[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: How To Destroy America From Within
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 10, 2016
Author: John Hawkins
Post Date: 2016-09-10 10:48:51 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 5250
Comments: 43

Townhall.com logo SEPTEMBER 10, 2016

How To Destroy America From Within

John Hawkins

9/10/2016 12:01:00 AM - John Hawkins

As Adam Smith, the Godfather of capitalism, once said, there’s a “great deal of ruin in a nation.” That’s doubly true when you’re talking about a nation like America, the world’s last remaining superpower. How do you destroy a country with a powerful economy, a strong military, and a moral and decent people?

It has to be a long, slow process that moves subtly on many simultaneous fronts. If you become too bold, too fast, people will catch onto what you’re doing and even many of your biggest supporters will be forced to distance themselves from you….well, at least until you get a little further down the slippery slope.

To begin with, as conservative provocateur Andrew Breitbart once said, “Politics is downstream from culture.” If you want to change a people for the worse, you have to start by undermining their values. This happens by slowly, yet surely taking over their institutions. Control Hollywood and the music industry and you can portray duty, honor and character as old timey concepts that no longer matter. You can also paint the most successful Americans as bad guys, the military as mind- numbed robots and decent Christians as hypocrites who want to ruin everyone’s good time.

More importantly, once you have actors and musicians on your side, there is practically no limit to the number of ways you can shape the culture for the worse. You can promote drug use and promiscuous sex. You can encourage men to feminize and women to be more masculine. Most importantly, you can portray your opponents who want to save what’s great about America as desperately unhip.

This reinforces the messages young Americans, who care desperately about being popular, are getting from their schools. Once you control Hollywood, music and the schools, you have a direct pipeline to the brains of the young Americans who will one day run the country. So, what do you teach them? It would be best if you could entirely get away from teaching them reading, writing, arithmetic and history, but as of yet, other than in a few inner city schools (see Detroit for a perfect example), that is not yet possible. So, what you do in the interim is distort their history. Don’t teach them the nuances of the Constitution; teach them the flaws of the men who made it. Vilify capitalism and Christianity. Look for every opportunity to move from giving children hard facts to teaching them pabulum about diversity and being nice to other people as opposed to having any sort of moral standards. With enough work, you can turn them into ignorant, entitled creampuffs who need “safe spaces” and warnings about “trigger words” to even make it through a day in a coddled university environment.

Once you’ve worked your magic on the populace, then you can start making moves in the political sector. The first is to promote judges who believe in a “living Constitution,” which is functionally no different than not having a Constitution at all. This allows arrogant judges to override the people in order to put foolish policies into action, but more importantly, it allows the unlimited expansion of government. The bigger government becomes, the less capable it seems of doing ANYTHING WELL despite its swelling cost. Once you have a government that’s almost universally considered to be incompetent despite spending so much money that it jeopardizes your nation’s future, your nation is on the road to ruin.

The key to keeping it on that road is capturing a political party that consistently appeals to people’s worst natures. You need a party committed to turning black Americans against white, women against men, gays against straights. You need a party committed to rewarding poverty, bringing in unlimited numbers of poor, uneducated immigrants and defending the unions that make America’s public school system mediocre. A political party that promises to rob Peter to pay Paul, will build a large, corrupt base of takers who will support it to get their share of those ill-gotten gains. No nation ever benefitted from having a large and growing class of parasites leeching off the most productive citizens and not even a nation as rich as America can bear it for long.

The thing that ties all of this together is a corrupt media that can largely control what news the population sees and focuses on. A media that is willing to lie in order to defame those trying to save a nation is useful, but not even necessary. All that really needs to be done is to focus the people on trivia, celebrities and the flaws of those who mean well while the great crimes of the most corrupt are ignored or treated as trivial. When the people are obsessed with minutiae while the country is coming apart at the seams, the media has done their job well.

After this sort of interconnected system is built, the odds shift is in favor of destroying a nation because as Machiavelli once wrote, “And what physicians say about disease is applicable here: that at the beginning a disease is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been treated or recognized at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; for by recognizing from afar the diseases that are spreading in the state (which is a gift given only to a prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to the extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any cure.”

Once the system becomes self-sustaining as young Americans are no longer taught what made their nation successful, become obsessed with their feelings, come to believe that character doesn’t matter and buy into the destructive notions they see and hear every day on the big screen, on radio and in the papers, the disease that afflicts America will become so far advanced that it may never be cured.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Vicomte13, lf bolsheviks, no God, country, libertarians, anarchists, druggies (#0)

the disease that afflicts America will become so far advanced that it may never be cured.

There
is
hope

The
Russians
woke
up

The
communist
agenda
party
for
all
intent
purposes
is
outlawed
in
Russia

also

Hillary
has
... coughs
shakes
freezes
parkinsons

love
boris

ps

from
all
the
drugging
she'll
have
to
have
an
electronic
cow
bell
to
track
her

If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !

BorisY  posted on  2016-09-10   11:22:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: BorisY (#1)

Did you forget to take your medication again, boris?

buckeroo  posted on  2016-09-10   11:28:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13, lf bolsheviks, no God, country, libertarians, anarchists, druggies (#2) (Edited)

Michael
moore
documentaries

back
forward
repeat
looping

will
make
you

happy
nappy

make
your
drug
stupor

calm
stable
again

love
boris

If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !

BorisY  posted on  2016-09-10   11:38:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: BorisY (#1)

Good post.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-10   11:41:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

the disease that afflicts America will become so far advanced that it may never be cured.

I There is hope. The Russians woke up. The communist agenda party for all intent purposes is outlawed ----

Good post. --- Vicomte13

Good grief Vic, are you getting crazy too? -- Socialism is outlawed? --- Where?

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-10   11:53:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

funny
we're
about
to
have
wwIII

with
the
orthodox
Russia

vs

the
communist
dnc
pc
usa

over

no
homo
parades

Trump
can
stop
this
madness

What does 'kumbaya' in the song "Kumbaya, my Lord" mean?

"Kumbaya, my Lord" was first recorded by an out-of-work English professor, Robert Winslow Gordon, in 1927. Gordon went on a search for black spirituals and recorded a song "Come by Here, My Lord", sung by H. Wylie. The song was sung in Gullah on the islands of South Carolina between Charleston and Beaufort. Gullah is the creole language featured in the Uncle Remus series of Joel Chandler Harris and the Walt Disney production of Song of the South. "Come by here, my Lord" in Gullah is "Kum by (h)yuh, my lawd" (see our Gullah dictionary).

American missionaries took the song to Angola after its publication in the 1930s, where its origins were forgotten. In the late 1950s the song was rediscovered in Angola and returned to North American where it swept the campfire circuit as a beautiful and mysterious religious lyric. That is why the song is associated with Angola in many current printed versions.

In the US, however, the song was associated with Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other campers sitting around a campfire in perfect harmony. The picture of a warm, cozy community without conflict associated itself with the song and especially that foreign-sounding word in its title, kumbaya. Since the word had no actual meaning in English, cynics eventually converted this harmless connotation into the actual English definition of the word.

That definition now seems to be "naive, unrealistic optimism" to many of us (not me).*

* author

http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/english_grammar_style/kumbaya.html

If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !

BorisY  posted on  2016-09-10   11:54:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: buckeroo, BorisY (#2)

Did you forget to take your medication again, boris?

I stopped reading his post because they were so painful and my time must be more valuable than his!

Justified  posted on  2016-09-10   12:01:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: tpaine (#5)

Good grief Vic, are you getting crazy too? -- Socialism is outlawed? --- Where?

The Russians woke up and got rid of COMMUNISM. Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.

But actually, Russia is less socialist today than most of Europe.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-10   13:37:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: BorisY (#6)

Trump can and will stop this madness, Boris.

It is possible to have peace with Russia and for the two to be great nations, each in its own sphere, each cooperating on international efforts, and each staying out of the other's chasses gardees.

Britain and France were the definition of traditional enemies for a thousand years. But by the 1900s they had worked out a system whereby they each understood the other, recognized the other's needs on the international scene, and cooperated virtually everywhere. They stopped fighting and started working together - not so that one would be absorbed by the other, but so that both would be able to sail on their own courses without both being absorbed by newer, nastier threats from the East, like Germany or Communism.

Russia and the United States have cooperated on a lot. Cooperatively, we brought down Hitler and saved the world from its worst nightmare to date. We raced each other into space, but for the last quarter century we have cooperated with each other to bear the expense and perform the science and engineering feats to keep mankind permanently in space. We don't fight with weapons. Sometimes we glare at each other. We've cooperated on terrorism and will again.

France and Britain both prospered immensely when they were not required to spend every waking moment on guard against attack by the other. Russia and America can do the same, to our mutual benefit.

With Trump, we will. With Hillary, we won't.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-10   13:44:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

The Russians woke up. The communist agenda party for all intent purposes is outlawed ---- Good post. --- Vicomte13

Good grief Vic, are you getting crazy too? -- Socialism is outlawed? --- Where?

The Russians woke up and got rid of COMMUNISM. Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.

I'm sure you could write a long essay defending your theory that they're different. -- Don't bother. The difference is largely wordplay, imo.

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-10   23:15:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tpaine (#10) (Edited)

I'm sure you could write a long essay defending your theory that they're different. -- Don't bother. The difference is largely wordplay, imo.

Then I'll keep it short.

The Soviet Union and North Korea and Vietnam were, and are, Communist.

Sweden and Holland and France are socialist.

There is a vast difference between socialism and communism. Socialist countries can be free, democratic and prosperous. Communist countries cannot be free or democratic. China is more and more prosperous, so perhaps it is possible for Communist countries to be prosperous.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-11   21:03:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

I'll keep it short.

I'm shocked, -- thanks.

The Soviet Union and North Korea and Vietnam were, and are, Communist. --- Sweden and Holland and France are socialist. --- There is a vast difference between socialism and communism.

Yep there is a vast difference between authoritarian socialism; --- and benign democratic socialism, --- but both are dangerous to our freedoms.

Socialist countries can be free, democratic and prosperous. Communist countries cannot be free or democratic.
You're engaging in wordplay, -- authoritarian socialism cannot be free or democratic, correct?
China is more and more prosperous, so perhaps it is possible for Communist countries to be prosperous.
Don't forget, national socialism was prosperous too. --- BFD...

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-11   22:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: tpaine (#12)

You're engaging in wordplay, -- authoritarian socialism cannot be free or democratic, correct?

Both communists and socialists want absolute control of other people's lives for their own advantage. They argue that they want that control for the advantage of the entire population.

rlk  posted on  2016-09-12   0:11:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: rlk, y'all (#13)

You're engaging in wordplay, -- authoritarian socialism cannot be free or democratic, correct?

Both communists and socialists want absolute control of other people's lives for their own advantage. They argue that they want that control for the advantage of the entire population.

Well put, and exactly what I was trying to tell Vic,,, Thanks..

Socialism is anti-constitutional. It is NOT compatible with our republican form of government.

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-12   7:09:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: tpaine (#12)

authoritarian socialism cannot be free or democratic, correct?

Authoritarian anything is by nature unfree

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-12   19:52:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: tpaine (#14)

Socialism is anti-constitutional. It is NOT compatible with our republican form of government.

Of course it is.

Authoritarianism isn't.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-12   19:53:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#16)

Socialism is anti-constitutional. It is NOT compatible with our republican form of government.

. Of course it is. --- Authoritarianism isn't.

All socialistic programs in the USA are enforced by authoritarian/unconstitutional 'laws'. --- as you must admit.

Not that you will.

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-12   20:29:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: tpaine (#14)

Both communists and socialists want absolute control of other people's lives for their own advantage. They argue that they want that control for the advantage of the entire population.

Well put, and exactly what I was trying to tell Vic,,, Thanks..

Socialism is anti-constitutional. It is NOT compatible with our republican form of government.

One thing you must realize. Many people are flatlined. They are too conformist and non questioning to appreciate freedom, to use freedom, or to realize they have lost it. They are "yes men" and women. Socialism does not constrict them.

Many years ago I dated a woman. Someone who who knew us both remarked that we were both adventurers. We needed someone like ourselves in our life.

I rcently loaned a woman acquaintance a disk of the Kurosawa 180 minute long documentary film Kagamusha. She thought it was an imposition upon her.

rlk  posted on  2016-09-12   21:25:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: tpaine (#17)

All socialistic programs in the USA are enforced by authoritarian/unconstitutional 'laws'. --- as you must admit.

All law of whatever stripe in the USA is enforced by authoritarianism and force. It's how we do it. They don't do it the way we do it in most civilized countries, but we are just into displays of force and "making examples". As a society we get off on it. This is a cultural feature of America, and it is not confined to the Left or to the Right. It probably has its roots in the fact that Americans mostly started as refugees, lower class people from Europe and Asia and Latin America and the Islands, and slaves from Africa. All of these people had generally in common that they were near the bottom of their societies, and thus were all accustomed to having the whip and the cudgel used on them, or used on the people around them.

It was natural to Americans to use physical force to make a point, to enforce rules, because that's what underclass people everywhere in the world have always had to suffer, and the ambitious underclass are the people who immigrated to America at every phase.

Being a nation of strivers, we don't prefer to look at our ancestors that way. We prefer to emphasize the positive: hard-working, ambitious, Christian, law- abiding, etc. And those things are also true.

It is nevertheless true that our underclass origins are such that we as a people instinctively resort to force very early in the discussion process.

Western Europeans, other than Germans and, to a lesser extent the English, don't.

This feature of American culture - the latent authoritarianism in all power relationships - essentially the cultural equivalent of the abused child who grows up to abuse his children because that's all he knows, and "he turned out ok"- is the reason why socialism, and democracy, and capitalism, all have a very hard edge in America. Everything has a very hard edge in America, because Americans are hard people, people who believe in a quick resort to force in the face of any "resistance".

To generalize American, or German or Russian for that matter, conditions to the entire world is inaccurate. Western Europe is socialist. And it is free. It is not very authoritarian - per capita it's only got about 10% of the incarceration rate of the USA. The notion that socialism must be violent and authoritarian "wherever it is tried" is demonstrably untrue. Western Europe has been socialist for 50 years, and it is neither violent nor authoritarian.

It has its problems, but they are not that. By contrast, America wasn't a bit socialist in its past, but even democratic libertarianism, 19th Century America, was a very violent and authoritarian place. We love to make movies about our "free" - and authoritarian - past. They teach - or at any rate back in the '80's they taught - "authoritarianism" as the desired alpha leadership style for US military officers.

We're authoritarian democratic republicans. The idea is that we have a republic, and we decide who rules us and makes our laws democratically, and isn't that great? And if you step an inch outside of the lines that We the People have set, we will crush you with brutal police force, and YOU DESERVE IT, because the Rule of Law must be respected above all - as long as that law has been arrived at through proper constitutional channels.

That is hard authoritarianism enlisted in a constitutional republican cause, and THAT is really the culture of the American constitutionalist right. There is nothing about American constitutionalism that is any less authoritarian in its exercise of power than American socialism would be.

The authoritarianism is a given of our culture and history. It isn't going to change.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-13   8:12:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#19)

All socialistic programs in the USA are enforced by authoritarian/unconstitutional 'laws'. --- as you must admit.

All law of whatever stripe in the USA is enforced by authoritarianism and force. It's how we do it.

Not true. Prior to the rise of socialistic programs in the 1880's/90's, the USA had very few authoritarian laws, and very few prisons.

They don't do it the way we do it in most civilized countries,

Mostly because they refuse to pay for incarceration. -- We shouldn't either. It doesn't work.

but we are just into displays of force and "making examples". As a society we get off on it. This is a cultural feature of America, and it is not confined to the Left or to the Right. It probably has its roots in the fact that Americans mostly started as refugees, lower class people from Europe and Asia and Latin America and the Islands, and slaves from Africa. All of these people had generally in common that they were near the bottom of their societies, and thus were all accustomed to having the whip and the cudgel used on them, or used on the people around them.

Good grief, you're race/class pimping the issue. For shame..

It was natural to Americans to use physical force to make a point, to enforce rules, because that's what underclass people everywhere in the world have always had to suffer, and the ambitious underclass are the people who immigrated to . America at every phase. --- Being a nation of strivers, we don't prefer to look at our ancestors that way. We prefer to emphasize the positive: hard- working, ambitious, Christian, law- abiding, etc. And those things are also true. --- It is nevertheless true that our underclass origins are such that we as a people instinctively resort to force very early in the discussion process. --- Western Europeans, other than Germans and, to a lesser extent the English, don't.

Yep, we all know the Brits invented the concentration camp, and Germans made improvements, -- but its pretty damn silly to contend that the rest of Europe has been relatively free of force.

This feature of American culture - the latent authoritarianism in all power relationships - essentially the cultural equivalent of the abused child who grows up to abuse his children because that's all he knows, and "he turned out ok"- is the reason why socialism, and democracy, and capitalism, all have a very hard edge in America. Everything has a very hard edge in America, because Americans are hard people, people who believe in a quick resort to force in the face of any "resistance". --- To generalize American, or German or Russian for that matter, conditions to the entire world is inaccurate. Western Europe is socialist. And it is free. It is not very authoritarian - per capita it's only got about 10% of the incarceration rate of the USA. The notion that socialism must be violent and authoritarian "wherever it is tried" is demonstrably untrue. Western Europe has been socialist for 50 years, and it is neither violent nor authoritarian.

We are the enablers of European socialism, imo. --- Without the Marshall Plan, western europe would still look like Eastern Europe.

It has its problems, but they are not that. By contrast, America wasn't a bit socialist in its past, but even democratic libertarianism, 19th Century America, was a very violent and authoritarian place.

You're hyping the era. My grandfather wad born in 1860, and his life as a farmer in southeastern Minnesota was very peaceful, - -- and boring, -- to the extent that he, and everyone else of that age had to embellish tales of the James gang at Northfield. -- That gang visited every farm for two hundred miles around.

We love to make movies about our "free" - and authoritarian - past. They teach - or at any rate back in the '80's they taught - "authoritarianism" as the desired alpha leadership style for US military officers. --- We're authoritarian democratic republicans. The idea is that we have a republic, and we decide who rules us and makes our laws democratically, and isn't that great? And if you step an inch outside of the lines that We the People have set, we will crush you with brutal police force, and YOU DESERVE IT, because the Rule of Law must be respected above all - as long as that law has been arrived at through proper constitutional channels. --- - That is hard authoritarianism enlisted in a constitutional republican cause, and THAT is really the culture of the American constitutionalist right. There is nothing about American constitutionalism that is any less authoritarian in its exercise of power than American socialism would be. --- The authoritarianism is a given of our culture and history. It isn't going to change.

Trump will usher in the end of socialism, imo. -- And if he can't, we'll find someone who can.

Thanks for confirming your near fanaticism for socialism.

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-14   0:52:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: tpaine (#20)

Thanks for confirming your near fanaticism for socialism.

Your spectacles are broken.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-15   19:19:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13, disavows his socialistic political stance. -- Will anyone here agree withwith him? (#21)

Western Europe has been socialist for 50 years, and it is neither violent nor authoritarian.

We are the enablers of European socialism, imo. --- Without the Marshall Plan, western europe would still look like Eastern Europe.

It has its problems, but they are not that. By contrast, America wasn't a bit socialist in its past, but even democratic libertarianism, 19th Century America, was a very violent and authoritarian place.

You're hyping the era. My grandfather wad born in 1860, and his life as a farmer in southeastern Minnesota was very peaceful, - -- and boring, -- to the extent that he, and everyone else of that age had to embellish tales of the James gang at Northfield. -- That gang supposedly visited every farm for two hundred miles around.

We love to make movies about our "free" - and authoritarian - past. They teach - or at any rate back in the '80's they taught - "authoritarianism" as the desired alpha leadership style for US military officers. --- We're authoritarian democratic republicans. The idea is that we have a republic, and we decide who rules us and makes our laws democratically, and isn't that great? And if you step an inch outside of the lines that We the People have set, we will crush you with brutal police force, and YOU DESERVE IT, because the Rule of Law must be respected above all - as long as that law has been arrived at through proper constitutional channels. --- - That is hard authoritarianism enlisted in a constitutional republican cause, and THAT is really the culture of the American constitutionalist right.

Bull. -- Our rise of authoritarianism has a direct correlation to the rise of the socialistic prohibitions brought on by you progressive leftists..

There is nothing about American constitutionalism that is any less authoritarian in its exercise of power than American socialism would be. --- The authoritarianism is a given of our culture and history. It isn't going to change.

Trump will usher in the end of socialism, imo. -- And if he can't, we'll find someone who can.

Thanks for confirming your near fanaticism for socialism.

Your spectacles are broken.

I see your political stance just fine.. -- I'd say most everyone here does, -- even our closet canaries..

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-15   19:44:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: tpaine (#22)

Without the Marshall Plan, western europe would still look like Eastern Europe.

No it wouldn't.

Eastern Europe had no Marshall Pan, and it doesn't look like Eastern Europe did.

Finland and Spain had no Marshall Plan, and they are prosperous, and socialist.

much of Europe was helped out by the Marshall Plan, to be sure. But not all of it. And two parts that were not rose to the same level as Eastern Europe on their own, without the US AId money.

One of them wasn't even a US ally.

So no, actually, without Marshall Plan money, Western Europe would not look like Eastern Europe under the USSR. It would look like Finland and Spain.

The Marshall Plan bought allies. It helped some countries ravaged by war...but also many countries that were not directly hit by the war. We bought an empire. But that was not the reason for Western European recovery, because countries that were also impoverished by war that didn't get Marshall Plan money ended up just as prosperous as the rest of Western Europe.

Eastern Europe is catching up rapidly also.

Soviet occupation really blighted countries. Left to their own devices, the educated, industrious people of Europe would have rebuilt it themselves, just as they did after World War I. In fact, Spain and Finland DID rebuild by themselves, and they are on a par with the other countries in their respective regions that got Marshall Aid money.

The Marshall Plan kept Western Europe from going Communist but letting it rebuild faster. It didn't save Western Europe from some sort of inevitable permanent decay. Europe was going to recover no matter what. The Spanish and Finns did, without our Marshall Plan money. And in Finland's case, without our military support or defensive screen either.

The Marshall Plan brought Europe close to the USA and made us hegemon. It did not, however, save Europe from permanent poverty. It merely hastened a rebuild that certainly would have happened anyway...unless one chooses to believe that the Spanish and Finns are the only Europeans who have any independent force of will.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-15   20:06:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 disavows his socialistic political stance. -- Will anyone here agree with him? (#23)

Thanks for confirming your near fanaticism for socialism.

Your spectacles are broken.

I see your political stance just fine.. -- I'd say most everyone here does, -- even our closet canaries..

I see that now you want to dispute the fact that the Marshall Plan had a direct effect on the rapid recovery of western Europe, -- which, in effect, enabled a socialistic trend in western European politics. ---- A trend that is about to collapse. ---

-- Socialism as practiced is simply not a rational economic system, and capitalism, tempered by some sort of welfare support, will win out. -- Bet on it..

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-15   21:17:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: tpaine (#24)

I see that now you want to dispute the fact that the Marshall Plan had a direct effect on the rapid recovery of western Europe,

It would be silly to dispute such a thing.

What I have disputed is two things you've said:

(1) Socialism inevitably results in poverty and despair. Western Europe is proof that is not true. And,

(2) Without Marshall Aid money, Western Europe would look like Eastern Europe. That is not true either.

I have advocated a blended system of social supports and regulated market capitalism. Education, health care and pensions should be provided through the state, without a profit motive for middlemen insurers. The general economy should remain in private hands and operate as it does. A robust private sector is needed to provide the tax base necessary to pay for the state-supported sector. That's my position. Instead of erecting silly straw men that don't have anything to do with me, how about addressing what I say directly? I get you: you believe very firmly in an old-style read of our Constitution, in which there is no room for state activity such as Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, etc. I don't think that's workable. We didn't stick with that approach because it didn't fill human needs. It's not workable politically either, because most people don't believe that it would work and are unwilling to risk their security to try it. That's the level at which this conversation should be held: the level of reality.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-19   9:30:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

Thanks for confirming your near fanaticism for socialism.

Your spectacles are broken.

I see your political stance just fine.. -- I'd say most everyone here does, -- even our closet canaries..

-- Socialism as practiced is simply not a rational economic system, and capitalism, tempered by some sort of welfare support, will win out. -- Bet on it..

I have advocated a blended system of social supports and regulated market capitalism. Education, health care and pensions should be provided through the state, without a profit motive for middlemen insurers. The general economy should remain in private hands and operate as it does. A robust private sector is needed to provide the tax base necessary to pay for the state-supported sector. That's my position. Instead of erecting silly straw men that don't have anything to do with me, how about addressing what I say directly? -- I get you: you believe very firmly in an old-style read of our Constitution, in which there is no room for state activity such as Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, etc.

Just above I remarked -- Socialism as practiced is simply not a rational economic system, and capitalism, tempered by some sort of welfare support, will win out. --- Obviously, you're the one using a straw man technique, -- not me...

I don't think that's workable. We didn't stick with that approach because it didn't fill human needs. It's not workable politically either, because most people don't believe that it would work and are unwilling to risk their security to try it. That's the level at which this conversation should be held: the level of reality.

Your level of reality champions socialism.

I see that now you want to dispute the fact that the Marshall Plan had a direct effect on the rapid recovery of western Europe,

It would be silly to dispute such a thing. --- What I have disputed is two things you've said: ---- (1) Socialism inevitably results in poverty and despair. Western Europe is proof that is not true. And, ---- (2) Without Marshall Aid money, Western Europe would look like Eastern Europe. That is not true either.

The current situation in Europe proves that socialism is not working, and in eastern Europe we have proof that the Soviet version didn't work either.

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-19   12:08:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: tpaine (#26)

The current situation in Europe proves that socialism is not working

It does?

Which is more socialistic, according to you, the USA, or Western Europe?

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-19   14:18:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)

The current situation in Europe proves that socialism is not working

It does? ---- Which is more socialistic, according to you, the USA, or Western Europe?

Europe, and the proof is the pending collapse of the EU.

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-19   14:34:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: tpaine (#28)

Europe, and the proof is the pending collapse of the EU.

The EU may collapse politically, because of a refugee crisis and undemocratic decision-making. The European economies, and European nation states, are not collapsing.

The EU isn't socialism. What the countries have internally, their social welfare structures, is "socialism". That's not going away anywhere.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-19   16:05:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Vicomte13 (#29)

Sweden and Holland and France are socialist. --- There is a vast difference between socialism and communism.

The pending collapse of the EU is the proof that socialism does not work.. Just as the collapse of communism proved.

The EU may collapse politically, because of a refugee crisis and undemocratic decision-making. The European economies, and European nation states, are not collapsing. ---- The EU isn't socialism. What the countries have internally, their social welfare structures, is "socialism". That's not going away anywhere.
As I've said before, you're engaging in word games, in order to defend socialism. Feel proud...

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-20   0:34:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: tpaine (#30)

The pending collapse of the EU is the proof that socialism does not work.. Just as the collapse of communism proved.

That's silly.

Communism outside of Russia was imposed by the military force of the USSR. It all collapsed together because the money that could have been invested in improving the standard of living of Russian and Eastern European was instead all burned up in maintaining a massive military machine to hold down an impoverished empire.

European socialism, on the other hand, has been voted into place in country after country (just as a diluted form of it has been voted into place in this country) by people through the democratic process.

The EU didn't "impose socialism" on anybody. The USSR imposed Communism, so when the USSR collapsed, the whole Communist empire went with it. Eastern Europeans did not WANT to be Communists. Turns out Russians didn't want to be Communists either.

But Europeans WANT socialism, of the sort they have, which is: universal public education (of high quality, not the variable substandard crap we have in the US), universal availability of college education primarily funded by the state (necessary in a meritocracy), universal health insurance, universal pensions, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, substantial maternal leave, and welfare. These things all fit together to provide significant support to people, that they want, and that they vote for.

The EU does not impose any of this, doesn't regulate it, and doesn't pay for it. The EU budget is mostly agricultural supports.

And if the EU falls apart, these socialist programs will continue as before.

So, the "pending collapse" of the EU - isn't going to happen. But if it does, it is not "proof that socialism does not work", because the EU doesn't have anything to do with socialism. The EU is all about free trade.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-20   8:45:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Vicomte13 (#31)

The Russians woke up. The communist agenda party for all intent purposes is outlawed ---- Good post. --- Vicomte13

Good grief Vic, are you getting crazy too? -- The communist agenda party, aka as Socialism is outlawed? --- Where?

The Russians woke up and got rid of COMMUNISM. Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.

I'm sure you could write a long essay defending your theory that they're different. -- Don't bother. The difference is largely wordplay, imo.

Well, -- you've written your essay, and still the only thing apparent is your unremitting love for communistic/socialism.

I'm amazed you're voting for Trump, seeing he firmly supports capitalism..

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-21   15:41:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: tpaine (#32)

You treat capitalism and socialism as though they are oil and water.

Truth is, the civilized world, including the United States, is a combination of social welfare socialism and regulated market capitalism, and that's the way it ought to be.

Neither Trump nor Clinton nor any other candidate in America is going to change those broad aspects of our society.

We're not going to abolish Social Security and Medicare. People who want to are kookburgers. Social Security and Medicare are socialism. So is welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and public schools. All of those things are necessary, and none of them are ever going to go away. I support them all.

I also support regulated market capitalism.

We're going to get both of those things either way, so if you think you're voting for Trump because he's going to dismantle our socialist welfare state, you're going to be sadly disappointed.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-21   16:51:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.

I'm sure you could write a long essay defending your theory that they're different. -- Don't bother. The difference is largely wordplay, imo.

Well, -- you've written your essay, and still the only thing apparent is your unremitting love for communistic/socialism.

I'm amazed you're voting for Trump, seeing he firmly supports capitalism..

You treat capitalism and socialism as though they are oil and water.

Socialism is NOT compatible with our Constitutional republic.

Truth is, the civilized world, including the United States, is a combination of social welfare socialism and regulated market capitalism, and that's the way it ought to be.

The USA has only been gradually getting that way since FDR. -- LBJ's great society was the real start of our welfare state, and our war on freedom.

Neither Trump nor Clinton nor any other candidate in America is going to change those broad aspects of our society. We're not going to abolish Social Security and Medicare. People who want to are kookburgers.

You're the kook, believing that some sort of social security net is going to be 'abolished', by anyone. NONE of our rational political factions advocates that, and you know it.

Social Security and Medicare are socialism. So is welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and public schools.

Depending on how they are financed, they don't have to be socialistic. -- Income taxes are the socialistic culprit, imho.

All of those things are necessary, and none of them are ever going to go away. I support them all.

I support a fair tax type scheme, and if it were set up properly, such a 'rebate income' could end them all..

I also support regulated market capitalism. --- We're going to get both of those things either way, so if you think you're voting for Trump because he's going to dismantle our socialist welfare state, you're going to be sadly disappointed.

Why do YOU think Trump supporters imagine that? -- I'd say that most of us think he has a good chance of slowing socialism down, and restoring respect for our Constitution.

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-21   18:00:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: tpaine (#34)

I support a fair tax type scheme

As do I: abolish all other forms of taxation, and institute a 2% gross wealth tax.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-22   15:13:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)

I support a fair tax type scheme, and if it were set up properly, such a 'rebate income' could end all forms of welfare.

As do I: abolish all other forms of taxation, and institute a 2% gross wealth tax.

And this gross wealth tax could be enough to provide for a minimal income, -- So that we could abandon all other socialistic 'welfare' schemes? And get the govt off our backs?

That'll be the day...

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-22   16:07:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: tpaine (#36)

And this gross wealth tax could be enough to provide for a minimal income, -- So that we could abandon all other socialistic 'welfare' schemes? And get the govt off our backs?

An even better system, to COMPLETELY get the government off our backs, is to simply abolish taxation completely.

Abolish taxation, which gouges money inefficiently out of the regular economy, and simply print the money you need to pay for government programs. In this way there is no government borrowing, no interest payments.

Government will still cost what it costs, but we won't be gouging that out of the private economy anymore. Of course, if we don't need to be gouging it out, we don't need to be spending all of the money on the means TO gouge it out - all of the accounting, policing, collections agencies, etc. A savings.

And we won't be paying interest. Another big savings.

Cease the criminalization of drugs, and prison populations and police forces could drop by half, further saving money.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-23   9:36:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Vicomte13 (#37)

--- to COMPLETELY get the government off our backs, ---- simply abolish taxation completely.

Abolish taxation, which gouges money inefficiently out of the regular economy, and simply print the money you need to pay for government programs.

In a way we're doing that now, under socialism.

How long do you think the creation of fiat money can last before people refuse to work for worthless script?

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-23   10:02:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: tpaine (#38)

How long do you think the creation of fiat money can last before people refuse to work for worthless script?

It's not worthless if it the size of the government is kept down.

Remember, the Fed is creating new money all the time, which it then promptly "lends" to banks (at the Fed discount rate), which the banks then "lend" at their commercial rates.

That is not any different from printing money to spend directly. It's fiat money made up in either case.

The only real difference is that to access that Fed fiat money, the federal government has to pay a 2%+ interest premium on it. Put another way, doing it through the Fed means that money is still being created all the time, but the government gets 2% less of it.

What we are already doing is a worse system than I propose.

Second, right now we are pretending that this made up money is "real", and that we therefore have to "take it back" from the people to pay for expenses. So, we generate it out of thin air and then borrow it back at 2+% interest rate, AND we impose an intrusive, heavy tax burden on everybody, to the tune of about a third of what most people make. We have heavy administrative burdens to collect the taxes too, at all levels. If you just print the money outright and spend it, people get a massive 30% stimulus AND you don't have the administrative costs of tax record-keeping.

Start adding up the benefits.

Currently, trillions of dollars are created by the banks conjuring money out of thin air. With 10% reserve requirements, the Fed loans them $100 billion...and the banks then turn and lend $1 trillion, creating $900 billion dollars where they did not exist before. The Fed and the banks act as moneymen here.

With the change I propose, the Fed would cease to exist along with the federal tax system. The Federal government spends $3.8 trillion per year, so instead of the Fed and the banks generating money out of thin air through loans, then clawing back $3.8 trillion in taxes (with all of the costs of operating the Fed, and the tax collections, and the burdens on everybody OF tax collections), the federal treasury would create sufficient money to meet the federal payroll and other expenses, as needed. Those dollars would then be created and distributed AS pay, or AS payment for contracts. No need for the taxation "clawback".

The main negative impact of this would be psychological. The government, through the Fed, ALREADY creates trillions of dollars per year, but it does so through for-profit banks, and then borrows money back at interest, or has to grab 1/3rd of the economy back as taxes. Directly printing and spending the money would be a cheaper and less distorting way of operating the government.

It wouldn't be anything different than what we already do, as a practical matter of creating money out of the air, but it would FEEL LIKE a huge change, and there would be a negative reaction to that at first.

But not having any more federal taxes would be a huge benefit of doing it this way. The economy would be unchained, and billions from all over the world would flow into the United States, as the number one economy would be tax free!

There are tinkers at the margin, but the "big idea" is quite straightforward. It just doesn't feel good because the current Fed masquerade allows people to BELIEVE that money is real, when in reality it is already created out of thin air.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-09-23   13:32:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

Abolish taxation, which gouges money inefficiently out of the regular economy, and simply print the money you need to pay for government programs.

In a way we're doing that now, under socialism.

How long do you think the creation of fiat money can last before productive people refuse to work for worthless, inflated script?

It's not worthless if it the size of the government is kept down. --- There are tinkers at the margin, but the "big idea" is quite straightforward. It just doesn't feel good because the current Fed masquerade allows people to BELIEVE that money is real, when in reality it is already created out of thin air.

Sorry but I'm convinced that money/wealth is created by the work of people, or the machine/tools people make and own.

Much of the everyday work of the world is repetitive, unrewarding drudgery, poorly paid. --- 'Thin air' money, paid in socialistic schemes, -- will rapidly result in no one willing to work at the drudge jobs.

Your funny money socialism idea will not work, and never has.

tpaine  posted on  2016-09-28   0:36:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 43) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com