What Is A Meebot?
Anyone can see it. Our government no longer represents us. Day after day we see an increasing number of examples, instances where our leaders simply ignore what we want and do what some small special interest wants. We scream in frustration. We walk away and refuse to participate. We pray. The problem just gets worse. Why?
We tend to blame our leaders. Don’t they run things? Well, don’t they? Yet we elected them, and our elections still seem to work. That is, the guy most of us voted for still wins. So that raises a question? What is wrong with the people we are electing? My answer is an obvious one. These people are too much like us. We vote for people like us, meebots.
What’s a meebot? Here is how the originator of the term defines it.
What is a meebot? It is a person of any gender or age, which views everything and everyone through his own selfishness. It is a person who has a pet, and wants to make it the pet for everyone. It is a person who lacks respect for authority. It is a person with the loudest of voices who has the least to say. It is a person who lacks manners, and it is a little thoughtless machine. (from The rise of the meebot at ColorStorm)
How Do We The Meebots Govern?
Because we the meebots view everything and everyone through our own selfishness, politicians can buy our votes. To get the meebot vote, politicians just identify the special interests that meebots belong to and promise those special interests what they want. Hence, politicians make lots of promises.
Consider just a few examples.
- Various meebot industry and trade groups want tax breaks, tax credits, tax deductions, tax exemptions, tarriffs on foreign products and so forth. Hence, our tax code has become enormously complicated.
- Various “civil rights” groups want affirmative action, quotas, minority business subsidies, special rights (example: same-sex marriage), special accommodations (example: building code modifications for the disabled), and so forth. Hence, the term “rights” now confuses privileges with rights).
- Various unions want government to take their side in labor/management negotiations. That includes forcing workers to join unions and pressuring management and stockholders to cave. Hence, manufacturing costs have gone up, and goods that use to be manufactured in the United States are now being made overseas.
- Old folks want to be taken care of in their declining years, and they don’t want to be held responsible for the fact they did not bother to save adequately for retirement. Hence, costly programs such as Social Security and Medicare threaten to break the budget.
When we the meebots vote for goodies instead of what is good for the country, we wreck our nation’s budget and we make it extremely difficult to check the ambitions of power-hungry leaders.
Here are the problems.
- When we had a limited government, we just selected leaders to perform a few tasks. Therefore, when people competed for our vote, we just had to compare the qualifications and records of the candidates with respect to a one or two issues. That made it relatively easy to select the right person. On the other hand, now that our government is running lots of things we must compare the qualifications and records of the candidates with respect to lots of issues. Choosing the right person has become extremely difficult. When we have government doing a hundred different things, and each of the candidate is “good” on some of the issues and “bad” on some of the others, how do we pick the right guy? If we are a meebot, the only issue that matters is the issue that matters to us.
- When we had a limited government, by definition our government was a small concern and something easier to monitor and understand. When government is limited, we expect people to take responsibility for their own mistakes. We just expect government to regulate economic activity, not to pick winners and losers. To protect us from frauds, we just expect government to regulate charitable organizations, not to provide charity. On the other hand, if we are a meebot, we don’t care about anything except getting what we want, and government “works” if it gives us what we want.
We the meebots think it is all about us. We the meebots don’t think long term. We the meebots want what we want, and we want it now.
What Do Meebots Worship?
We can worship God, our Creator, or we can worship various idols of our own creation. If we worship God, to please Him, we will try to see His creation from His point-of-view. Of course, we cannot see as He sees, but making the effort forces us to give up many delusions.
Alternatively, we can behave as narrow-minded meebots; we can see God’s creation only our own point-of-view. Then, all too predictably, we will contrive to make His creation give us what want. Then we will invent gods and make sacrifices to them in return for what we want.
What are the most common gods of our day? They are the secular gods of stuff, sex, state, and self. Do you need proof? Then look at our mass media. In their imaginations, in the world of make-believe, where they can pretend their desires can be fulfilled, that is where meebots worship.
- Doesn’t the mass media advertise stuff to solve every problem?
- Isn’t sex with just the right person portrayed as nirvana — all about receiving, not giving? All about me, not the one I love.
- When the talking heads express an opinion, doesn’t that opinion almost invariably explain how government is the fix to the “problem?”
- Doesn’t almost every program and advertisement we watch seek to build up — puff up — our self esteem?
Why does the mass media promote the gods of stuff, sex, state, and self? The mass media exists to advertise and sell goods and services, and it is easier to sell something to a meebot than it is to sell to someone who believes that God is the Supreme Being.
An Example: We The Meebots and Same-Sex Marriage
The campaign for same-sex marriage illustrates meebot behavior to perfection, the thoughtless willingness of meebots to sacrifice the good of others to all four secular gods.
- Stuff: Supposedly, heterosexual married couples have advantages such as tax breaks and automatic marital rights. Even though marriage exists for the sake of children, same-sex couple complain they have the “right” to the same tax breaks and marital rights.
- Sex: Even though same-sex sexual relations are demonstrably unhealthy, homosexuals want to force everyone to pretend same-sex relations are normal and healthy. Even our government, with all its Liberal bias, implicitly admits Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) have behavior-related health issues. The brochures here are comical. Lots of pictures of pretty people of the same sex hugging each other. Lots of text explaining all the different LBGT terms, and of lots of text explaining all the health issues.
- State: The primary purpose of our government is to protect our rights, and the Constitution exists to limit the powers of our government so that our government does not itself become a threat to our rights. Unfortunately, for the sake of the “right” to same-sex marriage, homosexual rights advocates insist that we pretend the Constitution says things it clearly does not say. For the sake of getting the “right” to same-sex marriage, they would sacrifice all our other rights.
- Self: Same-sex marriage is essentially about the revenge of the queers. Because people have made fun of homosexuals for generations, we have some people who want those who ridiculed them to eat their words. That’s why we so often hear references to Gay and Lesbian pride. It is not about marriage. It is not about what is good for children. It is about pride.
Consider an article in The Washington Times: Gay couples’ children oppose same-sex marriage, tell of unpleasant upbringings. As one might expect, people raised by same-sex couples do not easily reject the teachings of those who raised them. Nevertheless, some do. Consider this excerpt.
Ms. Klein said she was expected to pay “constant homage and attention” to her mothers’ gayness and believe that gays were “much more creative and artistic” because they weren’t sexually repressed.
The heterosexual culture of marriage and children was held in “utter contempt” by the gay adults in her world, Ms. Klein wrote. In fact, the isolation from the “inferior” heterosexual world was so complete, she wrote, that “I had no idea how two heterosexuals behaved toward their children as mother and father” until she was placed in foster care over a medical issue when she was a teenager.
We learn by copying other people. Children learn by copying their parents. Therefore, for children to learn the appropriate use of their sexual inclinations and organs, they must be raised by heterosexual couples.
Are all heterosexual couples appropriate role models? No, but same-sex couples are by definition physically incapable of being appropriate role models. Unfortunately, all most of the mass media want to talk about are the supposed benefits of normalizing homosexuality. Yet if homosexuality was not an undesirable perversion, government officials would not have to force us to treat homosexuality as normal.
@ Keith – if a human woman marries a dolphin, I would definitely regard it as her “marrying up.” (I’ll refrain from describing it as a good catch).
re your “federalism” point: The Constitution controls state actions through the XIVth amendment in situations where states fail to provide citizens with equal protection of the laws. That’s the “federalism” hook that makes these state bans on same sex marriage subject to judicial review in federal courts.
On that argument, the fourteenth amendment would guarantee the right of incest. It should not work that way, although you progressives rarely object to such judicial overreach.
You seem to have an odd opinion of women. Is this connected to your support of same-sex marriage?
==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Matthew – re your comment at 1744, you make an important point that I was trying to make at the top of the thread about the controversy over legal issues related to civil licenses for same or opposite sex marriages. You’re quite right: marriage, incest, criminal sexual assault, breach of promise, adultery, etc. etc. – in fact, pretty much the whole gamut of human relationship issues, are not Constitutional issues. Thus the debate in the courts is not about “marriage” in any sense that we think of it in religious contexts. It is purely about dispensations of legal privileges by state governments. The Constitution is deliberately drafted to forbid arbitrary discrimination in the dispensation of protections under the law. States, when challenged, can defend their distinctions, but the defenses must be rational and relate to valid state interests. It is in the presentation of those defenses that the States have been falling short in defending their practice of dispensing status and legal privileges only to opposite sex persons. If the States had not elected to enter the activity of dispensing licenses for civil “marriage”, there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that would compel them to or forbid them from abstaining from involvement. In that situation, marriage would be purely religious estate that the secular government would have very little interest in addressing (but see the Reynolds case from the late 19th Century concerning Mormon polygamy. Query: would that case be decided the same way today?).