechanism which comports with the childhoods of many hardcore Liberals.
It's not a complete explanation at the individual level, as there is an indefinable element to who a person is. Some individuals can be tortured as kids, and never break, and never adopt Anticompetitive Appeasement. Others, barely touched, still end up Liberal. But at the broad group level, I think this theory explains a lot.
Cheers.
No. There are a few things at play. First, there is childhood play conditioning. It would also appear that the function of Dopamine in the brain is another element. Mutations in a gene called DRD4 (A dopamine receptor) yield a high percentage of Liberals. A brain parasite which alters Dopamine function also appears to alter psychology towards Anticompetitiveness, as I show in the book. One researcher even said those affected with the parasite exhibited a desire for a “a rule-oriented society geared to reduce uncertainty.” If I am correct you probably did not have the gene mutation, and never caught the parasite.
Maternal Harshness. On my profile page, I am in the process of adding a few links. This one is to a paper by three researchers. They found children who grew up under single mothers, or had a childhood marked by Material harshness, or familial instability tended to adopt one psychology, emphasizing personal selfishness, promiscuity, depersonalization of mates, and impulse control issues. Those who grew up in stable two parent households tended to adopt a psychology prone to selflessness, monogamy, and other "good" behavioral traits. I would guess you had good parents.
In each case, stress stalls brain development, producing a child who matures into an adult with a selfish, childlike desire to be taken care of by a governmental parent.
I ask because I was just like VJ - a nerd who escaped into books and reading because I wasn't able to compete in sports, and I was bullied a lot.
As I say, this is a group level theory. At the group level, these two psychologies are undoubtedly present. From individual competitions to warfare, to mating competitions vs promiscuity, we divide along these lines. To my eye, these psychologies are identical to the Cuttlefish model.
At the individual level, why did one individual adopt the psychology he adopted? It is far to complicated to tell. You have genes, of which we only know one so far. You have infectious agents which alter neurotransmitter functions, of which we know very few, and only one which affects this issue - but there are probably more. You have childhood play conditioning, the parental/rearing environment, and maybe even other factors we have yet to identify. I suspect even media children are exposed, and mentors they have along the way plays a part. I even discuss "Coming of Age" ceremonies in primitive culture, which may be an event designed to produce a mature competitive specimen from a child.
As I say on my page, when you get to the individual level, things become complicated. The main use of this theory is it offers a braod overview of the enemy's psychology, what it was designed to do, and how to mainpulate the group as a whole.
Also, how does this square with the liberal mindset of people who were not nerds as children, and were not bullied? People such as John Murtha (former Marine) and John Kerry (former Navy officer). Obviously they were not in the group who would be identified as non-competitors. However, they share the same mind-set as VJ.
Kerry is an easy one, as I discuss him in the book. He grew up under a father who was unusually harsh and distant(John Kerry's sister described their father as “very aloof, remote, and difficult to get to know”). Kerry got quarantined with Scarlet fever, his father was told he was sick at boarding school, and yet his dad never visited him. There is probably a genetic element at play as well, as his father wrote a book called The Star Spangled Mirror deriding American's for their love of their own country, and their tendency to portray their enemies as bad. There may have been an indoctrination, by an Anti-American Father. Kerry's grandfather committed suicide when Kerry's dad was six, so there may be some genetic neurotransmitter imbalance as well, predisposing them to depression. Senator Kerry's wife intimated Kerry sees a shrink, and he exhibits physical signs indicative of Antidepressant use.
I don't know much about Murtha, but again, it is difficult to fit everyone in one theory. Paranoid schizophrenics, manics, depressives, bipolars, Sociopaths, there are a plethora of ways the brain can go bad. In politics, I simply maintain that there is one method by which brains go bad which nature imbued us with, and that is Anticompetitive Appeasement, and it accounts for an overwhelming number of Liberals. At the group level, I think I have identified the main forces which produce the movement, but I really can't tell you why individuals go the way they do, though certainly I can tell you what will increase the odds.
Good questions.
Just out of curiousity, do you have a memory of a great victory in your youth? Some fear you conquered, a goal you scored, or an ability where you thrived, and enjoyed kicking ass?
My parents divorced when I was four. My mom remarried - to an alcoholic who went from job to job. My father remarried many times (including re-marrying my mother once, he had five marriages). My mother worked very hard to keep our father away, including making up horrible lies about him. My step-father was very harsh. I also have an older brother who was extremely harsh on his younger siblings.
I spent a lot of time at my grandparents home as a child. They were much more stable. However, my grandparents were democrats, as were my mother and step-father. My father is/was a conservative (was, because he was killed in a motorcyle accident on Nov 4, 2006). I spent very little time with my father as a child. I did live with him for almost two years between the ages of 14 and 16. However, we never talked about politics. Honestly, we hardly ever talked about anything.
I became my father despite having spent so little time with him. From the time I was old enough to vote I have been a conservative. I have only been married once, and have been with my wife 30 years (this is not where I became my father, obviously). I work in a helping profession, where I don't make a huge amount of money. My wife is also conservative, as are all four of our children. I'm not sure how all this background fits with the tenents of your theory.
No, quite the opposite actually. Being the middle child out of 5 children, I was typically the one who either was blamed for what my older siblings did, or was pushed aside by my mother in favor of the younger two. My older two siblings abused me, and my mother never knew about it. My step-father favored my younger brother, and gave him most of his attention - helping him to develop skills with baseball and football. The only areas my step-father would spend time with me on were fishing and Chess. However, the amount of time given for those activities was much less than that given to my younger brother. I had a paper route at age 11. But, my step-father and mother would take what little money I earned and keep it for themselves. I resorted to spending money on junk before the money arrived at home. I would say that my youth is full of regrets.
I really don’t think it has anything to do with Darwin or evolution. We are all fallen creatures. We are all sinful. We are all selfish.
Some of us grow up and realize life isn’t fair and you do the best you can with what you’re given at any point in time. Others never grow up and expect everyone to give them things because they’re special. Power, money, good jobs, security, sex, etc.
It’s the people that never internalize they are not the center of the universe. It’s the people that never learned the lesson of working for what you earn and wanting to keep it.
The old story of the young kid who thinks it’s unfair the homeless guy doesn’t have the same money as their dad who works for a living. Dad says, “tell you what, you rake the leaves all day, mow the yard, clean the gutters, and wash the cars, and then from the $10 you earn from that, we’ll give the homeless guy $7 of your dollars.” Kid says “But I earned the $10, he didn’t.”
These are perpetual children who believe in equality of outcome. They hate that life isn’t fair and everyone doesn’t start out the same. They are humanists, they are statists, they are generally socialists of one stripe or another.
I really don’t think it’s evolution. This is all learned (or not learned) behavior. there’s no evolutionary component to it. It’s ideas they have or haven’t been exposed to that have impacted their thought process.
I see this maturation as a development of brain structures, and I think that there must be a reason behind it, and a purpose it served within the species.
These are perpetual children who believe in equality of outcome
Again, why did they not mature neurologically, and could this lack of maturation serve some purpose, and aid them in Darwinian competition?
I really don’t think it’s evolution. This is all learned (or not learned) behavior. there’s no evolutionary component to it. It’s ideas they have or haven’t been exposed to that have impacted their thought process.
I think an argument against this is, why does promiscuity parallel Liberalism? Why do hardcore Liberals seem bent on inducing a culture of promiscuity, where children engage in sex at ever earlier ages? Why do all Liberal theories seem to travel together? What does environmentalism have to do with tax policy? What relates a support for gun control, to a support for abortion? Why would someone who supports National Healthcare also tend to be a pacifist, who wants to appease foreign threats?
There is an underlying pychological shift in the Liberal, which predisposes them to all of these beliefs, and causes them to be positiviely predisposed to all of these beliefs together, absent all logic and reasoning. To my knowledge, the evolutionary theory is the only one which explains why all of these beleifs would travel together in individuals, and how they are related. And I should be clear, when I say Liberals, I am talking about the hardcore instigators, not the average union guy who votes for the Liberal because his union tells him to.
My older brother, who currently resides in MA, claims to be conservative. However, he is, and always has been, extremely narcissistic. My older sister is to the best of my knowledge apolitical. My younger brother is very conservative - conservative to the point that he believes people will go to Hell for having tatoos. My younger sister is also conservative. However, both of my younger siblings, while living within a 25 minute distance from us, rarely come to visit our mother who resides with my wife and I (she's disabled and has Lupis). Does this information help?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.