A blog on objective thought in today's irrational, subjective world tackling some of the hardest questions of existence using reason and logic.
It doesn't have anything to do with Bush's stupidity and cronyism either
Published on October 8, 2005 By John Galt In US Domestic
The reason why you’re bored with Politics is because there’s no real difference between a democrat and a republican. The only significant difference is your level of love of religion or distain for it.

If the neo-republican party had their way the US would be a Christian state with quasi-socialist values based on Christian morality. If the democrats had their way, the US would be a socialist state al-la France or worse the Soviet Union and people would be dying or enslaved for “the greater good”. Either alternative results in the death of the United States and the only reason it hasn’t come to pass is because the two are fighting over who is going to stick the knife in, not because of any powers preventing either side from winning.

Your fundamental flaw, from what I’ve seen as a result of your writing is your incorrect belief in altruism. Altruism is the fundamental structure of both Christianity and socialism (as I’ve pointed out before, much to the distaste of socialists, Christianity created socialism, it’s the natural progression of the teachings of Jesus.) This fundamental belief that you must give of yourself without expecting anything in return, and worse that you’re morally obligated to help others that haven’t earned your help (i.e. your belief that you should pay more than the same percentage that everyone else does of your income simply because you’re wealthy and earned your wealth) is the reason why you can’t break through to something much, much better. Once you realize that Altruism is not only flawed and ineffectual but a fundamental evil that must be destroyed in favour of a capitalist, Newtonian value system of “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” you will break through to an exciting rebirth that must take place on a truly massive scale if the United States is to survive.

Once you shed yourself of this false belief you will see that the Republican and Democratic party of the United States are both irrelevant and more to the point dangerous. You’ll see that the founding fathers were trying to prevent exactly what both of these parties want to do to you. (i.e. the back of your one dollar bill says “in the dream of a non-secular state for a reason, as does your bill of rights protect against socialism even though most of it was created before socialism even existed in it’s present form.)

Enter Libertarianism and Objectivism. The fundamental system of freedom and the right to live your life how you choose and reap the rewards of your own work, or lack there of. To put it another way: The American Dream.

What is the difference between Libertarianism and Objectivism? Libertarians don’t care how you came about your belief in freedom as an absolute, only that you believe in it. Objectivists realize that without an understanding of why, the solution is short termed and doomed to fail.

Specifically, the founding fathers of the United States were what we would call libertarian. They didn’t care if you believed in God, or any other belief system so long as you believed in freedom. They themselves didn’t understand WHY freedom is so very important, only that it is important. As a result of this truth, the United States has been laid bare to those that would destroy it either in the name of god, or the name of the greater good specifically because they didn’t understand the nature of the battle that the founding fathers were fighting. It is only through a clear understanding of the why, that the United States can recover from its death bed, and more to the point grow back to its former glory and maintain it. While the libertarian movement is a short term solution to the problem, the ultimate result of libertarianism is a decline back to exactly where we are now, on the precipice. Only objectivism can save the great nation that the United States once was and then preserve that and make it better over time and guard it against all that wish to destroy it through their well meaning and evil belief systems.

When you learn to believe in freedom, the absolute that is driven from the most base absolute and what should be your only loyalty, truth and more to the point, you go from an instinctual believer to one that fathoms why freedom must be put first before everything else, then politics and the coming ideological war that will determine the future of the entire world becomes VERY exciting. It becomes something that you can participate in. It becomes something that is concrete and real instead of some abstracted ideal with no real outcome. It becomes something that you can defend, something that you can measure everything you do and everything everyone else does against. It becomes something that you can fight for every second of every day. From calling out the liar, to calling the police when you see a drunk driver on the road, to beating the crap out of the mugger on the street car whose stealing money from a little old lady instead of letting him get away, and dealing with the consequences when you hand him over to the police you have way to fight for freedom.

And at that point you realize that the adage: “All it takes for Evil to win is for good men to do nothing” is so very, very true.

Learn what freedom is, and why it is so important. Realize why you must stop giving to people that haven’t earned it, not only for your own good, but for the long term good of the very people you were trying to help (just ask the people in New Orleans (see previous posts)). Realize that without freedom, there is nothing worth fighting for, and the war between religion and socialism is irrelevant. It is a war that the only difference in outcome is that of who the slave master is and in who’s name(s) will all of the millions be killed for. Realize that there is no middle ground. This is war of death versus life. Suicidalism versus those that wish to live their lives and not apologize for it. Join in the third way and lets work to throw both evil task masters and get back what made the United States of America that the founding fathers dreamed of so very, very great.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 08, 2005
Before you all pile on me because I didn't prove anything I said, please go back and read previous posts. The proof is there. It's also well thought out and explained in all of Rand's Fiction and Non-fiction works as well as Aristotle's essays. This is simply a statement piece.
on Oct 09, 2005
I'm not going to jump on you, John. I will point out, though, that using other user's names/handles in the title of articles is a no-no here -- especially when said person owns the site. It would probably be in your interest to edit that.


If the neo-republican party had their way the US would be a Christian state with quasi-socialist values based on Christian morality.


As a fundamentalist Christian registered Republican, I can tell you that I don't want a theocratic America, Christian or otherwise. I may just be projecting, but I don't think the majority of the party wants to go that way either.
on Oct 09, 2005
'Before you all pile on me because I didn't prove anything I said, please go back and read previous posts.'
Okay, I've done that. In general they are even more ridiculous, irrational, subjective, unproven and downright frothing-at-the-mouth than this one. So, can we pile on you now?
on Oct 09, 2005

The reason why you’re bored with Politics is because there’s no real difference between a democrat and a republican.


That is a silly observation in times like ours, what with the Iraq war and several other issues that so clearly differentiate Republicans and Democrats again.


The only significant difference is your level of love of religion or distain for it.


Because WASPs love religion more than Catholics and Jews do?


If the neo-republican party had their way the US would be a Christian state with quasi-socialist values based on Christian morality.


Perhaps.


If the democrats had their way, the US would be a socialist state al-la France or worse the Soviet Union and people would be dying or enslaved for “the greater good”.


I see you have completely sassed politics.
on Oct 09, 2005
wwow where would "my Place" be then? A Jew and a republican.
on Oct 09, 2005
MM: In a cage in a zoo as a curiosity for us normal people to gawk at and throw peanuts?
on Oct 09, 2005
7 by Zoomba
Sunday, October 09, 2005


MM: In a cage in a zoo as a curiosity for us normal people to gawk at and throw peanuts?


whew,, and there for a moment I thought I was going "normal" heh
on Oct 09, 2005
yup. whenever i get bored with politics this is exactly why.
on Oct 09, 2005
[Of course. He's read Rand. He's an expert.]

I want a philosophy too that requires me only to read a small number of contemporary books written in my own language. It would make the world easier to understand.

[where would "my Place" be then? A Jew and a republican.]

I was generalizing.
on Oct 09, 2005
Reply By: Andrew J. Brehm Posted: Sunday, October 09, 2005[Of course. He's read Rand. He's an expert.]I want a philosophy too that requires me only to read a small number of contemporary books written in my own language. It would make the world easier to understand.[where would "my Place" be then? A Jew and a republican.]I was generalizing.


question? do you really believe that America could have what is in essence a theocracy as the form of government?
on Oct 09, 2005

The reason why you’re bored with Politics is because there’s no real difference between a democrat and a republican

As a moderate, I see you see the extremes, and in that you are correct.  But you fail to see who is running each party.  Your characterization of the right is an extreme view in light of reality.  Your characterization of the left is accurate in the same light.  Brad is bored (wrong term, but yours) because he sees Bush as betraying his base. i.e. lying to get elected and then not carrying through.

The last democrat president did that as well, but he lied the same way as well.  Both Bush and Clinton lied on how conservative they were, and that is what Brad hates.

As do I.  I thought Clinton would be ok, especially after Bush 41's "read my lips" lie.  But while it took Bush 41 2 years to break that one, it took Clinton less than 3 months to break his.  so it was just a matter of degrees.  While Bush has not 'technically' lied yet, he has betrayed the implication of who he was being elected to be.  And that is why Brad is disillusioned about it.

on Oct 09, 2005
question? do you really believe that America could have what is in essence a theocracy as the form of government?


Odd, that. Joeuser messed up the quoting in my posting (replacing [quate] with [ and [/quate] with ]; s/a/o/g) and gives me an error when I try to edit that particular posting.

Anyway, why are you asking me that? I don't think that. Why would I?

I don't believe that Republicans want a theocratic government, I do not believe that Democrats what Stalinism, and I don't think that Republican voters all love religion and that Democratic voters all hate religion.

Our friend John Galt has essentially sassed a very simplistic parody of real politics and probably feels that the rest of us have not yet reached the level of objectivity needed to realise these simple truths.
on Oct 17, 2005
Observations from the Election that still hold true when the VP running mate was on The Daily show:

1. When asked the democratic nominee stated that although he thought the war was a bad idea (after voting for it in the Senate 6 months previously) he would continue it because withdrawing now was not an option. How is this different than what Bush is saying?
2. Bush is a born again Christian. The numbers, as reported by 60 minutes show that fully 60% of all of the money raised by the Republicans is from religious groups. Further Bush has nominated two anti-abortion, take away basic human freedom types to the supreme court. Oh, and one of them is a born again nut just like him. The numbers and the actions of Bush don't lie. The purpose is to create a Christian state, there can be no other interpretation of both the money base's position (just read their web sites) and Bush's own actions and his words.
3. WASP means White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Yes, Protestant (i.e. Bush is a Protestant). Gotta love uneducated people that don't even know their own terminology.
4. As for the jew and republican... That would make you a very threatened person. Because if Bush has his way, you're going to be a religious minority in a country run by the Christian church and it's values, which include but are not limited to no birth control, and no abortion and, well if you take Bush's comments in context and then read the books of one of Bush's staunchest supporters, the Christian right wants to encourage Jews in Israel to piss off the Muslims (that's what a Palestinian is btw, they're Muslims) enough to cause the battle at Armageddon. (yes, it's a place)
5. I didn't say that Republicans love religion and democrats hate it, I said it's a matter of how much you love it or don't. The degrees decide how you vote. As for Democrats not wanting Stalinism. Of course they don't. No rational animal would. But the belief system that got Russia to Stalin and that of socialists is the same. The only difference is degree and therefore the amount of suffering. Under communism the Russians not only did not increase their standard of living but cut it in half. In the same time period, the realtively free United States increased their standard of living by a factor of 20. All degrees of socialism versus degrees of capitalism ever tried have effectively the same results in direct relation to the degree of socialism or capitalism tried. (Again, not my numbers, see "The Capitalist Manifesto" for the stats, most of which actually come from socialists trying to lie to you and spin those same numbers.) Socialism = corruption and death. How many examples must I show you before it becomes obvious? John Stewart's comment about "there has to be a middle ground [between capitalism and socialism]" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the problem of socialism. To put it religiously it's like asking to find a middle ground between God and the devil. Any Christian would find the concept ridiculous, and yet billions of people world wide are more than willing to do a deal with the devil in the name of some misguided duty to “their fellow man” or “the greater good” and the outcomes are entirely predictable (Katrina).
6. As for the people thinking I've only read Rand. Think again, I've read 3 different versions of the bible (at least the different parts after reading one of them in interest of full disclosure, gotta love Deuteronomy!), the translated Koran, a translated Talmud, the teachings of Budda in the original texts translated to English, the teachings of Hindi as written by one of it's most popular supporters that established schools throughout the United States and Canada in addition to many schools in India, I'm a very well read person on the beliefs of many of the Native people of North America, and have even read several books on Paganism. (most specifically as it relates to Constantine's theft of many of the Pagan holidays and observances and incorporation in Christianity) I've read the "manifestos" of Kant, Locke, Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Rand and Marx. Further my mother was a History teacher, so I was inundated with it my entire child life.

Now, is there anyone else in here that can claim to be that widely read? If you are, then you have standing to be able to debate if I have arrived at my understanding of reality from an objective position with full knowledge of the alternatives. Otherwise, I suggest that accidentals (i.e. people that believe what they do because their parents told them to, or their educational system brainwashed them into it without ever having them understand philosophy and the science behind it) should be very careful of their accusations.

Rand's Objectivism is the only philosophical system that does not present contradictions even at the most superficial of levels. Marx's entire position is contradictory and false in the first 5 paragraphs (much like the Unibomber’s manifesto which if you accept the premise, which is clearly and easily proven incorrect, is a brilliant piece of writing) and can be proven wrong by the statistics of the time, little own the historical evidence of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (both Socialist states). Kant tells us all that there is nothing real that it is all an illusion and even if it is real, we can't possibly trust our senses to tell us what is real and what isn't thus we're all clueless animals clawing along in the dark searching for something that we can never possibly know. Sorry, but that was disproved by Newton 200 years before Kant when he dropped an apple and using his senses determined the force of gravity and then used his intellect to figure out the mathematical equation that proves it absolutely and consistently 100% of the time. Einstein did the same with specific relativity 150 years later when he used math to reach an absolute, always correct equation that cannot be debated (E=mc^2) and then later scientists were able to use observational tests to prove that what Einstein predicted would be true as a result of that simple equation actually was true. (i.e. the speed of light isn't dependant on the observer and the incidental effect of the equation that matter gets more massive the closer to the speed of light it gets.) (I happen to have done several papers on Einstein, two of which I won awards for, so I know the math of both general and specific relativity and fully understand exactly what it all means, which I would guess most everyone reading this does not.)

So if you value your mind and believe that you are more than a beast and rail against the circular logic of religionism then your natural position is Objectivism. That is, if you believe that your mind can point out contradiction and that there is no such thing as a contradiction, then you must rule out all other philosophical systems, leaving you with Objectivism, which is the only philosophical system ever presented that has not been proven wrong, despite the best efforts of subjectivists and relgionists everywhere.

My position is one of deductive reasoning arrived at with an incredible background of knowledge of almost all of the alternatives, or at least all of the ones that we currently have. If you want to dismiss that because you prefer your own ignorance, so be it. But make no mistake, arguing that I am small minded is ridiculous when your background of knowledge is almost certainly smaller than mine in the field of philosophy and religion. (for all of the philosophical scholars in the room, I'm not talking to you and I would welcome a debate with you. We'll bring our proof and mentally joust.)

If you want to argue my points with a strong backing or even any evidence that I’m wrong, please do so. I will be happy to review your evidence and your position. If I think you’re right, I’ll admit it (I have done so in the past in these very forums.). If I think you’re wrong I’ll defend my position and give as much proof as I can, either logical proof or cold hard facts depending on the context of the disagreement. What I won’t put up with, is ignorant fools talking out of their ass with no knowledge of why they believe what they do beyond the superficial “I’m better than you because I help my fellow man” bullshit which amounts to a “blankout” as Rand would put it.
on Oct 18, 2005
Oh, and I've read Richard Bach (all of them ,not just Jonathan Livingston Seagull) so I have the Existentialists covered in this conversation too. It's just so completely and utterly surreal that it defies any possible argument even though all rational thought demands that it is false. End result, it's just yet another contradictory system of belief that seeks to destroy man's mind and his grasp on reality.
on Oct 18, 2005
I'm a very well read person on the beliefs of many of the Native people of North America,


i doubt the haudenosaunee would find much about rand worth emulating.
2 Pages1 2