Earlier this month, just one in a roaring wave of mostly unpublicized urban crimes occurred in Los Angeles: a homeless man flung a bucketful of hot diarrhea on an innocent woman near the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Why was he free to do so? Why isn’t someone that deranged either in jail, or in a straitjacket in a rubber room, instead of out on the streets menacing and harming innocents?
Perhaps the better question is, why didn’t this, nor a resurgence of sanitation-related diseases like typhus, typhoid and tuberculosis, happen in Cody, WY, McPherson, KS, Huntsville, AL, Kearney, NE, Lewiston, MT, Kanab, UT, Twin Falls, ID, Tyler, TX, or Clarinda, IA? Why a California big city?
Why were and are housing costs (and therefore homelessness populations) overwhelmingly highest in Democrat-dominant cities? A low-housing-cost lefty city (Detroit) is that way after having been socioeconomically blasted back into a dystopian Stone Age state by decades of corrupt Democrat rule, and still hosts high poverty and high crime, regardless.
Why are six of the seven most unaffordable home-ownership cities located in California? Why are homeless populations skyrocketing in Democrat-controlled San Francisco, nearby Oakland, and not-nearby Los Angeles County?
According to Investopedia, the top ten costliest cities in the U.S. overall are:
1. New York City, New York 2. San Francisco, California 3. Honolulu, Hawaii 4. Boston, Massachusetts 5. Washington, D.C. 6. Oakland, California 7. San Jose, California 8. San Diego, California 9. Los Angeles, California 10. Miami, Florida
Eight of the ten are under Democrat “leadership” (looking up registered party affiliations of mayor and city-council majority). Coincidence? Even more than the presence of cities, their density is a critical correlation to voting patterns: the densest cities vote the bluest, regardless of what state they’re in. Naturally they have the highest housing and other costs.
I have lots more bookmarks and could put up a thousand more hyperlinks to support my statements, but time is short this morning. Instead, research for yourself the socioeconomic policies put in effect over the past couple decades in California in particular, including those related to leniency on crime and illegal immigration, as well as problems with jobs, housing, and (lack of) child-friendly social values, then continue reading.
Thanks to a combination of cultural Marxism and Utopian social policies, supported by the very same “tolerant” rich leftists who have driven housing prices through the roof. They hypocritically demand that taxpayers solve homelessness by sacrificing more of their paychecks, while failing to take tangible personal steps themselves, such as paying directly for homeless housing, or most directly, hosting homeless people in their own residences. Hollywood in particular is the worst at this, with their giant mansions, gated communities, security systems, and other mini “Trump walls” to keep out the undesirables, (and here’s the key!) while demanding others pay for solving poverty and homelessness.
Meanwhile, California’s bigger cities are devolving precipitously into third-world cesspools of rancid physical, mental and moral filth. Churches are trying to help; however, not enough (nor wealthy enough) church membership exists in such increasingly secular, God-denying locales, to cover it all at more than fingers-in-leaky-dam levels.
So the solutions advocated by the political majority invariably involve forcing others (always others, isn’t it?) to pay more and more taxes, to rob money from the people through governmental coercion, then watch much of it disappear into the dank catacombs of administrative bureaucracy, and a fraction go back to the streets, where direct charity could have helped far more efficiently and focally. Of course, irrefutable arithmetic holds that every dollar lost to taxes is a dollar less that can be donated to charity and church. [Perhaps that’s by design.]
All the while homelessness and poverty and decrepitude keep growing alongside taxes. That’s nuts.
Such overt rot, in times of national economic prosperity (with the Dow and S&P-500 at or near all-time highs), is unprecedented in American history (as opposed to, say, truly awful economies like the Great Depression, or Civil War and the pre-Reconstruction South). Diseases previously thought eradicated have reappeared. Hygiene, sanitation and filth along many L.A., Oakland and S.F. streets is worse than the most turbid dregs of unkempt, big-city bus-station restrooms in decades of yore.
These policies appear misguided, unhinged, deranged, delusional and/or anarchic to most rational, traditional folk of sturdy, Middle American sensibility. Yet, don’t think for a second they aren’t by design. While still often unspoken by its purveyors, the pathological agenda behind this phenomenon is purposeful and straightforward: dependency on the state. That’s it. Make people wards of the state (the poorer and more dependent, the better), and pack them closer together, and you have them under tighter control. “Government will rescue you!”
Meanwhile, the Alinsky-ite lemmings (many of whom are too young to realize that’s exactly what they are, others old enough but not sufficiently well-read) blame it on “income inequality”. This is to justify policies leading to governmental confiscation of wealth and weapons, and erosion of other Constitutional freedoms from those not directly impacted, all under the diabolical guise of false “compassion” or weaponized “empathy”. [Even the sacrilegious ignoramuses known as “Christian left” are guilty and complicit…after all, show me where Jesus commanded us to “love” thy neighbor by means of governmental gunpoint.] Ultimately, through gun confiscation and economic coercion, all other citizens are rendered wards of the state as well.
Leftism tells a great lie: “We want to end poverty”. No, it’s precisely the opposite! The left’s mostly unstated yet obvious goal here is not to eliminate poverty and desperation for solutions to these woes, but to grow them, while crowding people into denser cities. Yes, the left’s objectives are to magnify social disorder and decay, to scales useful and necessary, in order to justify their means to an end. This includes the indoctrination of children into the ideology through collectivism-friendly school curricula—in our case gradual, due to the nation’s sheer size, cultural inertia, and the extreme difficulty of physical revolution, but in other nations’ cases instantaneously, in years and decades following either “democratic” election of collectivist despots (e.g., Venezuela), or overt regime overthrow (e.g., USSR).
Bollocks, you say? Study history. Fundamentally, this is nothing new. Every totalitarian regime of the past 100 years—no exception—became that way by leveraging the very same concepts, adapted mass-manipulatively to the national culture and social apparatuses of the time, ultimately undermining the antecedent governmental structure and imposing tyranny for “the greater good”. Some took decades, others just a few years, depending. That’s how they succeeded in destroying nations.
Are we on that path, as it so strongly appears? Is this undermining of American cultural, military and ideological supremacy, and (if successful) inevitable erosion of our world leadership to a feeble nub at best, the reason nothing quite resembling the U.S. is found readily in the prophecies of Revelation? Could it be that America as a nation, and force for positive world influence, will have been spayed and neutered from within by that time, perhaps even absorbed into a larger, more hideous entity? I recently told someone, “I’m starting to wonder”, but that’s literally not true. I’ve been wondering this since my early twenties, and my conversion back out of Godless and leftist thought. I would be so happy to be proved wrong; instead, the evidence is mounting, all around.
What you are seeing merely are baby steps in the larger process, with some of the objectives already becoming crossed off the neo-Marxist checklist to achieve the ultimate goal: total state control of the populace, and the eradication of individual liberty.
It’s really that simple…and that transparent. Yet it is the “woke” who are most deeply comatose to this reality, outside the subset who damn well know what they’re doing, and why.