Are You An American or Borg?

Locutus of The Borg Collective

Locutus of The Borg Collective

Yes, you read that title right.  For those of you that do not follow the Star Trek universe, the Borg is an empire of cybernetic (part alive, part machine) organisms that travel the galaxy “assimilating” other societies (against their will) to benefit the Borg collective.  In the process, they strip each person of their individuality in favor of the “good of the collective” which makes the knowledge, and technology, of that society part of the Borg collective.  They now think as one giant organism instead of individuals.  The loss of individuals, or “drones”, is insignificant, unless it significantly endangers the collective.  The individual just becomes a number, a drone without self thought, and operates (and lives) at the mercy of the collective.  In the Star Trek universe, the Borg are the Federation’s (and Earth’s) greatest threat and enemy.  The Borg show no mercy, and adapt quickly to all resistance to their weaponry and advances.  The Borg does not negotiate.  They come in and take, and consider you insignificant.  They are the living realization of Bill Maher’s philosophy “…He just needs to drag them to it.  Like I just said, they’re stupid.  Just drag them to this…”  The Borg consider themselves “progressive perfection” and everyone else insignificant.  The Borg usually have a lot of success and insignificant hurdles (resistance) with assimilating other societies.  Humans, however, are proving to be quite difficult to assimilate.  Their typical tactics haven’t worked against the humans’ ingenuity and tenacity.  So the Borg realize that some psychological warfare is going to be necessary to achieve their goals.  So they capture the Federation’s most trusted (and famous) officer, the Captain of their flagship called “Enterprise”.  They assimilate him and give him a new name, quite unusual for the Borg to appoint a drone an individual role.  The picture you see, is him.  His new name is “Locutus” and he is now “ambassador” to the humans, except he isn’t negotiating.  His role is to demoralize the humans, and to use his knowledge of humans, and technology, against the humans.  He knows about weaponry, battle tactics, secret codes, etc.

US Constitution & Bill of RightsSo, how the heck does all of this relate to the title of this article?  The United States of America was a new idea.  For centuries, the common thought was that the “good of the crown” or the “good of the people” or “the good of the nation” etc. was placed above the individual.  There was always a small group of “elites” that thought themselves greater and smarter than the populace, and ruled as such, usually with a disregard for that populace.  With a few minor exceptions and spurts here and there, the world remained stagnant, and without much significant advancement.  The occasional “spurts,” as I mentioned before, happened during times of governmental experiments, which gave individuals rights, and the ability to improve themselves.  This happened with the Greeks, the Romans, and the Anglo Saxons.  These societies became great because people were not only encouraged to have good ideas, but were allowed to profit from them.  Citizens had representatives they had elected to determine the law.  Sure, these societies were flawed, but they had the distinction of recognizing the individual.  Rome fell for two reasons, both related.  The people kept expecting more “free” handouts from the government, because their representatives became more corrupt, by learning that if they promised free stuff, they would get elected.  This free-loading got so bad, that it was very easy for someone desiring power to gain it as emperor, by promising he’d “fix” everything and give people more.  Well, what really happened, was people lost their individuality and their freedom.  Only a select elite around the new emperor got all the riches and everyone else worked hard to support their opulent lifestyle.  Citizens eventually lost everything that made them unique from non-citizens.  The government couldn’t support itself as the “rich” were now generally just government officials (or those paying them off), and the people had no more incentive to support them.  Rome fell under its own weight.

I see this happening right now in the USA.  The new idea of the individual becoming the most important thing, pulled the world out of perpetual stagnation.  In a little over 200 years, the world went from horses and buggies, outhouses, bad hygene, etc. to cars, cell phones, computers, landing on the moon etc.  All because of a new idea that made each person important, and that you can profit from your ideas, which had the side effect of making society better.

Now we have a group of Borg, with their own Locutus (Obama, except he’s a willing participant) wanting to assimilate everyone into the Marxist collective.  When you think you can help the individual by disregarding it, then you’re fooling yourself.  The United States Constitution, what it says, how it says it, and those that wrote it, changed the world for the better.  The so-called “Progressive Movement” is a lie.  There is nothing “progressive” about Marxism or so-called “collectivism”.  All it has ever brought a people and nation is stagnation and misery.  Sure, everyone (except government officials) are equal … equally poor.  Nobody has an incentive to invent or to improve themselves.  Why?  The government will just confiscate it, and pat them on the head, or give them a medal.  They will still be living in their generic one bedroom apartment like everyone else.

Why do people keep getting suckered into Marxism?  Don’t they understand that human beings are naturally freedom loving and competitive?  Don’t they understand that individuals are not equal?  Some are smarter, some are prettier, some are more athletic, some are artistic and creative, some are great thinkers and inventers, etc.  The notion of “equal” is preposterous!  The US Declaration of Independence said instead that people have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, equal amount of God-given rights, and that they have the responsibility to take care of and support themselves, and not allow some bureaucrat to dictate their lives.  Is this so hard to grasp??  This isn’t something that is “living and breathing” as progressives will claim.  This is a concrete truth and fact.  The truth being:  society benefits the most when the individual is its most important asset.  This isn’t something that changes or morphs over the years; it is concrete and steadfast.  Martin Luther King Junior understood and appreciated this too, as his speeches were full of such ideas that everyone had the right to better themselves, everyone had the right to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.  Frederick Douglass, a former slave, said the same.

Any structural engineer will tell you that the most important “floor” of any building is the foundation.  It supports the whole building.  If you disregard the importance of the foundation, the whole building will collapse.  The foundation here, is the individual, the building is society, and the top floor is government.  Marxism concentrates on the building and disregards the individual floors and the foundation.  It makes the strongest floor the top floor by putting equal stress and weight on all of the floors.  A collapse is inevitable as it has no foundation.

I love how the trumpeters of Marxism don’t actually practice it themselves.  Hollywood elites fly around in jets, living a life of opulence, catered to by maids and butlers, eating the best foods, driving the best cars, the ultimate examples of croney capitalism, yet decrying the very thing that gives them their riches in favor of a tyrant like Mao Se Tung, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Chez Guevara, or even Josef Stalin!  Some will even say if Hitler hadn’t been psychotic by massacring millions of Jews, his government was perfect!  Noting that “Nazi” meant “Nationalsozialist” (or “National Socialist” in English, it’s not an acronym but an abbreviation) a member of the “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (or “National Socialist German Workers Party” in English), the ultimate example of Fascism and socialism.

This pontification and claims of being smarter than the little people (Bill Maher said “…Americans are stupid…”) is what the world lived with for centuries.  The “new” ideas the USA brought to the world of personal responsibility and opportunity made it better.  The ideas of Marxism, spreading the wealth, having the government take care of you, etc. are the same old song and dance of those wanting POWER over the centuries.  It’s just been repackaged and given a new name.  Today, it has been given the new name of “Hope and Change”.  Which is ironically not related to those words.

People, don’t you realize what you are doing?  What those in our government are trying to do to this nation will have only one effect, and it will not be the improvement of society.  It will set us back hundreds of years.  There will be another period of stagnation the world has seen before.

You cannot benefit society by rendering the individual insignificant.  Society benefits when the individual is free to live as he or she chooses to live it.  The United States of America is PROOF of this.  The former USSR and many nations of history, is proof of the flawed design of society first or the intellectual knows best ideas.

These Marxist, socialist, pro-Mao, pro-Chavez, pro-Castro people living in mansions, going on expensive vacations, wearing expensive clothes saying “you need to sacrifice more and pay more taxes”, “spread the wealth around”, and pay for someone else’s mistakes have no thoughts nor cares for you.  They think they are better than you.  They think you need them, when you only need yourself.  Do you realize how much money capitalism has made for Michael Moore and Sean Penn, yet they constantly put down the very system that makes them filthy rich?!  Hypocrites!  You have the likes of Michelle and Barack Obama, Van Jones, Dick Durbin, Rohm Emmanuel etc. saying you need to spread the wealth around, yet they live in the lap of luxury!  Hey! You first!

The problem is not capitalism.  It’s greed and corruption.  Capitalism worked quite well for the past 250 years.  Greed and corruption of our government has caused the natural balances of the market to become blocked.  Isn’t it ironic that the very group of people that brought our economy to this dire position have the balls to claim they know how to fix it?  These people should be in jail, not in the halls of government.  What the Obama administration and his supporters in government are doing are treason, plain and simple.  Their plan is to collapse the US economy so they can replace it with a global Marxist economy, a “Utopia” in their eyes.  The so-called “stimulus” was written by a Marxist lobbying group called the “Apollo Group”.  You know, the thing nobody read before they voted on it.  How can a Marxist group possibly want to write anything to rescue a free economy?  How can anyone quadruple our national debt in mere days and not want our economy to collapse?  It’s called “assimilation” and they think resistance is futile.

So, how’s that “Hope and Change” going for you right now?  What happens when there is no more wealth to spread around?  Who will pay for your social programs then?

Here’s a thought:

  • Be responsible for your own life
  • Earn your own living
  • Be responsible for your own medical care.  You’ll find medicine was a lot cheaper before insurance, medicare, and lawsuit happy greedy lawyers.  Doctors actually made house-calls.
  • Understand you have a right to succeed
  • Understand you have a right to fail
  • Be charitable and give a hand up not a hand out.  Pull people out of the mud and don’t just pay them enough so they don’t sink under it (like welfare programs do).
  • If you don’t speak the language, learn it.  Success requires communication and not your refusal to learn or laziness to be catered to.
  • Protect yourself, your family and your friends.  Do not rely on the government.
  • Understand that what your neighbor owns he earned.  Stop comparing yourself to someone else, either positively or negatively.  Instead of taking away what someone else earned, how about making your success greater than theirs?
  • Understand that “equal” means equal opportunity, not equal results.
  • Judge people by their abilities, talents, and content of their character.  Understand it’s the differences in people that make them special and unique.
  • Be prepared in all things.  Do not expect the government to baby you.
  • The government is there to protect you from enemies and criminals (where you can’t), to ensure free economic trade, and to make sure your freedom and liberties are never infringed upon.  Yes, that is what it says in the Constitution, nothing else.
  • Understand that EVERY SINGLE RACE HAS BEEN IN BONDAGE AND SLAVERY throughout human history (even whites, study “Rome” and “Egypt” for a start).  No single race has the right to claim they are special, and deserve special treatment in being “former slaves”.  Understand that YOU are not a slave, and have every right and capability to succeed.  Understand that those continually labeling you the victim are modern day slave owners.
  • Understand that actions have consequences, either good or bad.  Justice requires a punishment, even if the offender is “reformed”.  A truly “reformed” offender would understand this.  Compassion makes sure justice is accurate for the crime itself and not anything after.  Forgiving someone does not mean denying justice.  The crime was still committed, and the punishment must be served.
  • Understand it is the individual that makes the nation great, literally.  People with freedom and money tend to travel and spend.  People recognizing this, will make goods and services to spend it on, by hiring people to do it…. and so it builds.  People without such incentives, do nothing, as they are not allowed to, and if they do, government will just take it away.
  • Understand that the world under repressive rule remained stagnant for thousands of years, and that progress only happened when the people were given freedom.  The greatest example of how liberty and freedom given to the individual works and is best for society is by the United States Constitution, and in a little over 200 years brought the world from horses and huts to computers and automobiles.  Grand advances are made when the individual is free from tyranny.
  • Anyone telling you that you deserve someone else’s money, property, house, whatever, is lying to you, and wants yours as well as the other guy’s.  Power is their only concern.  Your poverty is your responsibility to irradicate, and freedom allows this.
  • Understand that Karl Marx was a bitter lonely man, that literally had no friends, nor social life.  How in the hell can anyone like that possibly know how to make people’s lives better, if all he ever did was bitterly hate people and blame others for his problems?  Read his biography, quotes from those that knew him, his own writings!  Ronald Reagan once said, “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”  Karl Marx was quite literally a whining, tantrum throwing, baby who bitched and moaned because he never got what he wanted.  Amazing that those that follow him end up being similar in actions.

67 Responses to “Are You An American or Borg?”

  1. No it’s not called paranoia, it’s called calling misdirection what it is.  First you accused me.  Nothing “innocent” was in the accusation, then when called upon it, addressing your accusation head on, you back peddle and say “I didn’t mean to accuse, it just seemed it happened that way.”  Which is another way of saying “I accused you, but I’m too cowardly to admit my mistake and I decided to pretend it didn’t happen the way the whole world can see it happened because that would mean admission of fault on my part, something I’m incapable of.”  An apology is an admission of a mistake and a genuine regret for it, not a denial it ever happened by changing your story post committal and then trying to misdirect the blame on the very person you accused in the first place.Being sorry you got caught in a lie or accusation is not being sorry for the accusation.  Oddly enough, this lack of taking personal responsibility for ones own actions and shifting the blame on someone else is a tell-tale sign of the modern liberal.  Barney Frank does it, Obama does it, Pelosi does it, Reid does it.  It’s always someone else’s fault, “I was abused as a child” or “it’s the last guy’s fault” or “I never saw that top secret report I see once a week” or “I voted against it after I voted for it” … I could go on.I may seem harsh with this, but I don’t put up with that kind of B.S. any more, no matter how small or insignificant the issue may be.  You accused me of something I didn’t do, then you back peddled on it, then shifted the blame back on me as if you were the victim.  That was a cowardly and sleazy thing to do.

  2. Supersparky, you’re completely confused. Lost. Paranoid.
    First of all – here is what I said:

    I don’t exactly think you’re the type to lie either, so maybe Vox ate the comment. I’m not trying to accuse you of anything.

    That was an admittance that I may have made a mistake. To say that I intentionally misdirected you or that I lied is to say that you know my intentions, that you know what I was thinking at the time.
    You are not psychic. You are not able to know what I was thinking at the time. It’s so funny, Supersparky. We were arguing over history, politics, now something very simple comes up and this simple little conversation proves beyond a doubt that you are supremely paranoid.

  3. No, that’s what you wrote AFTER you made the accusation.  That was part of the back-peddling.  The statement “I didn’t mean to accuse” was the lie I was speaking of, as clearly “I addressed many of the things you asked me in a rather long comment,
    it appears as though you chose not to post it
    . So that’s a problem, I
    don’t really want to try and remember the whole thing.
    Your decision
    .”  That Emmi, is an ACCUSATION.  Saying after the fact, “I didn’t mean to accuse” isn’t apologizing, nor is it the truth, it’s covering up for it and the beginning of your misdirection.  No a clear and concise, “I was wrong, sorry” would have not caused this issue.  No, you chose to attempt to change what you said.That’s the issue, those are the facts.  One doesn’t have to be psychic, nor paranoid, to see one is being falsely accused.  It’s all there in black and white.  Your own writing says it was an accusation.  The excuses following don’t change that fact.  You cannot redefine “is” like Clinton tried to do.”Clarification” of the phrase “it appears as though you chose not to post it” coupled with “your decision” was unnecessary.  Anyone can see it was an accusation.  The inclusion of “your decision” pretty much sealed the deal.  Perhaps without that phrase your argument could stand, but you wrote it.

  4. Oh yes, and all you insults towards me (which were considerably more rude) were completely necessary, yes?
    “It appears as though you chose not to post it – your choice”. That’s the phrase that sent you over the moon? Wow! I’d worry about your stress level if that’s the sort of thing that gets your knickers in a twist.
    I wasn’t backpeddaling. I stand by everything I said about you. But after some thought I realized it may be possible that Vox ate my comment. You accused me of outright lying. Talk about hypocrisy. Are you still going to contend that I’m a liar?
    This conversation is a waste of time. Bottom line: I realized I may have spoken in haste, I tried to acknowledge a possible mistake. I will leave this pointless conversation but I do apologize if I appeared accusatory. I still think you’re paranoid but I certainly can’t assume that you edit comments.

  5. ps You do realize you can just delete spam comments, right? If I get a Viagara ad or something I just block the bot and I delete the comment. It’s easier than having to approve every single comment.

  6. As to spam, tried that approach already.  I prefer to catch the post before it’s displayed.  It’s also philosophical, I don’t like the idea of a dirt-bag attempting to profit off of my work without my permission.  So I prefer to “flush the mess” before it gets on the floor.Only comments not from my Vox “family” and “friends” require approval.

  7. Once again misdirection, you accuse, twist the story, then label yourself the victim.  A liberal through and through.  Pelosi would be proud.I bet it took great pains to attempt an apology at the end of that post as it just ended up being an empty one apologizing not for the act, but because it was pointed out.I only made a big case out of it, because I refuse to play the misdirection head games anymore with you liberals.  You say one thing, get caught, claim you really meant something else, then play the “victim” for being so “rudely treated”.

  8. Pure hypocrisy and putting words in my mouth. You should be ashamed.
    1. I pointed out that you said some rude things. That’s undisputable and I can give you some obvious examples if you want. That’s not to say I”ve been polite either, I obviously haven’t.

    Give me one example of me saying that I was a victim.

    2. You’re making false assumptions about my intentions. I have no trouble apologizing. I apologize if my shoelaces are untied. I certainly apologize if I make a mistake. But that’s all it was. You twisted it into something deliberate.
    3. I’m not a liberal, I’m a conservative. You’re neither conservative nor liberal. You’re an extremist.
    I’d prefer this to be a civil conversation. I don’t like having enemies. So if you want to start anew I’d be glad to acknowledge that while I’ve been 100 percent honest, I have not been as polite as I should be.
    I certainly agree about spam. The fact that Sixapart allows porn and spam as they do makes me furious. Vox bloggers deserve better. 

  9. See what I did there? I commented even though in the previous comment I said I wasn’t going to anymore. Evil communist plot, or simply Emmi being a dunderhead? You decide.

  10. Perhaps it does not really matter——because this whole “left” versus
    “right” debate I find somewhat silly and inconsequential on par with
    the partisan nonsense of “Republican good” and “Democrat bad” (or vice versa),——but,
    for what it is worth, the founder of the term “fascist” placed it on
    the “left” side of the one-dimensional political spectrum.

    If anything displays unfortunate “ignorance,” it is proclaiming that
    socialism and fascism are ideological polar opposites. A man who holds
    views that are 180 degrees opposite of socialism is not thereby, by
    default, a fascist! On the contrary, the opposite of any form of
    statist collectivism is not another form of statist collectivism, but
    an anti-collectivistic and anti-statist philosophy, viz., “individualism.”
    This philosophy, e.g., believes that everyone should be held to the
    same—-natural law—-standard. An action that is ethically and
    morally wrong for the individual to commit, it says, is wrong for
    everyone and despite their political status or number of supporters.
    Violence against the non-violent is wrong. Moreover, it is of the view
    that the ethical presuppositions of debating
    must be consistently upheld. Debating is about voluntarily changing
    minds; not hitting your opponent on the head. It is thus, in a way,
    contradictory to argumentatively justify ethical ideas which
    non-voluntarily impose themselves on others who disagree.

    With that said, if I may (and forgive my very long-windedness
    here—-it is my hope that Mr. ‘SuperSparky’ won’t mind), I would like
    to come back to this line of thinking at the end of my reply. If
    America is not to embrace “the Borg Collective,”
    I think we must first embrace correct thinking. Only bad ideas can
    explain why we are where we are. Hence, only good ideas can lead to
    real and positive change. The primary direction that his nation has
    been moving in, is further and further centralization. This not only
    produces tyranny, it diminishes the growth of wealth and ultimately
    causes poverty.

    In any case, as far as fascism, Benito Mussolini
    wrote in 1927 that: “Fascism . . . believes neither in the possibility
    of perpetual peace. . . . War alone brings up to highest tension all
    human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have
    the courage to meet it. . . . It may be expected that this will be a
    century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism. For
    the nineteenth century was a century of individualism…. [Liberalism
    always signifying individualism], it may be expected that this will be
    a century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State…. For
    Fascism, the growth of Empire, that is to say, the expansion of the
    nation, is the essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite is
    a sign of decay and death.” (“The Political and Social Doctrine of
    Fascism,” in Fascism: An Anthology, Nathanael Greence, ed. or see Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Benito Mussolini.)

    “Left”-wing intellectuals in the 30s, notes John Denson, editor of the book
    The Costs of War
    started to place fascism on the “right” so as to have the supposed
    “good” forms of collectivism with them and the “bad” forms of
    collectivism on the “opposite” side. It was to create purposeful
    obfuscation. Disingenuously, then, socialist defenders could label
    their critics as fascists. But collectivism qua collectivism is still collectivism.

    John T. Flynn, a great classical liberal, was not alone, for instance,
    in calling Franklin Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration
    “fascistic.” (E.g., see Flynn’s The Roosevelt Myth.) It had many parallels to Mussolini’s trade associations. The head of the NRA, Hugh Johnson, was an admirer, e.g., of The Corporate State
    by Raffaello Viglione. So, in this sense, there is nothing mistaken
    about putting socialism and fascism together on the “left.” Nor is
    there anything internally contradictive with a phrase like “liberal
    fascism” (leaving aside the bad book of that name by Jonah Goldberg).

    And economic fascism has nothing per se to do with racism or
    anything similar to that. Fascism, so to say, is the synthesis of
    private ownership and socialism. It has a precise definition dealing
    with the interrelationship (friendly cooperation) between government
    and business. Much of the same kind
    of economic analysis that can be applied to socialism can be applied to
    fascism. That’s why, once again, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with
    placing the two together. They are not mutually exclusive. Both can
    coexist as a mixture, to a degree. And, most importantly, they both
    depend on the same type of top-down regulatory apparatus. The law of excluded middle obviously does not apply.

    On the other hand, however, I still believe that thinking about these collective ideologies in purely
    left-right binary language can easily become misleading and shallow.
    For an illustration, take the Republican President Herbert Hoover.
    Somewhat similarly
    to FDR, he helped create trade associations which cartelized the
    market, diminished competition, prevented businesses from lowering
    prices, etc. Collective fascism, therefore, is not only
    associated with the Democrat Party in the U.S. All that FDR did was to intensify Hoover’s (anti-market, fascistic) hyper-interventionism.

    Plus, to be fair, conservative scholars such as Paul Gottfried have argued that, actually, fascism as a worldwide movement might be more
    often connected to the “right” than the “left.” (As a movement, it has
    generally been a backlash reaction to the “left.”) What’s more, when
    reflecting on Mussolini’s description of fascism, much of the “right”
    today is at home with such ideas as “national greatness,” as embodied
    in a national (versus federalist) government, and, what we might call,
    “neo-Wilsonianism,” as embodied in a powerful warfare state seeking to
    centrally manage global affairs. Instead of Jeffersonian conservatism,
    we have Hamiltonian conservatism.

    (In contrast to the modern “right,” though, such ideas would generally
    be repellent to many traditional conservatives of the past, e.g., Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk.
    The more you dig the more complex the picture gets. Another complexity
    is the fact that the American positions of “left” and “right” have
    flipped in history.)

    To jump back to the “left,” another thing one could look at is the views of John Maynard Keynes. Undoubtedly, his ideas play a large role in the world today. F.A. Hayek’s deductions
    on central banking, money and business cycles, to say the least, are
    not held by the Democrats or the Republicans. In the context of this
    discussion, Keynes praised the work of the British fascist Sir Oswald
    Mosley and, initially at least, likewise praised Mussolini. In his
    German edition of The General Theory, Keynes wrote that “his
    policies are much more easily adapted to the conditions of a
    totalitarian state.” He initially, in this German introduction, went so
    far as to endorse National Socialist economic policies!

    It should accordingly be no surprise that today’s banking industry,
    which is cartelized under the Federal Reserve System, can be said to be
    largely fascistic. The entire system is built around Keynesianism (and
    even Friedmanite ideas). Along with Bush, President Obama is completely
    in support of the
    status quo
    . It is a failed system which has nothing to do with capitalism. (Overlords like Allan Greenspan have been wrong
    again and again in their regulatory operations.) Not only that, Obama
    is perfectly happy with bailouts for the rich. He has no real problem
    with the military-industrial complex. And, in fact, he is all for the so-called, and open-ended, “war on terror.” Many elements of his administration can consequently be called fascistic, mercantilistic, as well as socialistic, statist and militaristic.

    Finally, to say that Obama is moving us towards socialism is not an
    incoherent statement, as far as I can tell. Government ownership of the
    means of production is generally defined as a socialist system. It is
    when the public (versus private) sector is practically the entire
    economy. It follows that an enlargement of the public sector,
    and hence a diminishment of the private sector, brings society closer
    to socialism. Besides, many Marxist myths
    over what characterize market relationships are still held by much of
    the public and politicians. One of them, having connections to what was
    mentioned above, is the idea that money and credit somehow can work
    outside of the market. The problem is, it is impossible to centralize
    the market’s localized and diverse knowledge.

    After that (hopefully somewhat fruitful) watered-down tour of fascism
    and socialism, and their relationships between ideologies, the only
    other thing I want to comment on is the direction that this country has been moving in. In particular, I want to try to offer a solution to how to turn this around.

    In my view, this process of centralization (“Borgification”) we have
    been experiencing is not a coincidence. A large factor has been the
    shift away from federalist ideas to nationalistic ideas.
    If the power to interpret the Constitution is solely had by the
    national government, as Jefferson presaged, then it might as well be
    thrown out because there will constantly be the incentive to
    “interpret” it in a way that enlarges their power. This is why the
    Jeffersonian ideas of decentralization, localism, subsidiarity, and
    even secessionism need to be reborn. There needs to be a shift away
    from Hamiltonian ideas. Secession,
    something Jefferson always and everywhere supported, is an important
    element to this. The U.S. was born by an act of secession and therefore
    can hardly be called “anti-American.” (One of the main justifications
    of secession from the king was the empire’s positivistic law. Today’s
    idea of an infinitely malleable constitution is analogous to that.)
    Consistent with this, the later adoption of the Constitution was
    voluntarily formed by the individual states.

    Because, as far as I can tell, in an environment of decentralization,
    and in an environment in which secessionism was occurring as well,
    there would be a powerful (indirect) tendency that would pressure
    governments to be more classically liberal than they otherwise would
    be. We can come to this conclusion for the following reasons (largely
    borrowed from this).

    The greater number of independent states and jurisdictions, and the
    smaller they are, produces a tendency for them to be less brutal to
    their subjects and requires them to avoid implementing protectionism.
    As there are less and less states, which get larger and larger, the
    incentive to be less brutal lowers and the incentive for protectionism
    increases. Larger territorial governments can afford imposing lots of
    intrusive and anti-capitalist laws—-spreading them out and
    collectivizing them, so to speak—-on lots of people without too much
    adverse consequences to them qua state rulers directly. They are naturally inimical to liberty. The converse is true with a smaller territorial government.

    Protectionism could not be easily implemented for obvious reasons, for
    example. The smaller the territorial governments, the more this is
    true. It would enervate this idea. Imagine if, say, Chicago was a “free
    city” and implemented such a thing. No doubt the result would be mass
    starvation and poverty. So, decentralization would promote (true) free trade
    tendencies. On top of this, because men could vote with their feet much
    more easily, the most productive would be more likely to move from
    areas that tax and regulate more to those areas that tax and regulate
    less. This would shrink the tax base of those governments that taxed
    and regulated a lot. Governments, in their own self-interests, would
    want to avoid this. The more decentralization and break-ups of larger
    territorial governments into smaller ones, the more their self-interest
    will compel them to take these factors into consideration.
    Additionally, with no central overhead, there would be a great tendency
    for the development of a hard, free-market money. It would be somewhat
    difficult, e.g., to have 50 paper moneys floating together vis-a-vis
    each other in America. And, even if they were, each paper money would
    be constrained because of a greater (indirect, international)
    competition. The upshot would be, then, a more stable monetary system
    with a curtailment of artificial credit expansions (and hence
    booms-and-busts). And less less inflation would be the result.

    If this sounds too “radical,” take in mind that many have argued
    that the extreme decentralization of Europe (recall that there was a
    time with no nation-states) is what produced an environment for
    capitalism to develop and the Industrial Revolution to take place. This
    is why, for those who value liberty, supporting secessionist ideas would be efficacious. Jefferson was right: “State rights” are the most important “checks-and-balances.” Liberty cannot exist with just a constitution.

  11. Here’s your “one example” of you playing the victim:”Oh yes, and all you insults towards me (which were considerably more rude) were completely necessary, yes?“They weren’t insults, they were the facts.  You chose to victimize yourself and call them insults.Your so-called “apology” was merely a denial of wrong doing and the “apology” was for the so-called “unintentional misunderstanding” that you had unsuccessfully tried to spin it into.  I had already successfully pointed out the direct wording written by you that couldn’t possibly be mistaken as anything else but an accusation.  You compounded the original accusation by twisting it into an accusation that I was the one accusing you.  A typical shift the blame game.You made this infinitesimal issue into a grand issue, by your attempts to back out of it without a simple admission of what you did.  You tried to twist and turn what was an obvious statement meant to accuse into an “innocent” misunderstanding by poor little ol’ Emmi being bullied by the “paranoid nut job”.

  12. A masterly treatise.Did you see the separate SuperSparky response, A Lesson On Governments, on the nature of fascist and other totalitarian governments?It once again uses a simplistic one-dimensional spectrum, but is nevertheless illuminatory.  I would relish your comments on it.To muddy the waters, there are also those (Naomi Klein, Umberto Eco) who believe that fascism is not so much an ideology as it is a kind of political pastiche or chameleon that adapts itself to the psyche and situation of a populace in order to lure it to stray into the totalitarian trap.  (Not that detracts from your thrust.)  Do you pay any credence to those ideas or do you insist that “fascism” is one, definable ideology?In any case, I always prefer the term totalitarian.  (The operation of Godwin’s Law has rendered the term “fascist” ineffectual.)

  13. You’re right, Sparky. You are a paranoid nutjob. You also don’t seem to spiral out of control around liberals and women. Sad, really.

  14. You make a very important point, sir. But I don’t think the answer is all “one way” or “the other.” There has been, in a manner of speaking, both an ideological and a chameleon side of fascism. Note as well that when it comes to defining political labels, ideologies or movements, the waters are often very murky. Nonetheless, I think we can, in some sense, objectively say that such-in-such ideas (or political policies) fit under the umbrella of fascism or under the umbrella of, e.g., egalitarian socialism. This is independent of what one calls himself. (No one today calls himself a “fascist!”)As I implicitly indicated, especially by my linkage to Dr. Paul E. Gottfried, fascism has often adapted itself “to the psyche and situation of a populace.” (History provides ample demonstration of this. Just think about Nazism and its rise. These movements also arise, as you know, in times of crises. That States grow in crises is of course ironic, though, because almost always the given crisis was directly or indirectly produced by the State in the first place! And when people are in fear, they are often too willing to give up all of their freedoms to a strong man who will “protect” them.) When it comes to politics, moreover, it is often the case that those on the top of a movement or “ideology,” such as fascism (under whatever self-proclaimed label), have nefarious motives. Thus, without question, I think you’re right in this sense. Stratagem and political rhetoric go manus in mano. For this reason, we definitely see a “chameleon” element. This element has predictable consequences that fit into an overall ideology.I just saw “The American Form of Government” video. It is kind of you to ask what my views are. To be honest, I think it has some fundamental, deadly errors. It’s an interesting video, however. But, in this case, I would rather just sit back and ask men to meditate on the work of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. (Once upon a time, conservatives use to read “the greats.”) In particular, I would ask men to read his essay “Liberalism in America.” This (long) speech is a very good follow-up. And, for those who can’t get enough of him, there are three more speeches here. His outstanding magnum opus, by the way, is
    Liberty or Equality
    . Another English book of his is
    The Menace of the Herd
    . Along with Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s essay, I would ask men to read “On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution” by H.-H. Hoppe. Then, perhaps, one will see that there are (at the very least) good arguments against certain aspects of the video’s presentation.I assume that Mr. SuperSparky considers himself a “conservative.” The thing is, as is typical, good political-ideological terms are often stolen and then assimilated (Borg-style) into a pro-establishment mentality, i.e., statist and culturally to the “left.” After all, any anti-statist or relatively anti-statist philosophy, and one that is socially and culturally “conservative,” could never become mainstream in an essentially statist and socially “left” establishment (and if it did, the current federal and state governments would have to be looking extraordinarily different compared to what they look today). “Real” conservatives, I believe, have to rediscover some of their intellectual roots and also have to reflect upon the reality that the mainstream “right” has accomplished little to nothing in terms of turning the tide of statism. Sadly, it actually has been a force of statism and collectivism.It is my hope that a so-called “alternative right” might help change this. We also need to bring back what Burke would call a “moral imagination.” Maybe the seeming movement towards increasing decivilization can be reversed.

  15. Emmi, you’re hilarious.  Now I’m a woman hater huh?  You just don’t give up.  You’re a very very sad person.  I actually pity you.Here’s what I know about you:You spout lies.Are a coward when exposed.You then spout more lies, in an attempt to defend the previous lies.There is a term for people like you.  It’s called “Narcissistic”.

  16. I consider my self a Constitutional Conservative.  In other words.  I firmly support and believe in the form of government set up by our founding fathers, and the strict limitations it put on government, especially the federal.I believe anything the federal government does beyond that is illegal and unconstitutional.I believe the individual to be the most important asset to the community and not the community itself.I believe when a person is left to themselves they can and will accomplish anything, even the amazing.I believe a person has a right to keep and determine what happens to his own property without anyone else’s interference, unless it endangers human life or someone else’s property.I believe a person has a right to say or write anything they want, regardless if it offends someone else, as long as it is not libelous or slanderous.I believe rights come from God, not any government, and I believe no government has a right to limit them, nor create new ones.I believe it is everyone’s responsibility to protect their liberty, their family’s liberty, and their friends liberty; unto bloodshed if absolutely necessary.I believe every person has a right to trade and profit freely from their hard work.I personally believe the smartest and bravest men in approximately 1700 years were gathered together in Philadelphia to sign the Declaration of Independence and write the Constitution.  Yes, the only time Congress ever did something intelligent.I firmly believe the founding of this nation was assisted by God.  He inspired those men, he caused a rag-tag bunch to defeat the greatest army and navy on earth.I believe this land is special and only blessed when we are obedient to God.  I believe it’s cursed when we aren’t.I believe judges answer to the Constitution and only the Constitution, and never the ever changing ideas of the world, nor “case-law”.  Where the Constitution doesn’t apply, the legislature or common sense must prevail.  Judges have no authority to make edicts or law.I believe the Constitution is a solid foundation, and was never intended to be so-called “living and breathing”, “to change at the whims of society”.  I could go on, but I think you get the idea of what I mean by Constitutional Conservative.

  17. [this is good] Lots of links to surf!  Thank you.It’s an important subject.  A friend of mine once said, “X is not a fascist country.  It doesn’t have a dictator!”.  (This was before January, 2001.  😉 )  This is how superficial the common understanding of fascism seems to be.I do agree with the idea that the Unholy Alliance of Government and Business and the subjugation of the welfare of citizens for the “good of the nation” are the hallmarks of it, though.(I recently read an article speculating that the business Elite in the US will ultimately turn on the US govt as the latter struggles more and more in a quagmire of debt and impotency, thus rendering itself useless to the aims of the Elite.   (I don’t think it’s going to be that simple: rabid animals are dangerous when cornered!))

  18. [this is good] paleo, and sparky,very good, not only do i agree,but i saw some new truths there,there is hope for this country yet………

  19. Man would hope that I know something about “constitutional
    conservatism.” Yet, and no offense, this really does not tell me much
    about your views beneath the surface, sir. Mr. Sean Hannity and Judge Andrew Napolitano
    could give me the same list, and, despite doing so, when you look
    deeper they have very different views. I’m sympathetic to strict constitutionalists, but I don’t know that many.

    The founding fathers, as you known, had diverse views in some regards, and their desires of what the Constitution should
    be was also diverse. Surely, Jefferson and Hamilton cannot be equated
    as having similar views on things. From almost day one there were
    battles on the constitutionality or nonconstitutionality of things.
    (Ironically enough, one of the first “battles” was on central banking.
    Is that constitutional or not? What “father” was right?)

    The Constitution was not the immediate result of secession. Why
    exactly was it superior to the Articles of Confederation, as you
    suggest? Patrick Henry had many prophetic predictions. Why, exactly,
    was he nonetheless wrong? Do you think the Constitution has limited the
    government? Can
    a Constitution by itself limit the government? (If it cannot, then does
    this not admit that there is something “higher,” so to speak, than the
    Constitution? We have a Constitution right now, but we don’t have a
    limited State.) What do you think about the differences between the
    founding fathers? Were the original Jeffersonian views on a standing
    army correct or incorrect? What is the significance of the Principles
    of ’98 and is nullification and secession acceptable? Was Lincoln right
    that the federal government formed the state governments and that the
    latter were absolutely subordinate to the former? How does you answer
    relate to the 9th and 10th amendments? Was Lincoln right, e.g., in
    suspending the writ of habeas corpus; throwing 10s of thousands
    of northern political dissenters in jail; censoring all telegraph
    communications; etc.? (Classical conservatives, such as M.E. Bradford,
    were exiled from the conservative movement by neoconservatives
    for questioning aspects of Lincoln. What do you think about the feud
    between these various subsets of conservatism?) What would most of the
    founding fathers think of American international involvement? Were they
    right or wrong? Finally, is the conservative movement of today a
    constitutionalist movement?

    I’m not requesting, sir, that you answer all (or any) of these
    questions. All that I am saying is that if your objective was to inform
    me about your views, then I am still largely in the dark about them. I
    say this earnestly with the hope it spurs you to comment on (or think about) how
    American can be turned around from collectivistic ideas. (One of the
    essays I linked to, “The Rush Towards Socialism – and How To Stop It,”
    you might want to take a look at. I don’t know if you are older or
    younger than me, but since you are a conservative, I hope you are
    reading the classics of the giants, like R. Nisbet. A few years ago I never heard of them, finding them revolutionized my thinking.)

  20. Understandable, a long in person conversation would give someone a more concrete idea about their views.  My political views stem from my understanding of the purpose of life, which comes from my religious views.I believe God has a goal for each and every one of us, and he devised a plan to accomplish it.  Obviously I believe the key to that plan was Jesus Christ, but another key had to be there as well, and that is the freedom to choose.  I believe everything in life needs to be a personal decision and responsibility.  Everything from charity, to providing for one’s self.I believe God knew that if we had “goodness” or “charity” forced upon us, we’d never truly learn the different between good and bad, right and wrong, hot and cold, etc.  It takes freedom of choice and experience to learn and appreciate the good as there has to be bad (including suffering) to compare it against.  Lucifer wanted to force us and get all the glory for himself.  He didn’t care about us nor God and God rejected him.  He rebelled and got tossed out and became Satan.I firmly believe Lucifer creates counterfeits of Gods good principles, to fool people and make them miserable like he is.  I believe Socialism, in all of its forms, is the counterfeit to true charity as people are being forced to give by having their hard earned income stolen from them instead of allowing them the personal blessing of giving freely.I believe God never wants a king or an oligarchy to rule, as he know how power can be tempting when given to one not strong enough to use it wisely for the good of the individual.  I believe God gives us laws designed to help us live happily without the need of constant micromanagement.  He teaches us correct principles and the people can govern themselves.  The LAW or Republic I believe is a divine principle.I believe such things as government forcing anything upon people to be against God’s law of liberty and freedom to choose.  I believe government is there to enforce the secular law so we can be safe and trade freely, which I believe benefits the community much more than any forced government method could ever do.  I sincerely believe anything beyond “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of [true] liberty” is the only thing any government should exist for.  Anything beyond that I believe is tyranny and violate’s God’s laws.I am responsible for helping the poor how I see fit, not the government.  I am responsible for loving my neighbor, not the government.  I am responsible for acquiring and paying for health care, not the government.  I am responsible for providing for my later years, not the government.  I am responsible for saving food and money for a rainy day, not the government.  I am responsible for being a good and honest person, not the government.  I will make my own decisions on what I spend my money on, how my toilet works, which light bulbs I’ll use, the car I’ll drive, and the setting on my thermostat, not the government.  I am responsible for teaching my children, in a way I see fit, not the government.  I have every right to fail, despite my efforts.  I have every right to success from my efforts.  I have every right to make a low income if I’m low skilled and get paid what I am worth for those lack of skills.  I have every right to earn billions, if my efforts got me there.  I have a responsibility to contribute to the treasury of the government, as does EVERYONE equally, regardless of income.  God expects 10% out of the 100% we increase, even down to the poorest of people.  The government should be the same way.  I believe the LAW must be obeyed, regardless of the attitudes of society at the time.  Finally, I believe the Constitution is the highest law short of God’s law.  ANY government official intentionally trying to circumvent it should be charged with treason, and if severe enough, executed.I believe the Constitution says what the government is ALLOWED to do.  Everything not mentioned, they are not allowed to do.  I say the government does not have the authority to give treasury money to anyone, including the States.  It should only be spent on the duties laid out in the Constitution and nothing more, period.  I say the 17th amendment was a mistake, as it removed the checks and balances within the Congress.  Senators not beholding to campaign contributors was an excellent guard against the elected representatives in the House.  Pork would be much harder to pass through.  Congress was supposed to be the needs of the state governments tempered by the needs and wants of the people and visa-versa.I believe so-called “case law” to be an abomination.  Either a thing is Constitutional or not, legal or not, and anything else is either common sense, fair (in redressing grievances) or is to be handed over to the legislature or the state to determine according to law.  Judges get the authority from the Constitution and no place else.  This means they do not have authority to give out edicts or make law.  Such behavior I consider tyrannical and treasonous.I believe any government official that does not actively protect and defend the constitution is just as guilty of one trying to usurp.  This means the checks and balances of each federal branch MUST be acted upon when a problem is seen, even if it’s “bad politics”.Government officials that break the law should have a greater punishment for crimes than the average person, due to the greater damage they can do, and the authority they are entrusted with.I believe you have a right to live in your 100 year old house no matter how many malls or new housing wants to replace it.  I believe taxing the dead is an abomination and cold-hearted to the survivors.I believe in the free market system free of government interference, when done fairly.  I do not believe giant multi-billion dollar conglomerates are “free market” in any way.  I believe any company that gets too big so as to be able to control the market needs to be divided into smaller competing entities.  I believe creating competition works much better than stifling it with monopolism.  That is promoting the general welfare.I believe we are stewards given this planet on loan from God.  God gave us the Earth to live on and use ALL of its resources wisely, not to keep them buried in fear.  Cut down a tree, plant one to replace it.  Dig a hole in the ground to get at minerals, then make it safe and pretty when finished with it.  Need oil?  Use efficient machines to better mankind, don’t waste it.  Use the benefits of one technology and resources to learn and use the next, with responsibility.  Want nuclear, or some other powerful yet potentially dangerous resource?  Know as much about it as possible, and make it as safe as possible before using it, but use it!The animals are our responsibility and man has been and will always be greater than the animals.  Nevertheless, we are to be responsible stewards with them.  If we eat their flesh, then raise and slaughter them humanely.  If we need their body or pelt for reasons to benefit mankind, including medical testing, then do so humanely.  However, to not use animals for mankind’s benefit, in a humane way, is a waste and being a bad steward.  While we must be good stewards and humane with animals, WE COME FIRST.  Mankind’s benefit comes before any animal’s, so long as it’s a need and not a luxury.As to the founding fathers, I believe their differences are what makes the Constitution so great.  It already covers everyone.  It allows a diverse set of people to live free.  If Thomas Jefferson and James Adams can agree on it, then why
    can’t we?  As you know, these men hated each other and were complete opposites.Finally, I believe God inspired that document and provided great miracles to preserve and create this nation for the simple purpose of their being a place free for people to prepare for the second coming of Jesus Christ.  A shining beacon of freedom on a hill as an example to the world of what freedom is.  Anyone that tries to convince me the revolutionary war was won without divine help is fooling themselves.You asked about Lincoln, and far too many people say the civil war was to prevent the south from secession.  I think they have it wrong, and Lincoln’s own writing says so.  The civil war was fought so as to not give place to slavery in America any longer.  If it meant preventing secession, then so be it.  I believe to Lincoln it was more of a moral issue than a political one.  If slavery were allowed to continue as a cancerous neighbor, I believe and so did Lincoln, that neither nations could stand as a result.  Slaves would escape regularly and never would the two nations be friendly because of it.  Manufacturing could never compete with free labor.  Lincoln knew slavery had to go.  It prevented “Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY” from appearing in our founding documents.  Since slaves were considered property in the South, slavery would always be around.  No, I think Lincoln knew it was about time for this nation to practice what it preaches about all men being “endowed by their creator with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  While it is known that Lincoln considered whites greater than blacks, he did, nevertheless, still consider them human with a right to liberty as well.As to States rights, one must realize that each State has its own Constitution, but as such, must not infringe upon the rights protected by the US Constitution.  In other words, when the State’s Constitutions were ratified, they had to be deemed “Constitutional” before the State was recognized by the Federal government as a State.  It’s part of the criteria for becoming a State.  Nevertheless, I do believe States have a right to secede as long as that reason isn’t to place its citizens under tyranny violating the U.S. Constitution AND the State is not committing theft (federal military equipment) or treason (joining with another nation) against the United States.  You see, safety of the USA must be considered as a duty to the other States before such a thing could be allowed.  Nevertheless, if the decision meets with the scrutiny of the State’s electorate and the USA’s safety and security, then I believe it should be allowed, and immediately give the State and embassy and good relationship with the USA, if possible.  Nevertheless, the State must understand they are now responsible for their own security and means to keep it, AND if they want to re-join the Union, this time they must agree they cannot secede again for a minimum of 100 years, as I believe seceding for convenience should not be exploited.As to our current situation, I believe it has no bearing on Lincoln’s situation.  Lincoln was dealing with rogue States violating the very premise and purpose of the Constitution.  This time its State’s having to deal with a rogue Federal Government.  I believe secession is definitely allowed, and the terms of the Constitution are not being followed and obeyed by the Federal Government, and the State has no requirement to remain loyal to the Union.  It is a broken contract.

Come on, you know you want to say something.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: