Dana Pico
DNW
Foxfier
Hube
Yorkshire
Should I Move From California To Plano, Texas?
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/28
That is a question someone used in a web search to find an article I wrote some time back: Moving From California To Texas? The person doing the search is likely a Toyota employee. The First Street Journal covered this breaking news quite well, and included multiple links to multiple articles written concerning the ongoing fiscal insanity that is everpresent and effervescent in Leftist state governments, contrasting with the growth-minded nature of Texas.
Other material that can be found on Truth Before Dishonor include:
Dying California Cannibalizes Itself
Maryland Follows California And Illinois Down The Toilet
California’s Green Energy Mandate
California Introduces New Internet Sales Tax Law
California And The Great Egress
There is more information to be had on this subject matter on this site, if one looks through all the economics-related articles. But to answer the question the internet searcher asked:
If you’re a Leftist voter, loving yourself some Leftism, stay in that shithole state you helped create. Don’t move to Texas, because you’ll only work to turn a successful state into the shithole state you fled. If you’re a Conservative voter, by all means, move to Texas and flee that shithole state the Leftist parasites created.
70,000 a year income will let you live a better life than 100,000 a year in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia. Texas’ Castle Doctrine will keep you safer. Jobs are more plentiful. But be ready for culture shock. Texans don’t like Big Brother/Nanny State.
One Response to “Should I Move From California To Plano, Texas?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Truth Before Dishonor 
DNW said
“If you’re a Leftist voter, loving yourself some Leftism, stay in that shithole state you helped create. Don’t move to Texas, because you’ll only work to turn a successful state into the shithole state you fled. If you’re a Conservative voter, by all means, move to Texas and flee that shithole state the Leftist parasites created.”
A fully justified sentiment, John.
One which a normal human with the capacity for self-knowledge and a sense of personal honor would take seriously. But the entire point of leftism is that the leftist thing is not responsible for anything destructive it does. It always feels a right to associate with and rely on the very people it attacks. If they do not do what it wants, they are wrong. If they do what it wants and everything falls apart; i.e. associative relations become untenable, it is still the fault of those who somehow failed to satisfactorily accommodate the liberal neurosis which above all else seeks, as Allan Bloom perceptively says in regard to what he implies is John Rawls’ ultimate social value: “the esteem of others” (rather than its own 40 acres and a mule to work)
If leftism were not the religion of the mindless and soulless, your remark would drive a hole the size of your fist through their foreheads. As it is, pursuing you across state lines in order to shriek and die on your front porch while making you feel responsible, is their idea of achieving the liberal beatitude.
(As a side note. Prodded by blogger Neo-neocon I just recently (couple of weeks ago) picked up a bargain priced copy of “The Closing of the American Mind”; a book by Allan Bloom on the radical attitude and conceptual shifts that were then being fully realized in academia, and which has been out since the mid eighties. Although the book may pay a systematic reading I’ve been flipping around in it. Although I have so many page corners appreciatively bent down by now, that it appears that I must have read the whole thing. The remark about Rawls really struck me since I was beginning to wonder if anyone had really read what Rawls had written and was actually saying in his supposed defense of the values of classical liberalism in the teeth of utilitarianism – as the “A Theory of Justice” scheme is often characterized. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who had noticed the fascist core of Rawls thesis, which is manifest in the principle of unconditional solidarity above all else. Bloom notices that participants in Rawls ideal society are asked to commit to society and the supposed ego needs of others above any and all substantive as opposed to “meta” values. Bloom noticed, and published on it, all while I had barely read it for the first time.)
LikeLike