CAN CHRISTIANITY, JOHN LOCKE, VON MISES, AYN RAND OR ANY COMBINATION SAVE AMERICA?


Reason Man

Recommended Posts

CAN CHRISTIANITY, JOHN LOCKE, VON MISES, AYN RAND OR ANY COMBINATION SAVE AMERICA?

This post is shortened to the extent possible. But the link to its longer version is given at the end, please note.

Introduction: This topic was inspired by a good discussion on the Tea Party Patriot site titled Can Ayn Rand Save US? (Can Ayn Rand?).

McFixit and Stack Magic have together given exact reasons why the above mentioned people / theories are not the solution to democracy’s problems. They are partly reproduced as required below.

Part of Stack Magic’s reply: They won! They put 53% of the nation on welfare and tell them to vote Bolshevik or the gravy stops. Mitt said it, you can't win against that.

Part of next reply by Stack Magic:

The people that you need to convert can’t read at the level needed to even comprehend Rand.

Part Reply by McFixit1

How has Atlas Shrugged had a positive impact in the real world on our cause to return to Constitutionally Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility, and Free Markets other than repeating in literary form, the same basic things to us we already believe in. Unquote

McFixit1 hits the bull’s eye, endorsed by Ayn Rand ahead. Stack repeating Romney’s “one cannot beat the block of doles dependent parasites created by Dems” is only the minor part of the problem; the bigger part is with “better Americans” as explained ahead. (Some deny that there is such a severe problem with America; that is answered in the longer version.)

Start of the Problem: We are just witnessing America repeating the collapse of Rome. Based on history the root of this historic problem is in not locking the Republic securely against majority as the arbiter of truth and against the competition to get majority to one’s side by offering doles.

Heroes emancipate people from tyrants. Inability to secure the Republic correctly leads to its degeneration into democracy. The lowest level people like beggars, addicts, uneducated labor, pimps and prostitutes, hippies of modern times etc are used by the evil people to undo heroes’ achievements. They create Romney’s unbeatable vote-block by reducing politics to the level of intelligence of lowest stratum by offering ever-increasing doles and other tricks. Once given doles, they vote as the masters tell to promote every other irrationality. Destroying America starts with this (and it was the same with Rome).

I do not call any particular political party or a particular politician as culprit. Democracy based on majority as arbiter of truth compels them to compete along this path alone.

The “Better Americans” and their problems: My estimate of the doles vote-block is about 30%. What about the remaining 70% “better Americans”, i.e. productive, educated people who practice individualism and the ones whose fore-fathers created America out of wilderness? I have also called them as AWMs (angry white men) after GOP being called so. Their big problem is that they misuse democracy’s freedom to divide themselves into innumerable groups, like the continuous breaking of O’ists / Libertarians / TP Movement and many other ‘conservative’ groups. Each of these umpteen groups has 5-10 sub-groups and every sub-group considers itself to be perfect and all others to be its enemies.

Opposing view-points is natural in a free society – but the level of enmity that I see amongst AWMs is perhaps the most important cause for US hurtling towards the abyss.

Unless all these divisions act together, I don’t think America can any more be saved. Problem is – they may never do so. The strong internal “enmity” of these factions is the reason why people are talking about the gradual demise of the GOP! That enmity also ensures victory of evil.

One more problem: democracy is a fertile ground for moral degeneration; the component of dishonest men keeps rising as time progresses. Individuals are too very weak in democracy; this promotes collectivism and hastens collapse.

Why Christianity, Locke, Ayn Rand, Von Mises will not save America:

The FFs (Founding Fathers) did not originate theory for America. Apart from any good scholar of politics the site GOP anti-doles gives lot of information about America’s dependence on Greece and Rome via the English; qualification is that this site does not give GOP’s contribution to today’s slide which one has to study separately.

Despite being devout Christians, perhaps the greatest achievement of the FFs (next to unalienable rights of the individual) was the first amendment, keeping religion out of government. If today’s Christians want a “Christian rule” via many issues like gay marriage and school prayers then they are not opposing the Dems, but partnering them in giving last blows to FFs’ America. Still, the FFs did not give up one effect of religion – charity. In fact, even today the ASPs compete to do charity. So they are unable to effectively oppose their government dispensing doles nationally and internationally.

John Locke did not preach the subservience of the individual to the majority. But if misused then the potential to convert the Republic to democracy is seen in John Locke. All the Founding Fathers (FFs) cursed democracy as sure-shot destroyer of civilization, but nobody could tie the Republic securely and today it is a full-fledged mobocracy that is fast proceeding to collapse.

Regarding Ayn Rand, as McFixit says: What is there in Atlas Shrugged that we did not already know? Ayn Rand gave a super-refined ethics, and some new addition to epistemology. Her artistic genius has influenced millions; but some people (wrongly) think she has brought solution to America’s problems. McFixit is endorsed by Ayn Rand -- quote from her article “Man’s Rights” about Founding Fathers’ (FFs’) implementation of individual rights – The result was the pattern of a civilized society which – for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years – America came close to achieving. Unquote. America was built prior to her birth; as per her the decline started before she was born (1890 Anti-trust act), and America continues hurtling today with far greater speed than during her time. An indirect endorsement is that the Roman Republic had coarser philosophy and ethics but was much stronger and lived a long life; it started failing on same lines as America, due to Republic converting into democracy, plebeians taking it over after doles-duistribution, war-mongering leading to huge debt, etc.

Same applies to Von Mises who approaches politics, psychology etc via his refined economics. But much prior to him, 19th century America was the most capitalistic society in human history. Forget others, Adam Smith’s seminal essay came out just prior to the Revolution! He and Voltaire were consulted by the FFs. Von Mises’ refined economics is not the solution to today’s America. (Same applies to ethics).

All these did not secure the Republic against 2 points: Majority as arbiter of truth and government violating its limits allowed by the Constitution. The impotent, immoral, UN, though funded by the West, routinely slaps them internationally, and is invited in internal matters in violation of America’s sovereignty! But the climax is that Obama who invited the UN was re-elected, a proof that all the above theories have made no difference to America’s slide.

The government can be taken back to FFs’ idea of America if the AWMs are given good reasoning against 2 points: 1. Governance by majority opinion is not a civilized society, unalienable rights for which the founders shed their blood, is a guarantee against majority’s fickleness. 2. As per mankind’s history so far, government expanding its activities beyond the ones allowed by the FFs’ Constitution (under the pretext of welfare etc) is the highest evil in human societies, so should be unitedly fought against. Individualism and a strictly restrained government were America’s fundamental aspects and if these are undone then it will eventually lead to civil war.

What will come in the way of going back to FFs’ government are the solid parasite vote-block (DDVB of P) and its leaders. As Stack says, any good theory is irrelevant to them. All that they want is heaps of doles, and as argument they say fxxx your so-called heroes but give me my doles. It is enmity amongst AWMs that ensures their victory. They have almost as good as to be put down by force. America has reached a stage where collapse / civil war are inevitable. (This is the reason why Locke, Ayn Rand and Von Mises are not working, and solution is wanted to this aspect, not ever-refined theories of ethics, economics etc. They are all addressing the same group, the AWMs, which gets divided over whom to follow; but none is saying what to do with the huge vote-block that needs to be put down by force.)

One last way to stop the slide and avert civil war is to warn about it and if that does not work then civil war is only a matter of time. Yet America can still be recovered if the AWMs act in unison instead of the foolish internal enmity. What I mean to say is that whether they want to avert civil war, or win it if it is inevitable, either way they have to unite over certain key points even while preserving their differences.

Contentious Points (that divide the AWMs): This is dealt with in the longer version of this file. An example is given of how I can join hands with the most devout, staunchest Christian provided he observes scrupulously the first amendment – it gives the basis for the AWMs to join hands.

If I get a chance (i.e. a just peaceful, serious hearing and nothing more) I have the arguments to achieve both the points above (stopping government’s charity and governance based on majority opinion). I have the ultimate compelling argument against the above 2 evils that will unite the AWMs to stop it!

A major mobilization is already available, the tea-parties – will they give me a chance by considering my arguments seriously, or will it be lost merely in trivial “discussions” that go on on the forums?

For me “Long Live America” is a very serious quest because of my Hindu experiences.

I do not see time as a big problem, may take at the most a year for the change to occur – I see attitude as the biggest hurdle that may defeat any good argument. An argument that deals with so very big a problem (America being taken over by lower strata of society led by evil intellectuals) can only be long and people do not like long posts. There will also be detractors, but if some people show interest then I will present my arguments in another OP titled “Argument to stop the government from dispensing doles and ban anybody from preaching charity via government”. (I will post that OP after I have posted this introduction on all sites I visit.)

For longer version of this post click here: http://share.cx.com/8K84mP ß You need not be a member of CX, need not know any Password; just click on Download and a file in MSWord format will be available to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got about half way down the post and quit reading. It's just too disorganized. However, the question is clear: Is there some way that the thinkers mentioned can help us out of our current mess? I think the answer is yes. The poor, uneducated mobs have very little power by themselves. The problem is not primarily the mass of the people, in my view. The problem is that there are quite well educated, intelligent, knowledgeable people that continue to lend credibility to leftist and religious ideas. Even people like Bill Gates tend to lean left.

Recently, I was having a conversation with my former masters thesis adviser on Facebook. He is a very smart man and normally not very political. Like a lot of scientific types, he has spent most of his working life concentrating on his research which has nothing to do with politics. So, like many highly educated people, he is politically naive.

Recently, my adviser read an article that advocated giving everyone a guaranteed income. The article was full of economic fallacies. It's main point and principle fallacy was that as technology advances and machines take over more and more tasks, humans won't have anything to do. It conflated what might happen in the distant future with the current unemployment rate and called for work to be optional and said most people could work as volunteers. My adviser said he was in favor of the idea.

I politely pointed out that if the central point of the article was true, that if advancing technology caused unemployment, then most people should currently be unemployed because most people used to be farmers. That is a commonly used counter example that starkly illustrates the fundamental fallacy of the argument. My adviser had never encountered that example before which is how I know that he hasn't given such issues a lot of thought --- or, at least, he hasn't been discussing them with Objectivists or Libertarians, nor has he been reading pro-liberty literature.

In my view, people like my former adviser are the kinds of people that need to be reached. They are highly intelligent, reasonable individuals that simply haven't had much exposure to the arguments in favor of freedom and individual rights. They may be uncomfortable with the religious right and have a soft heart for those in our society that are suffering. So, they may vote left simply because they don't know any better.

We should especially be reaching out to highly intelligent young people. Older people may be uncomfortable changing their voting habits simply because they've done things a certain way for a long time. But, I do think that the words of pro-liberty writers and thinkers can have a positive impact if people read them. There are millions of highly intelligent people out there that can potentially be swayed in a pro-liberty direction if they can be reached. And, in my view, the masses will follow the intelligentsia once the latter have been convinced.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrell, in Reason Man you have found a person who has already been swayed.

He does not need convincing: he is on board.

You stopped reading his post because it was "disorganized." I stopped reading it because it was crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got about half way down the post and quit reading. It's just too disorganized. However, the question is clear: Is there some way that the thinkers mentioned can help us out of our current mess? I think the answer is yes. The poor, uneducated mobs have very little power by themselves. The problem is not primarily the mass of the people, in my view. The problem is that there are quite well educated, intelligent, knowledgeable people that continue to lend credibility to leftist and religious ideas. Even people like Bill Gates tend to lean left.

Recently, I was having a conversation with my former masters thesis adviser on Facebook. He is a very smart man and normally not very political. Like a lot of scientific types, he has spent most of his working life concentrating on his research which has nothing to do with politics. So, like many highly educated people, he is politically naive.

Recently, my adviser read an article that advocated giving everyone a guaranteed income. The article was full of economic fallacies. It's main point and principle fallacy was that as technology advances and machines take over more and more tasks, humans won't have anything to do. It conflated what might happen in the distant future with the current unemployment rate and called for work to be optional and said most people could work as volunteers. My adviser said he was in favor of the idea.

I politely pointed out that if the central point of the article was true, that if advancing technology caused unemployment, then most people should currently be unemployed because most people used to be farmers. That is a commonly used counter example that starkly illustrates the fundamental fallacy of the argument. My adviser had never encountered that example before which is how I know that he hasn't given such issues a lot of thought --- or, at least, he hasn't been discussing them with Objectivists or Libertarians, nor has he been reading pro-liberty literature.

In my view, people like my former adviser are the kinds of people that need to be reached. They are highly intelligent, reasonable individuals that simply haven't had much exposure to the arguments in favor of freedom and individual rights. They may be uncomfortable with the religious right and have a soft heart for those in our society that are suffering. So, they may vote left simply because they don't know any better.

We should especially be reaching out to highly intelligent young people. Older people may be uncomfortable changing their voting habits simply because they've done things a certain way for a long time. But, I do think that the words of pro-liberty writers and thinkers can have a positive impact if people read them. There are millions of highly intelligent people out there that can potentially be swayed in a pro-liberty direction if they can be reached. And, in my view, the masses will follow the intelligentsia once the latter have been convinced.

Darrell

I was about to question why this fellow was still your adviser, and then I noticed that you referred to him as your former adviser...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was about to question why this fellow was still your adviser, and then I noticed that you referred to him as your former adviser...

I find that very insulting. As I clearly stated in my post, my former adviser is a very smart man --- undoubtedly much smarter than you --- and I still consider him a friend.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that Mr Desai might be partially motivated by the recent entitlements of sweepers (sorry, Dalits) to more dole in India, to the affront of the higher castes and the further subversion of the natural order. He projects this situation onto America and indeed the world. But not, as many have previously noted, in an organized fshion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol,

The problem is that you just like to throw your opinion out there without any supporting argument or evidence. If you think Mr. Desai's post was crazy, why? Don't just say you think it was crazy, give us a reason.

And no, I don't think it is ok to use any means to promote a rightist agenda or any agenda. The ends don't justify the means. And, besides, I'm not promoting a rightist agenda. I'm promoting a pro-liberty agenda.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's look.."

"As per mankind's history so far, government expanding beyond its powers as defined by the FFs is the greatest evil.."

Mankind had a fairly long history before the FFs came along and had introduced much greater evils than Big Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's look.."

"As per mankind's history so far, government expanding beyond its powers as defined by the FFs is the greatest evil.."

Mankind had a fairly long history before the FFs came along and had introduced much greater evils than Big Government.

Also: "Governance by majority opinion is not a civilized society.=" Contradicts reality in many societies let alone countries.

And how about "the lowest level people like beggars, uneducated labor, pimps and prostitutes\'...ugh, just ugh.How dare laborers be uneducated!

I am not a big Locke fan (more a John Stuart Mill chick) but he does not deserve this kind of exhumation.

Good. You just made the conversation much more interesting. Now we have something to talk about.

I agree that the original poster was not very clear and overstated his arguments in any number of ways. He also probably lumped together people or groups that didn't deserve it. So, see, now I agree with you. But, I still don't think he is crazy.

For example, when he says that big government is the greatest evil, I think what he meant to say is that government is or can be the most destructive force in human experience. So, he isn't just talking about our current bloated government, he is talking about such examples as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and every other dictatorship in the history of the world. Wouldn't you agree that out of control governments are generally a much greater threat to human civilization and survival than criminals or businessmen or multinational corporations?

And, when he talks about pure democracy not being civilized, I think he is getting at the fact that most democracies have a constitution which limits the actions of governments. In fact, I don't know of any civilized countries that are purely democratic. Most democratic countries have courts that can review both fact and law. They have a constitution that delimits legitimate government actions, etc.

Perhaps the uneducated and prostitutes shouldn't have been lumped together, but I think he was trying to list the kinds of people that are likely to favor government handouts.

Yeah, his post was messy. It looks like a bunch of unorganized notes. But, I don't think it was crazy.

Did Nitin say something that was anti-Locke?

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he did no knock Locke, I was referring to the fact that Locke would have knocked him if he knew his name was being taken in vain like this.

You are being wonderfully tactful with Desai but surely you realize that Crazy does not discrimate ideologically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he did no knock Locke, I was referring to the fact that Locke would have knocked him if he knew his name was being taken in vain like this.

You are being wonderfully tactful with Desai but surely you realize that Crazy does not discrimate ideologically.

Indeed. Crazy does not discriminate. Advocates of liberty are no more likely to be crazy than advocates of BIG government.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have the ultimate compelling argument against the two above evils that will unite the AWMs to stop it!"ut

Well, maybe he does. But he reminds me too much of Mr Benjamatic, who had an ultimate compelling argument that would defeat the evils of professional architecture associations, for me to think he is anything but crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was about to question why this fellow was still your adviser, and then I noticed that you referred to him as your former adviser...

I find that very insulting. As I clearly stated in my post, my former adviser is a very smart man --- undoubtedly much smarter than you --- and I still consider him a friend.

Darrell

I call bullshit on this, and have a great deal of trouble actually believing that you find this insulting, let alone "very insulting." Instead, I believe that you are simply mouthing the common refrain(s) made in the present culture.

It seems like Objectivists would be wary of falling into this trap. Words have meaning.

If you don't want commentary on the your adivser's nit-witted views or naivete, don't bring him or her up.

Hell, even my 12 year old daughter understands that there is no such thing--nor could there be any such thing-- as a "guaranteed income".

And, by the way, you do call him your former adviser, so maybe he should be the one feeling insulted. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a brave person, Darrell. I would be scared to have a friend who was much smarter than PDS.

Carol: I find this attempt at humor very insulting. Not just regular insulting, but very insulting. I ask for an apology. If you don't give me an apology, I may petition MSK to have him force you to give me one to assuage my tender feelings that may or may not have led to my finding your post so very, very insulting. Also, I think you owe Darell an apology too, because his former adviser may be reading this, assuming he can break away from his research long enough to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a brave person, Darrell. I would be scared to have a friend who was much smarter than PDS.

Carol: I find this attempt at humor very insulting. Not just regular insulting, but very insulting. I ask for an apology. If you don't give me an apology, I may petition MSK to have him force you to give me one to assuage my tender feelings that may or may not have led to my finding your post so very, very insulting. Also, I think you owe Darell an apology too, because his former adviser may be reading this, assuming he can break away from his research long enough to do so.

PDS:

I am so devastated and distraught that I can barely type through the retching sobs that wrack my body. Once again I am persecuted for telling the Truth, that smart people are scary and comprise a feral underclass who want to destroy the rest of us and it is almost too late, and although this is obvious to everyone they evilly pretend not to see it and to mock and deride us Truth Martyrs -- O god there is an encyclopedia salesman at the door - even I know nobody sells encyclopedias anymore - this could be the end!

Goodbye, I forgive everyone....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was about to question why this fellow was still your adviser, and then I noticed that you referred to him as your former adviser...

I find that very insulting. As I clearly stated in my post, my former adviser is a very smart man --- undoubtedly much smarter than you --- and I still consider him a friend.

Darrell

I call bullshit on this, and have a great deal of trouble actually believing that you find this insulting, let alone "very insulting." Instead, I believe that you are simply mouthing the common refrain(s) made in the present culture.

It seems like Objectivists would be wary of falling into this trap. Words have meaning.

If you don't want commentary on the your adivser's nit-witted views or naivete, don't bring him or her up.

Hell, even my 12 year old daughter understands that there is no such thing--nor could there be any such thing-- as a "guaranteed income".

And, by the way, you do call him your former adviser, so maybe he should be the one feeling insulted. :laugh:

Normally, I don't talk about people I know because I don't want to have to defend them from a bunch of nitwitted comments. Mea culpa. I should have known better.

BTW, the idea of a "guaranteed income" is not as dumb as it sounds. The government of this country pays out hundreds of billions of dollars a year in benefits including Social Security income to the elderly. So, it could guarantee everyone a low income so long as most people continued to work --- and they probably would if the guaranteed income was quite low. So much for the impossibility of a "guaranteed income."

One of the problems with the article was that the author wanted the government to guarantee a comfortable income to everyone. That might sound far fetched, but with the advancement of science and technology, it is possible that we could generate wealth at such a high rate in the future that most people might not have to work. Of course, there are problems with that idea, but it is difficult to say, categorically, that a guaranteed income is "impossible." So much for the intelligence of your daughter's father. :laugh:

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was about to question why this fellow was still your adviser, and then I noticed that you referred to him as your former adviser...

I find that very insulting. As I clearly stated in my post, my former adviser is a very smart man --- undoubtedly much smarter than you --- and I still consider him a friend.

Darrell

I call bullshit on this, and have a great deal of trouble actually believing that you find this insulting, let alone "very insulting." Instead, I believe that you are simply mouthing the common refrain(s) made in the present culture.

It seems like Objectivists would be wary of falling into this trap. Words have meaning.

If you don't want commentary on the your adivser's nit-witted views or naivete, don't bring him or her up.

Hell, even my 12 year old daughter understands that there is no such thing--nor could there be any such thing-- as a "guaranteed income".

And, by the way, you do call him your former adviser, so maybe he should be the one feeling insulted. :laugh:

Normally, I don't talk about people I know because I don't want to have to defend them from a bunch of nitwitted comments. Mea culpa. I should have known better.

BTW, the idea of a "guaranteed income" is not as dumb as it sounds. The government of this country pays out hundreds of billions of dollars a year in benefits including Social Security income to the elderly. So, it could guarantee everyone a low income so long as most people continued to work --- and they probably would if the guaranteed income was quite low. So much for the impossibility of a "guaranteed income."

One of the problems with the article was that the author wanted the government to guarantee a comfortable income to everyone. That might sound far fetched, but with the advancement of science and technology, it is possible that we could generate wealth at such a high rate in the future that most people might not have to work. Of course, there are problems with that idea, but it is difficult to say, categorically, that a guaranteed income is "impossible." So much for the intelligence of your daughter's father. :laugh:

Darrell

Wow, Darrell, you sure got me with that one. Best not to tangle with you, obviously.

As to your idea about the "the advancement of science and technology," it is possible that we could also generate a breathing apparatus that would allow Jeremy Bentham to come back to life and call your idea "bullshit on stilts". And that's even if Mr. Bentham disregards the mounds of dead bodies piled up by those trying to implement such an idea in the 20th Century.

Objectivists sure do say the darndest things nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Darrell, you sure got me with that one. Best not to tangle with you, obviously.

As to your idea about the "the advancement of science and technology," it is possible that we could also generate a breathing apparatus that would allow Jeremy Bentham to come back to life and call your idea "bullshit on stilts". And that's even if Mr. Bentham disregards the mounds of dead bodies piled up by those trying to implement such an idea in the 20th Century.

Objectivists sure do say the darndest things nowadays.

Wow, how can a person argue with pessimism like that? Of course, it will never be possible to generate wealth like that. People generating such wealth is about as likely as people going to the moon. When pigs fly ... I tell you. Such ridiculous notions. Sheesh.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SINGLE POST REPLY TO DIFFERENT FORUMS


All are urged to read the site GOP anti-doles to refresh your idea about the difference between today’s govt and leaders versus the Founding Fathers (FFs) and their govt. keeping in mind it does not give GOP's negatives.



Thanks Doug Bandler (Solop) – yours is the one single comment I have been looking for. I am not asking for bouquets and accolades in advance, but just some serious reading of a few pages – and I claim that America’s future can get changed with that. (But please remember that a small input has to be there of reading a few pages seriously which we will gradually develop in the coming days – saying this because people don’t read more than 1 page!)


Response may take a bit of a time because of two reasons: 1. The internet service here is erratic due to heavy rains; 2. I don’t want to make a wrong post this time; it’s important for me at least.


Regarding your reference about why Asians are so Democractic: please remember that the “hate American” phenomenon is universal, means hate America’s core values – they all want to derive all benefits from there and plus destroy those values. Americans don’t understand the nature of evil. This requires lot of writing which I am going to provide to you. You will be shocked to know reality – please wait and read seriously.



To Darrell Hougen (OO): You are talking about training the doles dependent vote block of parasites (DDVB of P) that forced Stack / Romney to despair, “The people that you need to convert cant read at the level needed to even comprehend Rand. See the problems about this approach in ascending order: 1.the vote-block is too big; 2. it does not intend to change but just wants doles; 3. it is being encouraged to be so because some people depend on its illiteracy to remain leaders, become Presidents. Note that whatever you are proposing, the Dems are already doing it since the days of Lyndon Johnson the analysis of whose political life I am going to supply you next – he (and other Dem-presidents) has no other ability but nurturing this vote-block since the days of FDR.


I will give you a parallel example from India, the Dems are only a refined version of that – a rich European NGO came to a slum in my city. The slum-lord without whose permission nothing can be done there, has 3 wives (and god knows how many illegal ones). He simply suggested a solution: spend 10 -12% of your huge kitty on a few binges of food and cheap alcohol for the people you want to uplift; they will be happy because they don’t like to learn but consume. Divide remaining money into 2 parts, one for me, the other amongst all of you.” They said, “Ours is a long term project, we want to teach these illiterate people how to live etc”. He answered: “Bloody idiots! If these people improve where will I go? My huge money, leadership position, clout, boot-legging, everything depends on they being worms.” That is what the Dems are doing to America and I can prove it. Democracy facilitates such peoples’ victory – in fact it reduces politics to this level throwing better men out; the Founding Fathers (FFs) would be inefficacious and out of politics today, just as their constitution is. Your policy was implemented by Lyndon Johnson and is being strongly pursued till Obama – you will see the details in my next post and perhaps admit its futility. (This is the American over-generosity and I believe Jefferson to be the originator of this idea – OK, more if I get a hearing.)



Bill Morgan on TPN: Civil war is not the main point, still …. If America continues along the same path of degeneration, ballooning debt etc (and very likely because there is no agency to affect a change, GOP being a contributor to debt / erosion) then there will surely be collapse / civil war. I could not even believe when I learnt of it belatedly that the Dems had invited the UN as referee in their fight with Conzs (i.e. in America’s internal matters, treason) and yet Obama got re-elected! Every evil power on earth will want to play a role in destroying America, it’s a universal quest. The Dems will continue using their vote-block to repetitively invite the UN i.e. Russia, China and Co against the AWMs. But such great rules and empires take long time, either to be erected or to be felled, and even now several decades (at least) are available for reclamation. (But if a game-changer is not introduced it will collapse.) I do not want to predict the final configuration which will depend on so many factors but “Christians” will surely be one of the parties being the original builders and educated majority – if they are able to successfully impose Founding Fathers’ (FF)-Govt, it may give a chance for revival – all of it depends on how things unfold. I will also give a post to show how civilizations rise and fall – America was an exception because of her greatness, but when civilization peaks she too will collapse.


The main point is to not only avert a collapse / war, but to even stop today’s slide / loss, because of which I see so much despair all around, trumpeting of tea-parties, etc – solution is to go back to FFs’ govt, but to achieve even the smallest progress the AWms have to unite over some key points, learn to avoid getting divided, all of which I am targeting. Note that America is merely getting destroyed by uncivilized savages who have nothing of value to offer – 5 sets of emancipated people I listed elsewhere (not merely erst-while slaves), illegal immigrants, the trash at the bottom of society, all of them aptly described by Stack in OP – and America was the greatest country, as I said, the climax of rational man’s aspirations for civilization.


As to Objectivist Party – it is unviable because O’ism is not common man’s philosophy and it has its negatives I have described elsewhere. That they are unable to maintain any unity amongst their miniscule numbers is mainly because they are unable to make any contribution to solving democracy’s problems, so like all other AWMs they too fight over trivia. For example see their stance on two big issues of today: 1. Racism -- Huge state concessions, special treatment to so-called “weak” minorities (like affirmative action), all in contravention to “equality in front of law”, is neglected by O’ists; all savage acts perpetrated by them despite special concessions (like the savagery that followed Trayvon Martin judgment described on all Tea Party sites), is neglected by the O’ists. Same with Aztalan, Le Reza, Sotomayor etc. AWMs was the smear coined and used by Dems for years together against GOP and TPM – but as soon as I used it (to take the wind out of it) I became a racist and this OP was not allowed on two ARI-Ditto-Head forums! 2. I read an essay on immigration by one of their eminent scholars – he has listed all of immigrants’ positives, but not a single –ve, as if they are saints and America’s future depends only on them, but no –ves. One single question will blast his thesis – Why do people migrate to particular locations, why only to West from rest of the world and not the other way round? Because the host country also has huge virtues (apart from some –ves) which the migrants do not have. Once the migrants become even an appreciable minority (not even a majority), they become a head-ache, do not admit the virtues of the host country and their own -ves, think they are superior and the natives are inferior, and gradually but imperceptibly want to impose their inferior “way of life” on to the host country – I can expand on this a lot, but deferred.


The above 2 issues have contributed hugely to the erosion of America, and O’ism has only nonsense views about them.


For the Libertarians Ayn Rand’s books are just a symbol that unites them against the Dems, nothing more.



What is needed to save America is a modification of Protestant religion or entire Christianity (because Catholics too are quite close these days) for the layman AWM because today existing Christianity is insufficient due to weaknesses like charity misused by Dems. It was a unique religion but some key change (minor but very important) which I claim to know as the ultimate compelling argument, is necessary to energize it again, which is what I mean by uniting the AWMs to reclaim America. That is what I mean above by a Protestants imposing FF-Govt. Anyway, repeating again – if you give a sincere thought to my next posts you will know more – ther is a page titled “Difference between Protestant and other Religions.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now