Everybody loves a good conspiracy theory even the wacky ones.
Who doesn't love to speculate about who really killed John F Kennedy or that the Apollo moon landings were faked 6 times, or love to debunk them and mock the nutters who believe in them. But one thing should be noted and that is that some conspiracies were and are real. History is full of them in fact from the start of wars to coup d'eta and assassinations.
Then again, what are usually referred to as conspiracy theories aren't really conspiracies hatched by shadowy, furtive people who use codes like "John has a long mustache" to gain entry to dark backrooms where they formulate their dastardly plots and plans. No, They are presented and debated in public and the architects of these schemes lay out the thinking behind them in detail. For instance, when anyone brings up the topic of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, they are derided as conspiracy theorists when in fact these two agendas are actually public policy openly discussed and debated. A subset of open public policy can of course carry agendas and interests either hidden from the public or very little spoken of. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/climate change/climate emergency or whatever new buzzword is employed to whip up an increasingly disinterested public is an excellent example of this. Its proponents seldom bother to hide the fact they promote this doomsday scenario for poorly concealed sociopolitical agendas and/or self-serving reasons other than saving the world.
However, it's unanswered questions and events that don't make sense or add up that sparks the conspiracy theory in the absence of transparency and comprehensive explanations. Questions in this case like why do homeless shelter protests in different towns or neighborhoods, if you will, in Queens County never achieve any real results. They mostly fail. Hotels contracted with the city as shelters were always temporary until a new shelter could be built so any hotel losing a city contract isn't a real victory. Moving a proposed shelter site a few block away or in the next neighborhood isn't a victory but a weasely dick NIMBY move. And events that do not make any sense like calling a victory a promise by the city to put fewer people with no pysch or substance abuse problems in a particular shelter when even being called a partial victory by the protesters is them simply jerking themselves off. What makes them think the city will not gradually increase the number of people, even psychos and junkies, sheltered there?
And this brings us to the subject of this post.
First of all, it must be said that I have no inside information nor do I personally know anyone involved in local homeless shelter protests and am not making any allegations against any individual or group so my conspiracy theory is just that: A theory and not even necessarily a conspiracy, just politics as usual.
For the activists and politicians, they are only in it to benefit themselves and/or protect their own property values. They couldn't care less about the homeless, whether public or private money should go into operating shelters, or that they end up dumping the shelters and all their attendant problems that they cause onto another neighborhood with little or no political power. Getting the shelter placed elsewhere is a sign of an activist group's high status and political clout. Otherwise, they would be angling for city money to go to a new community center that caters to their particular ethnic/identity group or public money for any non-profit they are associated with. Or for local windbags that are either self-appointed "mayors" of the neighborhood and other local busybodies to grandstand and gain more local political clout, real or imagined. Clearly, addressing homelessness and what should public policy be to set limits on who and how many we as a city shelter or should it be left to private charity should be the entire point of contention here. Most of all, why does not one of the shelter protesters ever question the wisdom of this policy of liberal pathological generosity, with other people's money of course, that simply attracts ever more people to NYC seeking shelter and other freestuff? Nor is the question ever asked how many or what percentage of illegal aliens comprise the ranks of the city's homeless population and has that population been growing, shrinking or staying the same. In a high cost of living city such as NYC, one would think that the working classes and middle classes who make up the ranks of the shelter protesters, who have a hard time making ends meet, should be asking these questions.
But they don't and they never will. In fact, they will still vapidly continue to support the same politicians who promote and expand this and other policies that are detrimental to the interests of the tax paying residents and further degrades their quality of life.
New York City can be summed up as nothing more than an ever growing cadre of identity/victim grievance groups, activists and NGOs like so many hogs, pushing each other out of the way to get their snouts into the public trough and gobble up as much tax payer money as they can. The politicians sit atop the food chain granting the pigs access to the trough, doling out ever more freestuff to their client voters and collecting tribute from their crony capitalist vassals in return for letting them run amok. The modern progressive left and liberalism, mad degenerates in all their sordid and demented glory.
Considering the city's dysfunctional political system and that success or change is not even on these homeless shelter protest activist's radar one cannot help descending into these dark musings of conspiracy and ulterior motive. Or maybe I owe some apologies to well-meaning, but naive and utterly stupid protesters.
What's the 4th of July without a little color? If not from fireworks then from a black and white photo from the summer of 1930 brought i...
Pictured above is the inestimable Mitch Waxman, the learned Humble Narrator of the Newtown Pentacle blog at Nier's Tavern . It is i...
Ever have a debate with a liberal progressive and notice that whatever argument you present, no matter how well reasoned or proofs provided,...
It's a prediction that George Orwell did not get completely right in his novel 1984. He did get a good deal right, give the man an ...