On Static Thinking

"Static Thinking" is a phrase I coined for myself to sum up an explanation for my own personal financial woes. I have come to realize however that this phrase can be applied to more areas than just finance. Today I'll apply it to helping the poor, but first a few things in description.

• Static Thinking is thinking within a snapshot in time; it is static. It doesn't consider history, cause, ramifications of past choices or consequence. It is the kind of thinking that will cause a person to burn down his barn to get rid of the rats not considering the fact that tomorrow he or the rats either one will have a barn.
• Static thinking sees what is and assumes that it's fixed in time. Not only were rich people never poor or poor people never rich, but poor people will never become rich or rich people poor. Never ever in a million years will that change. They are fixed.

Connecting The Dots of Static Thinking and Helping The Poor

Sue is poor. She is an unaborted single mother with 3 unaborted children from 2 different unaborted dads neither of whom live with her in her government-provided apartment. Her plight however is not a static one. You see, the idea of a good family home in her world was outdated. June Cleaver and Ossie Harriet as role models had become relics of a bygone era, worthy only of disdain and ridicule. They were replaced by the sensuality of MTV, do what you will, and the materialistic world of feminism. 

Sue was educated in a government school where the concept of God was banned and replaced by the meaninglessness of evolution. The intellectuals thought this best for her. Her neighborhood is crime-ridden. The government - confounded by its self-imposed restraints brought on by its Marxist mindset, and by the resulting sub-society living according to the standards taught to it by the educational institutions - gave up on trying to control anything but the most violent of criminals in her neighborhood.

Sue is unemployed. Businesses that may have employed her, or her husband had she thought it necessary to have one, having themselves given up on trying to do business in an area where the criminal is the protected one, moved to safer havens, even to other countries where they could escape runaway risk of lawsuits and bureaucratic red tape. 

Sue's neighborhood is drug-ridden. More government indoctrination passing itself off as "education" as it turns out, was helpless in helping those who live there escape a meaningless and hopeless existence It requires more. Unfortunately, drugs are the easiest, and perhaps the only accessible escape. So they abound.

Sue's neighborhood is marked by blight. Having been trained that "others" will take care of her, she feels no responsibility for making her neighborhood look nice and desirable. Her peers deface buildings in the same way they deface their own bodies with graffiti and piercings. Besides, to fight the blight would be a hopeless endeavor. She would wake each day to find that the graffiti and trash had reappeared. The liberal intellectuals and "theologians", and the weak-minded people who listen to them, look at Sue's plight and see only what their materialistic worldviews allow them to see: a lack of material. Or to put a finer point on it, more cash. So demands that more material be taken from someone else to assuage her situation, and their guilt, are made in the name of "compassion". THIS... is static thinking. Related Post