SOLO-International Op-Ed: And You Can Tell Them, "I Was There!"

atlascott's picture
Submitted by atlascott on Fri, 2009-12-25 15:51

SOLO-International Op-Ed: And You Can Tell Them, "I Was There!"

Scott DeSalvo
December 26, 2009

Our fall will soon be fast and furious.

It began with a money supply divorced from value.

It continued with counterculture ideological flirtings with the illogical and preposterous which became the core curriculum in our schools in less than a generation.

And while Americans drowsed to reality TV, politicians and businessmen conspired to ill-gotten gain and power...

While memory of what made America great continued to fade.

Our politicians sold us for political perks and cash, and supported 2000 page Bills, having read only the Talking Points.

A handful have objected—notably Ron Paul—who has sounded the alarm continuously for 30 years, but no one answered.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

"The Price we Pay

"Any [health care] legislation that passes is bound to be costly—but no one knows how costly it will be. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the Senate version will cost $1 trillion over the next decade.

"But then, when Medicare was originally passed in 1967, it was estimated that the hospital insurance (Part A) would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990. By 1990 the actual cost to the government was $67 billion!"

The poor, having no sense of cost or value, will abuse the system as they have the Medicare and welfare system.

Private politically connected business will exploit the system in every way imaginable to maximize profit from a "customer" with "unlimited free money."

The wealthy politically connected will continue their road which ends for them as members of the American Politburo.

The vast middle class will be forced to cash the check written thoughtlessly at best, and with malice at worst. It will bankrupt us.

There will be hyperinflation when the middle class can no longer foot the bill (very soon now) and the Fed will fire up the printing presses full time. An inflated money supply will devastate any chance at economic recovery.

China may declare war when we cannot honor the trillions we owe them, or when we pay them in worthless dollars and America will be unable to muster a defense with no money to pay soldiers and no industry to create the tools of war.

This, my friends, is the beginning of the end.

The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union crumbled, and totalitarian Russia returns to power as we fade, suiciding.

The next step is to seize firearms. Buy your guns, ammo and reloaders now. In 5 years, you likely will be unable to buy them legally.

More nationalization of business and more power for the Fed and the Federal government.

Vast prescriptions of free mood elevators to the populace, and a vast growing prison system.

Soon, people will begin to disappear from the streets.

An uneducated populace will not notice.

Glenn Beck will soften or disappear. Fox will soften or diappear under FCC mandate.

Ron Paul will pass with no worthy successor.

Americans will huddle in hovels and poverty and wonder how freedom and capitalism have led them to this.

And our destruction will be complete. Ayn Rand's nightmare vision will be realized.

And like the Romans of old who watched as the Visigoths pour over and pillage the Seven Hills of Rome ...

We can tell our antegenitors "I Was There ... "

If there is a God, may he have mercy upon the souls of Americans who are watching it all come apart,

And who have wasted man's greatest political creation.

This is serious: take care of yourselves. That may be all that is left to do.

Scott DeSalvo:

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists):

( categories: )

1) "I believe very sincerely

atlascott's picture

1) "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were –if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"

Ron Paul's position is that US foreign policy is a major contributing factor to 9/11. That is not the same thing as laying moral blame at the victim's feet. This is a key distinction you are not making. The US has a bad foreign policy position. Saying so does not make Ron Paul a pomowanker, traitor or coward. It makes him a patriot.

2) Agreed, but what is your evidence that occupation has done anything but enriched political insider's private corporations, and wasted billions of dollars and thousands of American lives? There is no evidence at all for it.

3) We agree that pre-emptive strikes are mandatory in the face of a clear and present danger. That is why I give Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq invasion, but not occupation. It is also why I did not oppose Israel's striking Iran.

But pre-emptive wars are a slippery slope. Many do not believe Bush has any justification for Iraq, and I can see their point. Pre-emptive wars enrich a lot of the ruling American class. And as I said before, the standard must be higher than it has been before we preemptively strike and especially if the military plan involved boots on the ground. Clear and present danger is an acceptable standard. But politicians must be held to providing a high level of proof.

That standard of proof must especially met and met with suspicion whenever the plan involves occupation and nation building. Bombs enough to level Iran would costs some few billions and some few lives. Compare that the the cost of occupation.

Don't relegate occupation and nation building in the the toolbox of common, normal and accepted tools. They are too costly to be used without real reserve. And when has nation-building and occupation worked? They do not.

4) I don't support Ron Paul on abortion, and I think his position varies from his principles. He is on record as saying that it should be a locally legislated issue. On the other hand, he has sponsored lesislation which, for example, seeks to legally define an embryo as life and therefore afford embryos civil rights, on the Federal level. As President, he would not be able to get this through.

"The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who rule in accordance with the Constitution, Americans do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases."
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 60 Apr 1, 2008

I support Ron Paul because the abortion issue is not an issue which has us poised upon the precipice. The other issues I have identified do have us on the precipice.

So, you HAVE found things wrong with him, so have I, but you support a big government, same-old, same-old Republican like Giuliani instead?

Keeping your eye out for an acceptable candidate means you will have a long wait.

This place is going to be a poverty-stricken totalitarian mess in less than a generation.

There is no time.

Say I have a crazy neighbor

Aaron's picture

Say I have a crazy neighbor down the street. I let my dog crap in his yard, encourage my kids to soap his windows, and take his leaf-blower from his garage without asking - and he responds by burning my house to the ground. While my actions weren't right, this certainly doesn't mean that his actions were justified or that they shouldn't be considered criminal. There's still 'degrees of evil', and there's no moral equivalence here. Yet this doesn't mean I can't recognize that it was a dumb idea to needlessly pick fights with the loony neighbor. That's what 'blowback' means to me, and it seems that's how Ron Paul has used it when I've seen or read him as well.


Bro DeSalvo

Lindsay Perigo's picture

In response to your latest salvo, DeSalvo:

1) Perhaps you should make clear what you mean by "blowback." I mean, and I'm sure Ron Paul does, deserved consequences of legitimate grievances. I don't believe for a second it stacks up and I'd be astonished if the CIA did; he does.

2) I don't support nation-building and occupation, necessarily; I support whatever it takes to annihilate the enemy. Ron Paul says the US is the bad guy and the enemy will cease being the enemy if we'd only leave him alone.

3) A pre-emptive war (or better, a pre-emptive strike so devastating it makes further action unnecessary) is not only not wrong, it's mandatory in the face of clear and present danger. I believe it's also perfectly constitutional as long as the requisite congressional permission slips are filled out.

4) Of course, Paul is entitled to his opinion on abortion. But he wants to impose his opinion on everyone else. He has sponsored a bill that would outlaw all abortion, period, on the grounds that rights kick in at conception. At least Rand, in the very same breath in which she made her stupid comments about homosexuality, added that it wasn't the government's business.

5) My position is not "no candidate ever good enough." I'm constantly on the look-out for one who is. My position is that the equivalent point at which the Founders rebelled has long been exceeded in the contemporary train of abuses and usurpations, and the Obamugabians should be put on notice that their forcible removal and indictment for treason would be constitutionally legitimate. I was delighted to see the father of a 9/11 victim say as much on Hannity yesterday.

6) Pacifism is not a prerequisite for "good enough." Nor is opposition to giving to those charged with defending freedom the tools with which to do it. I remember someone here objecting to govt eavesdropping on calls from terrorists overseas. To that sort of moronic naivete I say, grow the fuck up!

Sorry, Bro DeSalvo, but Ron Paul is not my man, my man.

Strongly worded

atlascott's picture

Linz, you know well that O'Reilly is obnoxious, and to get a word in edgewise, you have to throw it out there.

He attempted to mischaracterize Paul's positions through self-serving leading questions and hectoring.

In the heat of argument, Paul DID say 9/11 was "caused by" blowback. That is not his entire position and not an accurate summary of his position.

The Factor is hardly a place where all the facts and nuances come out.


atlascott's picture

Both the 9/11 Commission and the CIA have concluded that blowback was a factor, not just of the 9/11 attacks, but, for example, the Iran hostage Crisis in the 1980's. This is hardly a new concept or a new term. It is exactly as Paul says.

I do not think either of us will have easy access to those documents, but a cursory Google search reveals that Paul is hardly the only one to cite those conclusions by those sources. A version of the 9/11 Commision Report is available on Amazon. Not good research, I know.

I agree that the policy hasn't been aggressive enough. In fact, in a previous post, I wondered why we stopped Israel from wiping Iran off of the map when Israel's complete destruction was threatened by a neighbor with the capacity to do it.

Whatever else these guys are, we should take them at their word. bin Laden said he would attack, and he did. When they say that they are going to, then we should take them at their word.

Evidently, you support nation building and occupation. I value American dollars and lives much to highly to throw them away in gambits like that. My preference is to hurt them profoundly and at low cost to ourselves, which we easily can do. And we should generally get out of the region.

We agree that Muslims have a religious duty to spread their religion by the sword. You are not going to nation-build or occupy them out of their religion. Just don't stick your arm in the hornet's nest, and if you do, don't leave it in there. Destroy it.

This might not be fair, but it occurs to me that it really isn't YOUR arm in the hornet's nest, anyway. And mine is only as a taxpayer, and this government wastes so much money on everything it does. But when your arm is not the one being stung, it is easy to be hawkish without a thorough examination of the issues.

I don't think Ron Paul has EVER said that if we back off, they will leave us alone. I do not believe that. That isn't the issue. The issue is: (1) we have no Constitutional mandate to be there as an nation-building, occupying force; (2) there is no Constitutional mandate for preemptive wars, preemptive wars are immoral and have become tools of politics and the unholy union of government and business; (3) there is no evidence of any benefit to occupation over there; (4) there has been significant cost in lives and money.

Understand, this is government throwing away LIVES. Going to war should always be the last option, and troops on the ground should be the last option.

When American LIVES and money are at stake, we have the highest burden, before we spend a single man or dollar, to establish convincingly that our plan is sound, necessary, moral and effective. None of those are true with respect to our occupation in Iran and Afghanistan. Iran was completely unnecessary.

As to abortion, Paul DOES believe that a fetus is "alive" and entitled to all the rights...he is entitled to his opinion.

Ayn Rand thought homosexuality was immoral and a choice borne of bad premises, as preposterous as that is. Yet, we revere her.

Paul also believes that this is a States Rights question - an issue for local determination. He does not believe the Federal government should pay for them. But, don't we all believe that the government shouldn't be in the business of paying for any health care?

I have said, he is not perfect. Neither are you or I, and we would both do a vastly better job that Obamalini or Giuliani.

YOU think the greatest threat to America is some poor, few Muslims half a world away who might get a nuclear weapon, and whether a woman's right to have taxpayers fund her abortion is a top 20 pressing issue. You support such monumentally horrible ideas such as the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and occupation, preemptive wars, and nation building because you are so afraid of terrorists and Muslim fundamentalists, who we could wipe off the face off the earth by pushing a few hundred buttons. America spends billions of dollars on Homeland Security, and idiots with explosives still get on airplanes. How can an Objectivist support this?

I think that reforming the government, eliminating the Fed, eliminating the totalitarian groundwork of the Patriot Act, and focusing on spending American lives and American dollars on American domestic problems is what this country has been about, and should be about. If a bomber from Jordan bombs something, Jordan has 7 days to give us whatever we want or there is no longer going to be any city or village in Jordan in one month's time. If he is from Jordan and joined a fundamentalist mosque in Saudi Arabia, same demands, both countries, or boom. Muslim problem solved.

Your positions on these things remind me of 2 things:

First, the orthodox O'ists, for whom no candidate is good enough, and for whom the time is never good enough or "right"; and

Second, the mythical guy so obsessed with "security" (which the government has not delivered to us after billions of wasted dollars and almost 10 years) that he remains focused overseas whilst his liberty dies at home.

All totalitarian regimes fabricate a great fear, and leverage that fear into power. Consider it.

Don't let an initial visceral negative reaction from one statement stop you from reading Paul's book on foreign policy.

Scott - see

Ellen Stuttle's picture

I don't want to deflect your thread further, so I responded on the "A Toast to Frank O'Connor!" thread - See.


Scott ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The "blowback" comment is right there in the O'Reilly interview. From the horse's mouth. It is not a mere "characterization" by someone else.

If you're now claiming "blowback" was the CIA's position as well, I'd be curious to see the evidence.

"Bad policy"? Yes—it hasn't been aggressive enough.

This is not the era of Jefferson, with no such thing as threats from the air.

The Islamofascists and Saddamites want to destroy America because it is America, not because it has merely pissed them off. To think "they'll leave us alone if we just back off" is beyond stupid. It's suicidal.

Ron Paul is one of them in my book.

And what about his abortion bill?

In other videos

atlascott's picture

In other videos, Ron Paul explains that he DOES NOT blame Americans for 9/11.

He blames the "evil, murderous people" who committed the atrocities, and says that bad foreign policy was a contributing cause.

WHY is it treasonous to say that bad policy contributes to our problems? Doesn't it?

It is important for you to understand his position and what he really said versus what he is characterized as having said.

To do otherwise is analogous to supporting the Health Care bill based on talking points rather than the bill's contents.

We must be men of detail and understanding, not following a sound clip.

We should also note that Ron Paul bases his conclusions on THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE CIA, which prepared a report after conducting a study on this very issue. in other words, it may be unpopular to say, but this guy studied the issue and is accepting the advice and conclusions of experts on the Middle East.

During the debate, Giuliani gave a knee-jerk response, telling Paul to retract the statement. The next day, Paul provided Giuliani with a lengthy list of books, studies and reports on the topic which PAUL had personally read, NONE of which Giuliani had.

Paul is an educated man of principle who is always adding to his knowledge, and who updates his conclusions and policy positions accordingly.

I'm afraid ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I could never vote for anyone who said 9/11 was "blowback." I'd shoot the treasonous bastard before I voted for him.

Waiting for an election is life threatening and immoral

Sandi's picture

Today, Al Jazeera announces China's intention to build a naval base. (Bear in mind that China is already funding the construction of a deepwater port at Gwadar- Pakistan)

Russia is threatening to sell missiles to Iran.

Reuters publishes "Nuclear power plans in Africa, Middle EastAlgeria for Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Namibia, Niger, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the UAE" (I wonder who is going to be paying for it all)?

Eight CIA agents are killed at a military base in Afghanistan (sound familiar to Fort Hood?)

And by early next year there will be 100,000 USA patriots removed from US soil and shifted to the otherside of the world to fight terrorists and THEY will face prosecution if anyone of them gives a terrorist a FAT LIP!

Its almost a decade since 9/11 and the US government is still afraid to name its enemy.
The symptom is terrorism BUT the real CAUSE is Collectivism.

Americans should pitchfork the traitorous bastards out of their White House before it is too late. But that won't happen. Well not before someone replaces Simon Cowell in Pop Idol and certainly not whilst Tiger Woods is feeling Randy.

Wow Scott. I'm not even as

Aaron's picture

Wow Scott. I'm not even as fond of Ron Paul as you now, but overall he's definitely one of good guys, one of extremely few in politics. I like the enthusiasm.


Ron Paul Foreign Policy

atlascott's picture

The fundamental premises of Ron Paul's foreign policy -- that the US government should not be large enough to afford military bases in virtually every country in the world, and that nation-building and occupation are not part of our government's mandate -- are correct.

I disagree with his evident position that we should immediately and on principle withdraw from everywhere, totally and completely and instantly. I think we have made some messes and we should work to clean them up.

As we do that, we should make it clear that we offer trade and friendship on fair terms to anyone who wants trade and friendship. Otherwise, we ignore you, and if, for example, an action against Iran becomes necessary, we take action swiftly, certainly and brutally in a way that makes the action short, cost-efficient, and spares as many US servicemen's lives as possible.

On balance, the world is probably a better place with no Saddam. But we spent an awful lot of money and lives on an unnecessary war. As careful as a government must be in spending its citizen's money, it must be held infinitely more accountable for wasting a single citizen's life.

Every time the US invades and occupies a Middle Eastern nation, it unifies and consolidates the region, temporarily. This is Paul's observation, and it is true. When we leave Middle Eastern nations alone, they murder one another over a quibble about their particular flavor of Islam. I say, let them.

I think Paul concedes that the current crackpot in Iran is a threat to the entire Persian Gulf. I think that he is right that the crackpot gets political capital and support from his citizens and other nations the longer we occupy their lands. Our presence helps him whip up fervor. These are people who are taught to invade OUR lands. It is hard for them to stomach infidel occupation of Muslim lands. We should grant their wish. We deliver them death and destruction when they misbehave, instantly, overwhelmingly and brutally, rather than resorting to costly occupation that does nothing for us, but does enrich political insider corporations which war-profiteer, like Haliburton. It is also beyond Constitutional mandate.

Please note that none of ths is pacifism, cowardice, or shifting moral blame to victims. We did not deserve 9/11. It is simply rational self-defense. We CAN out-think 16th Century savages, and so we should, to our benefit.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if we held no presence in the Persian Gulf, that Iran and Iraq and this one and that one would go right back to fighting one another as they have for thousands of years and would soon forget about fighting the United States. Obviously, if you have any inkling that nuclear weapons are being developed or plans are being laid, you devastate the entire area. But you leave the rubble to them. Forget occupation. Forget hearts and minds. Forget nation-building.

O'Reilly is not being fair, which is his standard modus. ANY nation can start a war. ANY nation can fund Hezbollah. China is a totalitarian Communist nation with nuclear weapon. Pakistan is a powderkeg. Why not invade them, too, since they "could" support a nuclear attack? If there is evidence, you act. If there is suspicion, you watch. That is the burden of morality. You do not have moral authoirty to kill people because you are merely suspicious.

My opinion is that as soon as Ahmadinejad stated his intention to wipe Israel off of the map, we should NOT have stopped the Israelis from destroying every urban population center or location capable of any industry whatsoever, including their oil capacity. And we DID stop the Israelis from doing so. Why? Who knows. Probably because we wanted other Persian Gulf powers to continue to provide us support in our 2 front war. But that is the sort of conundrum interventionism will get you into.

These decisions should be simple, informed by clear policy and principle. When you begin acting on bad premises, then it gets complicated.

If the US stopped giving free support money to virtually every nation in the world, stopped wasting money and lives on occupation and nation building, and stopped spending billions being funneled to corporate political insiders, how much better shape would we be in?

We would be able to cut taxes to stimulate the economy, that's for sure.

Scott ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What's your view of this?:

Frank's drinking

atlascott's picture

Whether Frank was drinker or not? REALLY? THAT'S how they are going to diminish Ayn Rand, the creator of a philosophy that not one in 50,000 Americans has any clue about?

Please do not take this the wrong way, but ridiculous.

These Ayn Rand smear jobs are pathetic and weak, put forth by old, insecure, gnats who could not carry Ayn Rand's jockstrap, had she for some reason ever wore one. NB is half a nut job and BB is a weak-minded nobody. They both are STILL trading on their association with Ayn Rand, the ultimate second-handers.

My read on this is: (1) Whether Frank drank or not is utterly irrelevant; (2) No one but the inner, inner, super-obsessed Objectivist -OR- those who were around during the Branden's reign at NBI give a fiddler's fart about the personalities, the affairs, whether someone drank, whether some nobody was right or wrong about this one who said that.


This sort of quibble is more akin to speculation about why Brittany Murphy died covering up reporting of the health care bill.

It drains our time and energy over quibbles which ultimately do not diminish the truth of Objectivism.

Straw man, hiding the true threat.

As a hobbyist, if you want to fight about it, okay. But do not try to equate its significance to the performance and misdeeds of the Fed, the re-upping of the Patriot Act with additional ominous provisions, passage of stimulus and health care and carbon credit bills and treaties.

Art is fuel for the soul, and it is soul-damaging to see our deserving heroes dragged through the mud.

Ayn Rand was not a demi-god, and Frank was not a demi-god, either. Not magical, not perfect.

Ayn Rand was one of the most important people who ever lived, and she was a genius. Frank was a mediocre artist, by all accounts a great fellow, and was married to a Great Woman. Honestly, listening to stories of young girls who wet themselves over a charming authority figure turns my goddamned stomach. It is the same mythos Progressives are trying to build up around Obama.

I don't CARE if he charmed some girl. I don't buy unearned guilt, and I don't buy heroic status by association.

Ayn Rand - hero. Frank? Oh, what difference does it make? Ayn loved him, and he was by all accounts a good man. Does he HAVE to be a magical hero OR a villian?

As to music: some rely upon it more than others. It gives the flagging soul strength, the uncertain soul resolve. At its best, it is ennobling.

But the battle in popular music is over. WAY over. The arts were amongst the first casualties of 50's and 60's nihilism-creep into America.

The political battle for freedom is being waged right now, and Objectivism has fielded no army. Not a squad, not a piece of artillery.

We will not win this way, and losing is just a matter of time.

WE MUST ALL support Ron Paul and LPAC.

I do not guarantee victory or improvement, but maybe we can survive for a bit more and live to formulate new strategies.

And we MIGHT win. But victory is not going to be delivered to your door.

Do you remember the inner-city "community organizers" and ACORN-ites who were bussed in by the Dems to show "popular support" for national suicide?

Get off your dead asses, RIGHT NOW, and make a donation to the Campaing for Liberty and Ron Paul.

Contact LPAC and CFL and fucking volunteer.

Good cannot sit on its ass whilst evil promises its pawns an easy life paid for by YOU and gets THEM to show up and yell.

What kind of goddamned sissies are we, anyway?

They are going to truck in a load of lay-abouts who are promised a good living at my expense, and I cannot be bothered to stand up, to be counted?

It's like just handing the schoolyard bully your lunch money. Humiliating.

It's "go" time, fuckers.

We don't want them or their garbage anymore. Time for them to GO.

NO ONE on this goddamned web site works harder or longer than me. That is a promise. But I am taking time away from my business and money out of my bank account because now is the time. NOW IS THE TIME.

There is no other time. There is no other course. NOW IS THE TIME. RIGHT NOW.

[Ellen - please excuse my profanity and agitation. None of it is directed at you, and I appreciate your civil contributions here. I get agitated]

Ron Paul

atlascott's picture

We have a man in American politics RIGHT NOW who can talk plainly about and fix the most serious threats to America.

And we are going to deny him because he is Christian?

He is also a man of science, and principle.

The Founding Fathers were also Christians and men of science and principle.

This man has fixed Reason firmly in her seat.

Rejecting him because he is Christian is the same specie of objection as Orthodox Objectivism's "It's too early" - the time is not right, he is not perfect.

Well, whether the time is right or the time is wrong, freedom is dying. Socialists are picking it apart bit by bit because the time is not right, people don't know who to support, etc.

When faced with the lesser of two evils, in politics, you'd better choose the lesser.

But Ron Paul is not an evil at all, but a true virtue.

Ron Paul is our best chance.

You HAVE to read his books. You simply must. Everyone here should.

Nothing short of inspirational brilliance

atlascott's picture

Bill Whittle is a hero. And a patriot.

Thanks for the link, Robert.

Scott, re Frank's drinking

Ellen Stuttle's picture

The issue of Frank's drinking is an issue of Ayn Rand's character and the viability of Objectivism -- whether it should be or not. That's why it's important.

There's a concerted effort out there to tear down Rand and to present Objectivism as not worth serious consideration. Regrettably, the Heller biography contributes to this effort.

Trying to get the record straight about Ayn Rand is important because of how important her ideas are to any attempt to stop the current "dying of the light." It's all part of the same struggle.


PS: Linz and I cross-posted. I hadn't seen his reply while I was writing this.

Of course you may retort!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Brother DeSalvo:

What exactly do YOU mean by revolt? Like, armed resistance? Against whom, exactly? What DO you mean by revolt?
Does authoring a Declaration exempt YOU from "thumb up ass" status? When your Declaration is vague in its direction to us, the thumb-up-assers?
I HAVE read and enjoyed your Second Declaration. What exactly are YOU proposing?

By revolt I mean what the Founding Fathers and the Patriots did. Forcible removal, as the Declaration allows. Their tyranny was London-based. Yours is Washington-based. But frankly, I believe once there's sufficient groundswell for armed revolt, it won't be necessary—the mere rumble would bring the bastards into line. But let the rumble be felt. It's time. And though I'm flattered that you seem to think I might be up to it, it's not really for me to draw up a battle plan. I've tweaked the warrant so as to give it staying power. Go for it!

I've had my thumb out of my ass and my fist in their faces for years. Listen to the old radio editorials that Kasper is posting if you doubt it. And I'll keep going as best I can.

I have not defended Frank O'Connor against Babs Heller because I am giving it the metaphysical significance that all of the music threads deserve in the current political climate: very, very little.
I mean and a quibble over whether Frank liked a drink now and again? As against the dying of the light?
I have gone on record, many times, defending those who enjoy a drink. In my book, it says something GOOD about one's character.
Focusing on music and Frank's drinking is one step up from focusing on whether Brangelina are going to break up and whether Brittany Murphy's death was heart attack, OD, or suicide.
Fiddling whilst Rome burns.

I think you're missing the big-picture significance of the Humanity-Diminishers' Campaign for Smallness. They are saying that heroism is not possible—or that it's possible but they'll damned well do their darndest to create a world in which it isn't, and where it rears its head it'll be smeared down. Trumped-up charges of alcoholism are part of their arsenal of smears. And the music threads are, quite simply, instances of Humanity Undiminished. They're important for SOLO's mission.

I remain sceptical, to put it mildly, about putting my eggs in the Ron Paul basket. But seeing the profound impact he's had on you, I'll at least pay him more attention in future.

Men like this one...

Robert's picture

giving speeches like this one are worthy of praise and support. You will find this man on Pajamas TV. A site some twat on another thread condemned as being rife with christian mush. I don't give a rat's fuck about Bill Whittle's opinions of the hereafter. The man has more passion and spirit than the combined legion of Objectivists that I've encountered here over the years.

And I would commend his summary to those of you who think that it is worth leaving this political battleground to the socialists.

Allow Me To Retort

atlascott's picture

"None of you is confronting the fact that it's revolt time. I've fixed the document of revolt, if I may be so immodest, so that the revolt might endure this time—but none of you has read it. All any of you propose to do is keep sitting with your thumbs up your asses. You can't even rouse yourselves to defend Frank O'Connor against Babs Heller."

What exactly do YOU mean by revolt? Like, armed resistance? Against whom, exactly? What DO you mean by revolt?

Does authoring a Declaration exempt YOU from "thumb up ass" status? When your Declaration is vague in its direction to us, the thumb-up-assers?

I HAVE read and enjoyed your Second Declaration. What exactly are YOU proposing?

I have not defended Frank O'Connor against Babs Heller because I am giving it the metaphysical significance that all of the music threads deserve in the current political climate: very, very little.

I mean and a quibble over whether Frank liked a drink now and again? As against the dying of the light?

I have gone on record, many times, defending those who enjoy a drink. In my book, it says something GOOD about one's character.

Focusing on music and Frank's drinking is one step up from focusing on whether Brangelina are going to break up and whether Brittany Murphy's death was heart attack, OD, or suicide.

Fiddling whilst Rome burns.

I've laid out my plan, my man. Where is yours?


atlascott's picture

"But frankly, I remain unclear what you, Robert, or Joe, or Scott, or Ed, are proposing we do"

Speaking for myself...

"Scott says Glenn Beck and Ron Paul can be trusted..."

My bone of contention with Glenn Beck is: he wears Jesus and the GOP on his sleeve, and I have made it clear why I think that is a problem.

As for Ron Paul: his Christianity is the least of our problems because he is principled and has made his principles known. He is not a guy who is going to ram his values down our throat as totalitarian edicts. He values freedom, first and foremost.

Isn't that PRECISELY what we seek, as Objectivists? Isn't the rest a quibble? He ABSOLUTELY CAN be trusted, and especially when every other alternative is to do nothing or to support an absolute scoundrel.

For me, the road is clear. Objectivism is an idea system. Objectivist organizations are supporters of the idea system, no more, no less. Words on a page don't DO anything. People do. Ideas which do not lead to anything are as good as meaningless.

Ron Paul is, far and away, the BEST, most principled person out there with any popular support. We should ALL support the living Christ out of him.

Not because we like Republicans or Christians, but because he is the most right, he sees and is correctly diagnosing the problems, and he is correctly prescribing the solutions. THE ONLY ONE TO DO SO I might add: Glenn Beck wrings his hands and cries but does not propose solutions.

While I support most of what Ron Paul has to say, even in foreign policy, I agree that he should set moral blame for a terrorist attack where it belongs. There are better ways to say that interventionist foreign policies cause problems. And they DO.

Here is what I propose each of us here do:

1. Work as hard as you can to become fantastically proficient in your field, live a happy life, and reward yourself with companionship, fun, and love, while amassing wealth, and store it safely, and try to pay as little tax as possible.

2. Support LPAC, the Campaign for Liberty, and Ron Paul with every dime you can spare.

3. Consider running for political office or volunteering to help in a political campaign.

4. Write some rhetoric in a pamphlet or booklet and distribute it.

5. Try to talk to everyone you can about the dangers of big government.

If it comes to ruin, and it may, and will if the current trends are not reversed, we can always resort to self-defense and survival.

Talking to one another is not doing much. Selling copies of AS to Tea-Party attendees is not doing much. Reiterating that it is "too early" for any action at all is not doing much. Foregoing many of the natural rewards a man should expect of life is a personal choice, amounting to not much.

Giving money to someone, even Ron Paul, may END UP doing literally nothing.

But it is the only rational thing to do, from my perspective.


Jmaurone's picture

Always a pleasure. Have another drink.


Robert's picture

I'm told that Glenn Beck is organizing some sort of tour in 2010 to help remedy the lack of knowledge in the general populace. I've got no idea about who or what it entails, but I intend to contribute to the general effort. It's immediate goal is laudable and worthy.

And I will continue to look for such short term opportunities to reverse this decline. Even if all I do is to give $5 to some Tea Party activist or turn up to a demonstration with a sign.

The thinkers of 'big-thoughts' (which surprisingly seem to never lead anywhere) on this site will no doubt spurn this effort as puny and futile. For example: from his fortified abode, Billy will no doubt curse me for opposing the demise of the government that prevents him and his from doing whatever the hell they want, as if in a government-free American continent, he would remain unmolested. The sundry inert Objectivists will no doubt curse me as a Quisling for daring to break bread with god-botherers. They will of course continue to remain unrepentant for their previous support for Democrats in the 2004/2009 election. Ironically, they advocated doing what I'm resolved to do - support the current system. The difference is that I intend to oppose socialists because I know that socialism isn't as dead as the deluded inert Objectivists think that it is.

In other words gentlemen, in the absence of anything better to do, I'm going to throw my lot in with active Objectivists like Yaron Brooke, and with active freedom-loving God-botherers like Glenn Beck and perhaps even Ron Paul and son (although the pacifism at all hazard aspect of their politics may cross my tolerance threshold). No, I will not accept their premises unchallenged and I reserve the right to criticize them when my principles differ from theirs. But mostly I'll just have to ignore their religious bromides because the religious -- as usual it seems -- are the only ones with the balls to do anything useful other than just flap their gums. They are the only solid, tangible point of resistance against the total and irreversible destruction of the greatest country in history - I'm going to stand with them until something better comes along. And I'm confident that if something better does come along, it won't be from the inert Objectivist or obnoxious Anarchist camps.

And I derive my confidence in that prediction from the fact that neither has ever done anything other than invent new and highly caustic invectives to describe non-Objectivist, non-Anarchist, Libertarians like myself. Not that I mind, I'm quite capable in that field myself. Just don't expect me to reply. I'm busy.

And if all I achieve from this is the ability to sleep better at night then it will be worth it. An honest man's pillow is his piece of mind. And above all else, that is what I intend to seek.

To summarize: those who disapprove can go get fucked. I'm done listening to your excuses for inaction.


atlascott's picture

Look at the numbers. Anarchy would not be anarchy for long.

That's why I am increasingly supporting Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty.

Other than running my mouth to anyone who will listen about the problems and solutions, what else CAN be done?

My first priority is me. That means: making a living, being healthy, enjoying life. It also means doing what I can to ensure that I will continue to be allowed to do so. To move things in a better direction.

So far, Ron Paul has been and is largely ignored in Congress by the political players -- but not by a lot of citizens.

He does not have an overt religiosity about him like Glenn Beck, though Beck is much better at rhetoric.

[Edited for awkward phrase]

Time is running out?!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

No kidding!

But frankly, I remain unclear what you, Robert, or Joe, or Scott, or Ed, are proposing we do. "Fight hard alongside those who get it"? Who are they, and what does it mean to fight hard alongside them?

Ed Hudgins says the 2010 and 2012 elections will take care of the problem. I say that's laughable. I say that as someone who said, with extreme discomfort, vote McCain/Palin in 2008, only because the alternative was so unthinkably bad. And I'd like Ed to explain where he was when Peikoff was telling Objectivists to vote Dem-scum across the board.

Joe seems to be saying, though he keeps it enigmatic and cryptic, Billy Beck has it right. Billy Beck is one of Joe's fellow-headbangers whose head is fucked from all the banging. Salvation most assuredly does *not* lie with musical barbarians projecting their barbarism into politics or philosophy.

Scott says Glenn Beck and Ron Paul can be trusted—both "surrender-your-life-to-something-greater-than-yourself' Christians, one of them an appeaser of bin Laden who says 9/11 was justified "blow-back." I struggle with this.

None of you is confronting the fact that it's revolt time. I've fixed the document of revolt, if I may be so immodest, so that the revolt might endure this time—but none of you has read it. All any of you propose to do is keep sitting with your thumbs up your asses. You can't even rouse yourselves to defend Frank O'Connor against Babs Heller.

This revolution requires passionate valuers. Ain't many around Objectivism, dammit.

Time is running out.

Robert's picture

Yup. But I'm not going to spend the remaining time speeding up the clock. Now is the time to fight hard alongside those who get it. And if all that does is tell me who I can trust when the shit hits the fan, well that's useful information too.

I'm not after...

Robert's picture

conversion to Atlas Shrugged! I'd be happy enough with an understanding of the first Declaration of Independence. Hell, even Thomas Paine's Common Sense would suffice at a pinch. Would it be too much to ask for US citizens to watch the History Channel?

As for chaos, there is no way in hell I'm going to encourage it when there are still good people out there who get it and may be able to reverse it.

Obviously that will put me at odds with both the minor and major anarchists among us, but I don't give a flying fuck.

As for hope without reason. Those who hope for chaos as a sure-fire way to reset the system need to revisit the dictionary meaning of chaos. Predicting a particular outcome from chaos is irrational.

Thanks Scott.

Jmaurone's picture

Thanks, Scott.

A Show of Hands

atlascott's picture

I enjoy it every time I read it, Joe.


atlascott's picture

I respect your thinking on this, Robert.

I think that Joe is right-on with his statements regarding "hope without reason." Dangerous stuff.

I support Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, and the Campaign for Liberty as glimmers of hope. In fact, I just donated $500 to the Campaign for Liberty, and I suggest every last person on this website does the same, to the extent they can, in the amount they can spare.

The built-in safeguards in the Constitution are being ignored or legislated or case law'ed out of existence.

Judges with political agendas owing political favors rule as they are bid.

Without the Constitution, I do not think that there is much hope. And it is being ignored out of existence.

The only group with any chance to turn things around are Republicans, but they aren't going to turn anything around - they want totalitarian control over us for THEIR purposes just as the Dems for their own. They'd deny it, of course. So would the Dems.

Tea Parties fizzle and are mocked. Glenn Beck talks about God and the GOP. Republicans trot out more of the same.

Do I think that there is hope? Some hope? Sure. For the reasons you have already stated: Americans. The American Spirit that still lives in some places (not much of it in my geographic locale). The chance that Obama will be hold accountable, and things might change for the better.

But the group in the position to seize power if that comes about is - again - the Republicans. They prostitute themselves for baubles. They have no foundation. They have no direction.

There are too many bad ideas that have been templated over the American conciousness through popular media and the American education system. It is going to have to begin with the Doberman puppies. We old dogs will grow old soon enough.

America is going to be saved the same way it is falling - if at all - through the power of ideas. We must thoroughly refute Socialism, Totalitarianism, Collectivism, Tribalism, Environmentalism, Multiculturalism. And this has to happen right away.

Unfortunately, there is no more collectivist and socialist and crackpot an institution than teachers' unions.

There is some hope because we can talk and think about these things.

But time is running out.

"Because it is STILL a sin to write this": A SHOW OF HANDS

Jmaurone's picture

I wrote this as a cautionary tale, but if the health care bill does pass, consider it my autobiography:

Image Hosted by

A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile (pdf)


Jmaurone's picture

"Are you on the same transcendental plane as Beck - in which case nothing I believe will pass muster? Or are you merely checking that there is some foundation for my idealism and borrowing Beck's phrase? (Can't blame you, when it comes to derogatory quips, the man has talent)."

I'm borrowing Beck's phrase, in order to inject the conversation with the concept. I agree with the idea that hope without reason is a waste of hope.

You want to know where I stand? I've already said it. It's bad. It's going to get worse. Some people are asking, "Who stole the dream?" I've already said that it was not stolen, but given away. And it needs to be taken back.

Image Hosted by

Don't fight yesterday's fights

Robert's picture

Couldn't agree with you more Joe.

But Billy isn't yesterday is he? Along with Mr Riggenbach he appears to be at the forefront of your thinking. I've actually got more time for Mr Riggenbach because he can write quite well and presents a coherent argument when he isn't being obnoxious.

Beck is another story altogether and his campaign against 'hope without reason' smacks more of a campaign against anyone who doesn't worship the very comb he uses on his mullet. The point being that IMHO, Beck's grasp of reason is shaky and probably chemically augmented.

Are you on the same transcendental plane as Beck - in which case nothing I believe will pass muster? Or are you merely checking that there is some foundation for my idealism and borrowing Beck's phrase? (Can't blame you, when it comes to derogatory quips, the man has talent).

More importantly do you agree or disagree with my reasoning?

It's Too Early for Everything!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I've long held that US Objectivists need to get into politics and have been met almost universally with derision. Until they do get some skin in the game - en masse - I'll place whatever hope I have on Glenn Beck and Ron Paul. Why? Because believing and supporting them is a better bet IMHO than praying for armed revolt or a devolution into chaos (aka the final chapters of Atlas Shrugged minus John Galt). I've studied enough history to know how dicey those ploys are.

My frustration with the orthos is that with them the only permissible action is what they're doing. Politics? Too early for that. Revolt? Too early for that (or in the case of the Brandroid faction, it's too ungenteel). Galt's Gulch? Too early for that. Infiltrate the Republicans? Too early for that, and the Repubs, they tell us, are irredeemable anyway. "Too early for that" is their default position, and they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to tea parties that somebody else initiated.

The hell with waiting till enough folk have converted to Atlas Shrugged in toto. Repairing to the Declaration of Independence will do me. Especially as amended here. Eye If there's a period of chaos, so be it.

Larger issue

Jmaurone's picture

What I meant, Robert, was the overall vitriol. Don't fight yesterday's fights. And thank you for representing your main point.


Robert's picture

Jesus wept. If what I wrote constitutes vitriol in your book, maybe you ought to read what Billy wrote here before he got bounced!

Hope without reason

Robert's picture

"My hope therefore is based on the mere existence and popularity of men such as Glenn Beck and Ron Paul. Men who (excepting Yaron Brooke and a handful of others at the ARI) are a hell of a lot more active in propagating their ideas than objectivists. I've long held that US Objectivists need to get into politics and have been met almost universally with derision. Until they do get some skin in the game - en masse - I'll place whatever hope I have on Glenn Beck and Ron Paul. Why? Because believing and supporting them is a better bet IMHO than praying for armed revolt or a devolution into chaos (aka the final chapters of Atlas Shrugged minus John Galt). I've studied enough history to know how dicey those ploys are."

Not the best bit of writing that I've ever done, but there was a bit more to that post than 'vitriol' against Saint Billy.


Jmaurone's picture


Speak for myself

Jmaurone's picture

I won't speak for Beck, you'll have to ask him those questions for his answer. At any rate, my post wasn't about him, but the larger issue, so I'll direct it past the vitriol and back to the idea of tangible hope versus "hope without reason."

Billy Beck.

Robert's picture

"my job is to do everything I can to ruthlessly shatter hope without reason"

This man is an example of anger without direction. He is the archetype of unreason. What in the hell does he want to achieve exactly? Mass suicide? If all the guy wants 1700s frontier-style self-reliant subsistence-style living, why does he not bugger off into Wyoming or Outback Australia and live it?

Quite frankly, I haven't the foggiest clue what Beck wants (other than license to curse people in ever more creative ways) because if you (as I have) attempt to explore the well-spring of his belief all you get in return are cryptic retorts and subtle death threats. Perhaps Joe, you can give me a description of the Billy Beck's utopia.

As for fighting. Whom do you (or he, it's hard for me to know what you are proposing from what you've written here) propose that we fight? Right now the problem isn't a particular person or class of people. We aren't even fighting against an idea even. Rather the total lack thereof. Obama is simply the most consistent socialist that US politics has seen in the last 110 years. The rest of them (including the current brood in the Republican party) are merely useful idiots concerned only with building their voting block with tax dollars.

We are opposed by a fucking intellectual vacuum. If you want a second revolution in America, you first need a revolution in people's heads. Otherwise when and if the 21st Century American equivalent of the Bastille is stormed, all you'll end up with is a French-style reign of terror under some 21st Century Robespierre. But you all of know this.

My hope therefore is based on the mere existence and popularity of men such as Glenn Beck and Ron Paul. Men who (excepting Yaron Brooke and a handful of others at the ARI) are a hell of a lot more active in propagating their ideas than objectivists. I've long held that US Objectivists need to get into politics and have been met almost universally with derision. Until they do get some skin in the game - en masse - I'll place whatever hope I have on Glenn Beck and Ron Paul. Why? Because believing and supporting them is a better bet IMHO than praying for armed revolt or a devolution into chaos (aka the final chapters of Atlas Shrugged minus John Galt). I've studied enough history to know how dicey those ploys are.

You and Billy Beck may not share my assessment of the odds. But given Billy Beck's the lack of a cohesive doctrine, I include him and his in the useful idiot category too. Actually, as far as I can see Billy also belongs in the foul-mouthed buffoon sub-set.

No doubt that'll set him frothing at the mouth (Merry Christmas Billy!), but I don't care. As he would (and probably has, I don't care to check) say of me, he's worthless nothing.

In Search of Hope

Jmaurone's picture

"Yes, I'm overly optimistic. But if I didn't think like this, why in the hell should I get up in the morning. I'd be better off building a bunker and stocking it with food and water."

A widespread sentiment nowadays. It's been on my mind ever since I read this quote of Billy Beck's:

"I think I now have a new principle of online operations: my job is to do everything I can to ruthlessly shatter hope without reason.

When I set up my blog, my very first post (”Weblog Precepts”) announced that I would not be a constructive critic. (The truth: I stole that from H. L. Mencken.)"

We had a similar debate here months ago on the topic. The issue of cynicism versus Pollyannism was implied, but the key concept is, like Beck said, "Hope without reason." And I've seen quite a few Polllyanna's ducking from the Beijing Cocktails thrown their way lately.

So, is their hope with reason today? I started to keep track at my blog with a series called "In Search of Hope," with two categories, one for actual hopeful events, and one for "false prophets of hope." They say, "wish in one hand, shit in the other..." Well, I'm putting it to the test. When I see real, tangible indications of hope, I'll promote it. But not a hope based on "wishful thinking." I think we all need to be a bit ruthless when it comes to "hope without reason." Hope is nothing without action, without reason.

We'll see what reasons for hope there will be in 2010. As far as "the building bunkers" mentality: if it gets THAT bad, THAT might be what gives you hope, being prepared and ready to fight.

Debt etc.

Robert's picture

Don't get me wrong Scott. The credit bubble scares the piss out of me. But I still believe that we can recover from it if we have the freedom to trade and innovate freely. Thus the scarier scenario for me is the thought that that Obama will get the Federal government take over of everything. FDR did that under the premise of WWII - a war he did everything he could to enter whilst appearing to be neutral. I see strains of the same strategy in Obama's Afghanistan policy (ie talking peace whilst acting in a limited military fashion).

Perhaps Obama won't need a war. Perhaps he will nationalize the largest banks so as to get them to lend the fiat dollars the Federal Reserve has printed - thereby becoming de facto Generalissimo of the USA. I understand that the banks are not lending their Stimulus money the way Obama would like because they are scared of devaluing the US dollar and thus the value of their existing loans. Maybe it won't even be a formal nationalization. Perhaps Obama will ask for another Stimulus (our fourth) and thereby turn the Federal Government into a de facto bank under the control of yet another Czar.

Regardless, by his deeds it is easy to see that Obama is determined to release the backed up wave of fiat credit that he and Bernanke have created. That will trigger a depression. How can it not? But even then, I believe that a country as large and as rich in natural resources with 300 million in population should be able to dig themselves out of this IF they have freedom of action. But that is the very thing that Obama's and the Dem's policies will deny them. You can recover wealth (provided you have freedom) easier than you can repeal anti-freedom legislation - especially in a political system as corrupt as ours now is with a voting public as intellectually passive as they currently are.

For instance, I'm consistently running into people who think that the USA (by virtue of it's unique political system) can tinker with socialized health care until they perfect it - this despite the evidence of so many other countries who've tried it and failed. These people dismiss my 30-years of first hand experience of socialized medicine as irrelevant.

Other guy: "Well, NZ is a small country. Of course it can't afford to pay for everyone."
Me: "Yeah, have you seen the size of the USA's budget deficits and unfunded liabilities lately?"
Other guy: "Meh!"

This is the sort of unthinking intellectual lemmingism that will doom the country. Notice that this is a basic economic argument. I don't even bother to inject anything remotely philosophical into the argument. Still no dice.

The only thing that might save us is the speed with which these people are moving. If the guys who support Obama wake up tomorrow and find that they can't lie back in their seat reading a paper-back on an aircraft anymore, they might suddenly realize what guys like Beck and Ron Paul are saying is true. And if they act accordingly and support those who believe as Beck and Paul do in spite of the slings and arrows directed at them by the Media and the Two main political parties, we might get out of this mess without reverting to the stone-age.

Yes, I'm overly optimistic. But if I didn't think like this, why in the hell should I get up in the morning. I'd be better off building a bunker and stocking it with food and water.

Largely Agreed

atlascott's picture

The slow crawl is soon going to be replaced by the rapid descent.

It must. My premise is that this government always moves progressively to increase its size and power and cost.

Most politicians would prefer to stay the course, to keep things as they are, and continue to get fat, slowly.

Progressives want change and want an end the US as it has been. They will push change and cost as a means to a new order of things.

As Rahm says, never waste a crisis.

They will make and milk crises and because Republican politicians accept the premise that a larger more controlling government is the way out of the crisis du jour. Ideas matter, and the lack of conceptual understanding, and/or their willingness to compromise their principles for perks, will do us all in.

There are 2 sides, both are part of a suicidal political game that leads to hell, and no viable third choice.

The pieces are in place: an intellectually and ideologically disarmed populace.

An ideologically certain group of destroyers (Democrats, Progressives, Environmentalists).

An Ideologically disarmed group in opposition: Republicans (who sell their votes for perks, or just do not understand what they should be doing, other than what the GOP tells them to do).

Americans have not lead the world in science, math, or anything else in school for, oh, about 20 years now.

America has lost a tremendous amount of industrial capacity, and technological industrial capacity.

Socialism will simultaneously drain producers and create disincentive for wealth creation. So from my perspective, debt and the dollar should concern you more. But we agree that what underpins the Socialist gains is the real problem.

This is STRAIGHT out of Animal Farm, which kids had to read when I was a young student, and how that whole "Napoleon and the Dobermen" thing worked out, and how Boxer just plodded along, working harder, with blinders on.

I guess kids don't read that, anymore.

Glenn Beck is a bright spot. I am not criticizing him, any more than I criticize Ron Paul. They are our HOPE.

But when things get really bad, the hogs are not going to allow Beck or Paul to continue on.

An FCC bureaucrat will promulgate a rule not subject to Congressional oversight banning either or both from the airwaves.

Or, they will be disappeared. That is how totalitarianism works.

This is what Glenn Beck doesn't seem to get: "There are 2 sides, both are part of a suicidal political game that leads to hell, and no viable third choice."

He seems to think the God and Republicans are going to save him.

Republicans are the slower poison. But not any sort of solution at all.

Fast and furious...

Robert's picture

Would easily be better that gradual and relatively painless. Words that could easily describe the USA's decent into socialism to this point.

The thing that worries me is that there are too few people able to interpret the reasons for the fall to those who survive it and ask WTF just happened?

Too many Republicans/conservatives (ie those who would naturally oppose socialism) rely on the appeal to authority: What would the Founding Fathers do? They seemingly have no inkling of how those men arrived at the conclusions they reached. It seems (if you listen to some of these commentators) as if Jefferson, Adams, et al. simultaneously had the same epiphany (given by God perhaps - as Sean Hannity might proclaim) and thence gave birth to the USA. An immaculate intellectual conception if you will.

That's the scary part. I don't doubt the average American's capacity to work hard. Nor do I doubt the majority of Americans are good-hearted folk. What worries me is the soggy state of their grey-matter.

I can detect a palpable and willful ignorance of how this country came into being as well as a lack of analytical ability to identify the reasons underlying both the successes and failures that this country has enjoyed and endured. These are the things that will doom us.

Wealth can always be created if you have knowledge. So I'm not so worried about the debt and the currency. The only way Americans will stop being able to invent the next widget is if they loose the freedom to take a chance.

And so I am far more worried about the general populace's fundamental lack of understanding about that which underpins freedom. It's a lack of understanding that pervades several generations, not just the current one. The corruptocrats (both democrat and republican) of today might have been voted in by the youth, but the money for their campaigns came from older citizens and CEOs who, in a healthy Republic, would know better.

And because they lack this philosophical base, America is ripe to swallow any old political solution to the financial crisis that comes down the pike. And given the number of folks with an over-inflated estimate of their own bad-ass-ness and ability to prosper amongst chaos, that political solution could very well be the anarchy you describe Scott.

One thing I would point out though. Glenn Beck is not going to soften his message. He's a devout Mormon, and they aren't known for their philosophical pliability. Thus, he owns and operates his own media company which produces the radio show and (probably) has a large hand in producing the TV show too. Notice how his radioactive logo appears alongside the Fox News logo. He's also sold his house recently so as to become debt free and beholden to nobody.

Like him or despise him, he appears to live the values he espouses and that is very rare these days, not least amongst his most vociferous critics on the left.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.