BeltedGirls.com

I do not believe in socialism in any degree.

Socialism, communism, liberal statism...they are all collectivist in morality and agenda.

I am an individualist. For all the weal and woes that people espouse about how individualism "doesn't work", most of them are not aware that the lulls and unwritten histories are filled with the morality of individualism. Sure, people cooperate in "collectives" such as villages and city-states, but that is VOLUNTARY INVOLVEMENT. There is not the pain of death and slavery (I equate imprisonment with slavery. there is no realistic differences, only pedantic ones) if one does not want to 'chip in' on some project or other.

I also hold to more minanarchistic ideals than democratic ones. Democracy is just tyranny held by the stupid masses of mindless media cyphers. Pundits and talking heads become propagandists to lure idiots into 'voting' a certain way. News blips and sound bytes convince people with no information for serious critical thinking to be done on. Yet, these methods are how the plutocratic/oligarchical structures remain firmly entrenched. I do not believe that is positive for human spirit and life.

I do not believe material gain is the key to happiness, nor is being penniless the holy grail to spirituality. Humanity does not need religion, but it needs to connect with it's spirituality. Were people to be more in tune with themselves and their environments, less evil people could sway them with promises of virgins and riches in an afterlife.

This is how politics is done in the world today, at least in some regions of the world. Pick your poison: religious fanaticism or corporatism with a rice paper thin veneer of democracy smeared as glace to make it palatable to the non-thinker.

This world needs a hard reset. Our current systems and value sets are too far gone into insanity to be repaired. Civilization has over-complicated everything into a morass of nonsense; a Gordian Knot of conundrums and impossible situations with the expectation that they can be resolved. A better option is to return to simple principles and thoughtful consideration of what is, not what should be, as the social engineers attempt to blind us with.

America is ready for the fall of empire. It is happening as we discuss these things. Just as Rome did not collapse in a day, so too, will America go down as another empire that collapsed from internal corruption and back-turning from basic human interaction principles of liberty and freedom; ideals that none ought to compromise on.

Also, I am against socialized medicine. Period. There is no argument that can be made without fallacious reasoning to convince otherwise. Appeals to emotion and appeals to "every other nation is doing it and they do not have issues" is not a sensible argument. They are not US. They do not have our set of issues and problems, they do not have the greedy hands in the till as we do here to the degree we do, either.

The best medicine for the health care industry is FREE MARKET FORCES. Stop the insurance stupidity. Stop the insanely stupid medical malpractice lawsuits that drive prices into ungodly amounts. Stop the compulsory this and that's that nibble away at lower price structures. Stop the Big Pharma agenda and stop the lunacy of a pill being for everything imaginable under the sun. Promote proper lifestyles. Stop GMO's and junk food being cheaper than healthy food. That is disincentive to eat proper and turn to crap food because it is economical to eat the muck large Agra churns out.

The problems with our health care industry does not originate with hospitals and doctors and the next level down of insurance companies. The bunnyhole goes deeper, down into the Big Pharmaceutical industry of pill pushing; of universities spitting out people who only study drugs and allopathic medicine practices; of Big Agra pumping out chemical laden muck cheaper than organics can be grown for; to Monsanto POISONING US ALL with GMO's and the legal industry that permits and encourages such malfeasance all in the name of the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.

Enough is enough.

Socializing medicine is a bandaid solution to a broken back problem. Nothing stands on its own to be fixed or blamed. Everything is interconnected in society. What we see is a systemic breakdown caused by decades of stupidity and greed and uncaring of others. Socializing medicine will only rape one group and give to another. Is that any sort of solution that a critical thinker would settle upon?

I do not. All we will do with socialized medicine (healthcare) is create yet another set of problems.

Hegelian Dialectic, anyone? Clearly we are being suckered, once again, by this psychological tactic.

Oh, it's for "our own good".

PTHBBT!

EXCERPT from the "Letter to Daniel Halevy," which forms the preface to the 1941 Peter Smith edition, translated by T. E. Hulme, of Georges Sorel's Reflexions on Violence (op. cit. page 9).

The optimist in politics is an inconstant and even dangerous man, because he takes no account of the great difficulties presented by his projects; these projects seem to him to possess a force of their own, which tends to bring about their realisation [sic] all the more easily as they are, in his opinion, destined to produce the happiest results. He frequently thinks that small reforms in the political constitution, and, above all, in the personnel of the government, will be sufficient to direct social development in such a way as to mitigate those evils of the contemporary world which seem so harsh to the sensitive mind. As soon as his friends come into power, he declares that it is necessary to let things alone for a little, not to hurry too much, and to learn how to be content with whatever their own benevolent intentions prompt them to do. It is not always self-interest that suggests these expressions of satisfaction, as people have often believed; self-interest is often aided by vanity and by the illusions of philosophy.* The optimist passes with remarkable facility from revolutionary anger to the most ridiculous social pacifism.

If he possesses an exalted temprament, and if unhappily he finds himself armed with great power, permitting him to realise [sic] the ideal he has fashioned, the optimist may lead his country into the worst disasters. He is not long in finding out that social transformations are not brought about with the ease that he had counted of; he then supposes that this is the fault of his contemporaries, instead of explaining what actually happened by historical necessities; he is tempted to get rid of people whose obstinacy seems to him so dangerous to the happiness of all. During the Terror+, the men who spilt the most blood were precisely those who had the greatest desire to let their equals enjoy the golden age they had dreamt of, and who had the most sympathy with human wretchedness: optimists, idealists, and sensitive men, the greater desire they had for universal happiness the more inexorable they showed themselves.

COMMENTARY:

* Bold emphasis is mine, RP.

+ The Reign of Terror in that first French Revolution.
-----------------------------------

I have given up on this country, and on politics except as spectator-sport. Any more, my concern is only abstract, for what will come afterward. That is the theme of the attachment.

Long live communism.Wave the red flag!!

Lizza

EXCERPT from The Ruling Class (English translation of Elementi di Scienza Politica) by Gaetano MOSCA, chapter IV, "Ruling Class and Social Type," section 6 "Class Isolation," paragraphs 4 & 5

... [T]he most dangerous among the consequences that may result from the differences in social type between the various social classes, and from the reciprocal isolation of classes that necessarily follows in their wake, is a decline in energy of the upper classes, which grow poorer and poorer in bold and aggressive characters, and richer and richer in "soft," remissive individuals... As social organization progresses and the governing class begins to reap the benefits of an improved bureaucratic machine, its superiority in culture and wealth, and especially its better organization and firmer cohesion, may compensate, to some extent for the lack of individual energy; and so it may come about that considerable portions of the governing class, especially the circles that give society its intellectual tone and direction, lose the habit of dealing with people of the lower classes and commanding them directly. This state of affairs generally enables frivolousness, and a sort of culture that is wholly abstract and conventional, to supplant a vivid sense of realities and a sound and accurate knowledge of human hature. Thinking loses virility. Sentimental and exaggeratedly humanitarian theories come to the fore, theories that proclaim the innate goodness of men, especially when they are not spoiled by civilization, or theories that uphold the absolute preferableness, in the arts of government, of gentle and persuasive means to severe authoritarian measures....

{Paragraph 5} ... In the course of the last two centuries, many philosophers have raised paeans to the holiness of savage morals and to the rustic simplicity of the plain, untutored man. It would seem therefore that there is a frequent, if noy a universal, tendency in very mature civilizations, where ruling classes have acquired highly refined literary cultures, to wax enthusiastic, by a sort of antithesis, over the simple ways of savages, barbarians and peasants (the case of Arcadia!), and to clothe them with all sorts of virtues and sentiments that are as stereotyped as they are imaginary. Invariably underlying all such tendencies is the concept that was so aptly phrased by Rousseau, that man is good by nature but spoiled by society and civilization. This notion has had a very great influence on political thinking during the last hundred and fifty years.... [W]hen the ruling class has degenerated in the manner described, it loses its ability to provide against its own dangers and against those of the society that has the misfortune to be guided by it. So the State crashes at the first appreciable shock from the outside foe. Those who govern are unable to deal with the least flurry; and the changes that a strong and intelligent ruling class would have carried out at a negligible cost in wealth, blood and human dignity take on the proportions of a social cataclysm.

@Lizza, Communism in the North America was religiously-Christian or secularized-Christian before it ever was Marxist; and it was as much of a failure then, as it has been when it was Marxist -- although not anywhere near as sanguinaryas Marxism in power has consistently proved to be.

INTELLECTUAL AMMUNITION

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/no_a ... %e2%80%a8/
Actual author of cited article is Daniel Hannan. He recommends a book, The Lost Literature of Socialism, which recovers for scrutiny baggage which "progressives" jettisoned . Not exactly warm and fuzzy.

Beside that, I recommend three books:
- GOLDBERG, Jonah: Liberal Fascism
- FLYNN, Daniel J.: A Conservative History of the American Left
- LASCH, Christopher: The True and Only Heaven

Our English noun, "progress, and noun and adjective, progressive, derive from the third-conjugation deponent Latin verb, progradior, which means, "[to] go forward." This poses three questions pertaining to the direction of so-called forward motion:

TOward a goal. OK, what is the goal?

Away FROM a point of departure. What prompts the motion?

Continued straight-line motion in that direction wherein one's nose is pointing. What if doing so takes one over a cliff?

Robert Pinkerton wrote:INTELLECTUAL AMMUNITION

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/no_a ... %e2%80%a8/
Actual author of cited article is Daniel Hannan. He recommends a book, The Lost Literature of Socialism, which recovers for scrutiny baggage which "progressives" jettisoned . Not exactly warm and fuzzy.

Beside that, I recommend three books:
- GOLDBERG, Jonah: Liberal Fascism
- FLYNN, Daniel J.: A Conservative History of the American Left
- LASCH, Christopher: The True and Only Heaven

Our English noun, "progress, and noun and adjective, progressive, derive from the third-conjugation deponent Latin verb, progradior, which means, "[to] go forward." This poses three questions pertaining to the direction of so-called forward motion:

TOward a goal. OK, what is the goal?

Away FROM a point of departure. What prompts the motion?

Continued straight-line motion in that direction wherein one's nose is pointing. What if doing so takes one over a cliff?

Well, those are very good questions to ask! The progressive liberals have moved away from traditional common sense values and gender roles, put us in debt to an oligarchical global structure, involved us in numerous B.S. wars, stupefied our children with crap curricula, poisoned our skies with atmospheric aerosols to stop junk science "global warming" by "white hazing" the skies reflecting minuscule amounts of solar radiation...the list goes on!

We've collectively been shoveled off that "cliff". Now we wait for the SPLAT at the end.

Edward Griffin's recent events have been great; very pleasant to listen too. He has become more distinguished with experience and he does more organizing than warning now.
I contribute technical knowledge to those interested. You may join freedom force here which is a non-political think tank. http://www.freedomforceinternational.or ... ction=home
Some of the less political works are his most valued.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYMduufa-E

It's humorously appropriate that people who value female chastity have a great deal of sense

EXCERPT from MOSCA, Gaetano's The Ruling Class (originally in Italian as Elementi di Scienza Politica, translated by Hannah D. Kahn, edited by Arthur Livingston), Greenwood Press (Westport, Connecticut: 1980), chapter four “Ruling Classand Social Type,” section six “Class Isolation,” paragraph 4, page 117

… the most dangerous among the consequences that may result from differences in social type between the various social classes, and from the reciprocal isolation pf classes that necessarily follows in their wake, is a decline in energy in the upper classes, which grow poorer and poorer in bold and aggressive characters and richer and richer in “soft,”remissive individuals. We have seen that that development is practically impossible in a state of the feudal type. In a society that is broken up into virtually independent fragments, the heads of the individual groups have to be energetic, resourceful men. Their supremacy in large measure depends upon their own physical and moral strength, which, moreover, they are continually exercising in struggles with their immediate neighbors. As social organization progresses and the governing class begins to reap the benefits of an improved bureaucratic machine, its superiority in culture and wealth, and especially in its better organization and firmer cohesion, may compensate to some extent for the lack of individual energy; and so it may come about that considerable portions of the governing class, especially the circles that give society its intellectual tone and direction, lose the habit of dealing with people of the lower classes and commanding them directly. This state of affairs generally enables frivolousness, and a sort of culture that is wholly abstract and conventional, to supplant a vivid sense of realities and a sound and accurate knowledge of human nature. Thinking loses virility. Sentimental and exaggeratedly humanitarian theories come to the fore, theories that proclaim the innate goodness of men, especially when trhey are not spoiled by civilization, or theories that uphold the absolute preferableness, in the arts of government, of gentle and persuasive means to severe authoritarian measures. People imagine, as Taine puts it, that since social life has flowed blandly and smoothly on for centuries' like an impetuous river confined within sturdy dikes, the dikes have become superfluous and can readily be dispensed with, now that the river has learned its lesson.