Americans obviously have nary a problem with it.
Americans obviously have nary a problem with it.
I disagree. Lots of Americans have problems with all of this, but who you gonna call?? The same guy who caused the problem in the first place??
Elections are fundamentally the way to fix all of this.
I disagree. Lots of Americans have problems with all of this, but who you gonna call?? The same guy who caused the problem in the first place??
Elections are fundamentally the way to fix all of this.
Totalitarianism is the stronger force because it’s adherents can use deception and they can circumvent the law. The end justifies the means. There is no law. The law is relative.
Americans obviously have nary a problem with it.
Americans obviously have nary a problem with it.Take a simple look at how the views of homosexuality, for example, have changed in the past decade alone and you will see how quickly this country is being blatantly brainwashed.
Elections are the only way to fix this, politically; the only other alternative is currently on display in Ukraine.Agreed in full.
Agreed in full.
And for all the hand-wringing on the right, I feel we were closer to breakdown in America during the late 60s-early 70s.
The right has to sharpen its game. Attack Obama's policies and outcomes, not the person.
Keep it short, simple, factual and verifiable. Avoid ridiculous fringy claims, and fringy people.
Oceander wrote above:
[[ Elections are the only way to fix this, politically; the only other alternative is currently on display in Ukraine. ]]
It pains to say it, but I don't think elections are going to "get the fixin' done" any more.
Too much of what is wrong has become "institutionalized" into government agencies and bureaucracies that are under little influence from "elections".
And the very integrity of elections in this land is under attack, not only from the party of the left and the left itself, but is being undermined by newfangled procedures that fundamentally corrupt the elective process.
Nope.
What alternatives does that leave us?
I wasn't around for the 60s and wasn't much aware for the first half of the 70s, but from what I've read and gathered over the years, I would tend to agree. I think the atmosphere, the zeitgeist, was much more apocalyptic back then.
One can always vote with one's feet. There are other countries out there that aren't quite like the US. E.g., with Australia, notwithstanding the generally prog/lib tendencies in much of the country, there is so much blasted country, and so few people, that one can get a more real independence just by moving inland from the coast a hundred miles or so; don't even have to be in the badlands.
Were I footloose and fancy free, and could rack up enough immigration points, I'd move there in a heartbeat right now; I've got a few friends there who'd help me land on my two feet and get set up, and I'd be right as rain. Might even see if I could hook up with Greg Craven again and get some sort of con-law comparative studies program going (yes, I'm name-dropping, but dropping his name here isn't likely to get any points, so I can do it shamelessly and openly). Places-wise, I'm not completely settled on any one place. I'd avoid Canberra just on general principles. The weather in VIC and NSW is likely to appeal to me most, although parts of southern WA are nice too. Brisbane is about as far north as I'd care to go weatherwise (once had a really beautiful gf in Ipswich). The cities (Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth) have their perks, but I'd just as soon stay far away from 'em and just go in for a visit now and then.
Yes they can but if the USA falls to communism no other place will be safe for long!
Perhaps at one time but that was part of the lie too.
Are you willing to risk testing the theory? I'm not!
As much of an over-rated film "Metropolis" was, it exposed a truth. Well two truths. The first, there is a preterclass of humans who live far above the rest of us. I mean beyond Trump, Kerry and probably even the Kennedys. Beyond the Bilderberg attendees. On the order of the Rothschilds and probably not many other.
The second, that there is freedom. In truth, there is none. Freedom is an illusion. Ronald Reagan was an anomaly. Not another like him has existed since before the "Civil War".
I will not argue with any of that. In fact, I will tell you that before the ink was dry on the Constitution there were tho9se who sought to undermine and destroy it. Those people and their descendants have gotten far down the road to accomplishing their goals but haven't completely gotten it done yet and fpr as long as there is breath in my body I will do whatever I can to ensure that they never do!
Yes they can but if the USA falls to communism no other place will be safe for long!
Bah. It won't fall to communism, it'll fall - to adopt your term - to European, specifically French, style socialism. Communism as such no longer exists as a dominant force anywhere, other than, perhaps, Cuba. The North Koreans aren't communists, they're Pol-Pot style dictators and tyrants. The Chinese are communist in name only, having evolved into more or less a hard left corporativist socialism. And should that fall take place it will, in fact, make other places more safe, not less safe, because part and parcel of that fall will be a reduction in the ability of the US to coerce other nations, economically or militarily, to toe the political line favored by the US (which would at that point be Euro-socialism).
As much of an over-rated film "Metropolis" was, it exposed a truth. Well two truths. The first, there is a preterclass of humans who live far above the rest of us. I mean beyond Trump, Kerry and probably even the Kennedys. Beyond the Bilderberg attendees. On the order of the Rothschilds and probably not many other.
The second, that there is freedom. In truth, there is none. Freedom is an illusion. Ronald Reagan was an anomaly. Not another like him has existed since before the "Civil War".
Two words!
Bull Sh*t!
straight back atcha. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, of which you have produced none.
Anyone who believe that Communism fell with the Soviet Union is drinking WAY too much kool-aid!
Thanks for that lovely personal attack.
Just because your freedom of action is not totally unrestrained does not render "freedom" illusory. In an earlier age you, I, and everyone else here would have played serf to those few whom you say live so far above us; serfs had precious little freedom compared to the freedom you enjoy. In days of yore, serfs were regarded as, and legally were, possessions that went with the land they toiled on, as much a part of that land as the cabinetry is of today's houses. Today, we ordinary mortals possess land; the land does not possess us.
In fact, you probably enjoy greater freedom than did many minor nobles in the middle ages; consider the amount of power available to you for a few thousand dollars: you can purchase the means to travel several thousand miles in a few days, from the east coast to the west; you can even purchase the means to fly halfway 'round the world in less than 24 hours - making a mockery of that gent who traveled 'round the world in 80 days. And consider the quantity and quality of food available to you for a relative pittance; not even the nobility of old ate so well as you. And consider the state of your health; notwithstanding the current attempt to control your health care, your health, and that of most of us, far surpasses that of even most nobles of old.
Bah. It won't fall to communism, it'll fall - to adopt your term - to European, specifically French, style socialism. Communism as such no longer exists as a dominant force anywhere, other than, perhaps, Cuba. The North Koreans aren't communists, they're Pol-Pot style dictators and tyrants. The Chinese are communist in name only, having evolved into more or less a hard left corporativist socialism. And should that fall take place it will, in fact, make other places more safe, not less safe, because part and parcel of that fall will be a reduction in the ability of the US to coerce other nations, economically or militarily, to toe the political line favored by the US (which would at that point be Euro-socialism).
What is socialism, whether Bolshevik, Menshevik, national, Maoist, social democrat, liberal, or whatever flavor you can name? A set of economic principles? Political values? An attitude? Don't head off to a dictionary or Google-land for this.
I commend to you Solzhenitsyn's "Lenin In Zurich", a book I read years ago. It is fiction, yet invaluable to the understanding of the last century, and the next. I am about to share with you a secret known to few: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Deng, Pol Pot, Castro, and Solzhenitsyn himself. And me. And now you.
Socialism does not exist except in the imagination of the true believer and the useful idiot. None of the names I listed believed there was such a thing as socialism. They knew it for what it was: a means of fooling mass numbers of people into following them, and thus achieving power. Political power. Military power. Economic power. Absolute power.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_secret_of_socialism.html#ixzz2uGRfc6HC
There is only one "ism"... totalitarianism, which itself is a name for the more basic concept of all governance, authoritarianism. Every other "ism" is a variance of that one "ism" developed to address the specific time and place where it's being applied.
Whether it's Soviet-style communism, Italian fascism, Euro socialism, Islamic theologism, British imperialism, Medieval monarchism, or Louis XIV mercantilism, it all boils down to the idea that the few (or the one) is best suited to decide for the many. It is a concentration of power.
The basic idea of the American experiment was the decentralization of that power. We have centralized power again, and are in fact back at that place that we broke away from back in 1776.
We are not going to "fall" to communism, but we are going to evolve into some sort of "ism" that is unique to us but still a form of authoritarianism. It can't be communism because we have been conditioned for decades to recoil at the very mention of the word. The idea of communism generates unalterable visions of brutality and oppression in our minds that will, in and of themselves, defeat any possible implementation of such a system. Socialism has very much the same baggage, so that won' work either, and even as we KNOW that Obama is a Socialist, even Socialists recoil from labeling him as such, because of the negative connotations that the terms carries with it. Proponents of authoritarianism can't sell failed systems to nations. They'll just invent a new "ism" for our time and our nation.
I call it Socialist Managerialism, or Managerial Socialism... take your pick.
There's one important thing to keep in mind about all this. The leaders of all these "ism" movements seldom (if ever) actually believe in the ideals they promote.
Here's an excerpt from an old American Thinker article that mentions one of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's less-known works, "Lenin in Zurich" (fiction):
We'll get our own, unique "ism".
We'll get our own, unique "ism".
Already have a long time ago! It's called Mercantilism!
Mercantilism died in the 18th century.
Yeah! Right! Just like Communism died with the fall of the Soviet Union!
GEEEZE Louis!
Yeah! Right! Just like Communism died with the fall of the Soviet Union!
GEEEZE Louis!
If mercantilism depends on positive balances... well, then it may have ended long ago. I think that's right. (I somehow posted this on another thread.)
That's the entire idea behind mercantilism.
Wow... so I was kinda right? Small victory! My head really hurts today (not from self-inflicted wounds, either).
Communism is dead.
Now it is a boogie man to frighten the masses while the new "isms" arise.
That's the entire idea behind mercantilism.
As we are swiftly reestablishing in our society an odd form the middle ages relationship of lords to vassals through our bastardized Republic and federal political system...we might end up all the way back at feudalism.
Perhaps that is true if you rely only on the technical definition but there are many vestiges of mercantilism still alive and well in this country today and you need look no further than the Obama administration and Solindra to see it!
Mercantilism is mercantilism, "vestiges" of mercantilism does not make ours a mercantilistic nation.
That's like saying that just because Rome still stands and we still use Roman numerals, the Roman Empire still exists.
There is only one "ism"... totalitarianism, which itself is a name for the more basic concept of all governance, authoritarianism. Every other "ism" is a variance of that one "ism" developed to address the specific time and place where it's being applied.
Whether it's Soviet-style communism, Italian fascism, Euro socialism, Islamic theologism, British imperialism, Medieval monarchism, or Louis XIV mercantilism, it all boils down to the idea that the few (or the one) is best suited to decide for the many. It is a concentration of power.
The basic idea of the American experiment was the decentralization of that power. We have centralized power again, and are in fact back at that place that we broke away from back in 1776.
We are not going to "fall" to communism, but we are going to evolve into some sort of "ism" that is unique to us but still a form of authoritarianism. It can't be communism because we have been conditioned for decades to recoil at the very mention of the word. The idea of communism generates unalterable visions of brutality and oppression in our minds that will, in and of themselves, defeat any possible implementation of such a system. Socialism has very much the same baggage, so that won' work either, and even as we KNOW that Obama is a Socialist, even Socialists recoil from labeling him as such, because of the negative connotations that the terms carries with it. Proponents of authoritarianism can't sell failed systems to nations. They'll just invent a new "ism" for our time and our nation.
I call it Socialist Managerialism, or Managerial Socialism... take your pick.
There's one important thing to keep in mind about all this. The leaders of all these "ism" movements seldom (if ever) actually believe in the ideals they promote.
Here's an excerpt from an old American Thinker article that mentions one of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's less-known works, "Lenin in Zurich" (fiction):
We'll get our own, unique "ism".
Mercantilism died in the 18th century.
The central idea of Mercantilism was that "maximising net exports is the best route to national prosperity", along with the accumulation of bullion, or "bullionism", the idea that if one nation had more bullion than the other, it was better off.
We import more than we export, and while we still hold more bullion than any other country, Mercantilism requires that both sides of the equation be observed.
"... communism brooks no other rival power bases and has only one class: the proletariat."
What you describe, Oceander, is National Socialism.
Ultimately, yes, it can lead to that. However, it doesn't simply reduce to that and, I think, there is a crucial element missing here - nationalism; Obama clearly has no great love for the US as a nation, neither do most of the democrat party heavies (or their large financial supporters), so I don't think that element will gel here. That being said, the purported differences between national socialism and socialism per se are more fig-leaves and window dressing than they are substantive.
They had no love for the nation they inherited...they would likely feel very differently about the transmogrified nation they are creating out of it.
Hitler loved not the Germany that existed at the time of his rise to power, but the greater Germany that he would craft from it.
I posted the article I link to below in forums back in 2008, and I was ridiculed. The people ridiculing me could only associate the world "Fuehrer" with Hitler, death camps and ovens... "that could never happen here" they said.
A Fuehrer, a charismatic leader, a leader of a nation and its people (as opposed to the American concept where a President is a servant of the people) can arise anywhere where a cut of personality can exist, and that is everywhere.
In Obama, we have a potential Fuehrer.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html
There is already an Us and Them developing strongly in America...US are those that believe that traditional religiion in this nation (Christian) is the source of all forms of discrimination - sexual, racial and economic. Them are those that still remain loyal to traditional religious structures.
that's not the only us/them axis in the US
Very true. The Democrat playbook depends on several different axes of "us/them," including:
Male/Female
Rich/Poor
White/Minority
Young/Old
Religious/Non-Religious
Taxpayers/Tex Beneficiaries
Any others?
yeah. what's a "Tex Beneficiary"? Someone who gets to live in Texas? :silly:
Very true. The Democrat playbook depends on several different axes of "us/them," including:
Male/Female
Rich/Poor
White/Minority
Young/Old
Religious/Non-Religious
Taxpayers/Tex Beneficiaries
Any others?
OK, smartypants. I'll have you know I consider myself a Tex beneficiary by virtue of the fact that I married a Texan.
There is already an Us and Them developing strongly in America...US are those that believe that traditional religiion in this nation (Christian) is the source of all forms of discrimination - sexual, racial and economic. Them are those that still remain loyal to traditional religious structures.
Oceander wrote above:
[[ Bah. It won't fall to communism, it'll fall - to adopt your term - to European, specifically French, style socialism. Communism as such no longer exists as a dominant force anywhere, other than, perhaps, Cuba. ]]
There is something afoot -- as bad as "communism" or worse -- that you overlook.
That is the emergence of the "techno-police" state -- the ability of the government to surveil (and sooner or later, to control) more and more facets of an individual's life.
From NSA monitoring of our communications, to GPA-assisted controls on our vehicles, to a record of every individual's financial transactions, right down to what store and what was purchased, the "government grip" will slowly encircle freedom, as does a boa constrictor its prey.
Combine this with a regulatory establishment that has transformed itself into an insatiable monster, issuing thousands of new "regulations" that restrict and control how we live, what we can buy, etc.
And add to that a governing elite that has forgotten the concept of "Western Civilization", with an everything goes attitude that seems to have forgotten that a culture is supposed to be protected and defended against outsiders who would usurp it in favor of their own.
And finally, consider the worldwide putsch of islam which makes it quite clear that its goal is to replace the dar al-harb (in The West) with dar al-islam.
I can almost see a "new dark ages" somewhere up ahead.
Luckily I may already be gone when it arrives.
On that I completely agree. I think we're at the precipice of the age of the uber police state, in which the panopticon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon#Criticism_and_the_panopticon_as_metaphor) can for the first time be fully implemented. Modern technology has the power to faciliate totalitarian control to a degree and a scale that have never been seen before in the entire existence of the human species.
Yep....all that's missing is flying taxis.
Yep....all that's missing is flying taxis.
You didn't do a whole lot of partying in the '80s, did you?
On that I completely agree. I think we're at the precipice of the age of the uber police state, in which the panopticon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon#Criticism_and_the_panopticon_as_metaphor) can for the first time be fully implemented. Modern technology has the power to faciliate totalitarian control to a degree and a scale that have never been seen before in the entire existence of the human species.
There is always away around it.
There is always away around it.
In the Age of the Drone and the Ubiquitous Camera, it's becoming increasingly difficult to evade the all-seeing eye of the State. We are also approaching a time when everything not forbidden is compulsory, as the America many of us once knew recedes ever faster in the rear-view mirror.
true enough, but the costs of successfully getting around it are so high that most people simply won't be able to put up with the dent it puts in their ordinary lives, so they'll simply surrender to it, put on their government-approved rose-colored glasses and tell themselves that it doesn't matter and anyways it doesn't exist. A little like the restaurant scene in the movie Brazil where the diners all stare at cards showing pictures of what they're supposed to be eating, while what they're actually eating bears little resemblance to those pictures.
What was the difference between the Soviet state, the East German state and the Nazi state though? Regimentation was part of the Soviet and German DNA as opposed to the American mentality. We are still the country of outlaws on some level. Even with attempts to teach kids to inform, Americans do not snitch. That is the Achille's heel.
When you are always on camera, and your devices are always connected to the grid, eyes in the sky and sensors of various kinds in all trafficked areas...there really isn't much need for snitching any more.
But how much is self-requested? Cell phones, immediately come to mind. New cars with black boxes and quick pay tolls devices, also. Living in certain cities as opposed to others or living in the city at all.