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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 18, 2005
Hmmmm, in a senate where Harry Reid (D NV) and Orrin Hatch (R UT) are the same religion (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)... you have to kind of question your point. ;~D
on Oct 18, 2005
Rand's Objectivism is the only philosophical system that does not present contradictions even at the most superficial of levels.


Yes but she has no style. I refuse to accept the opinions of anyone who writes so poorly. At least Marx had some fire.

I'm glad you're certain though about what you choose to believe in, and in the certainty that all other belief systems are utterly unworthy. In the end though politics, like religion, is as much about faith as about fact. Sometimes believing in contradictions is just more fun.
on Oct 18, 2005

Just a suggestion:  Paragraphs are your friends, not enemies.

As to being well read, I would hazard a guess that includes most people here.  However, just because they did not read the same authors as you, does not make their views any less valid.  For you took all those authors to come up with a belief system, while I used others to come up with mine.  Since they are both 'belief' systems, and not 'emperical knowledge' systems, we can argue until you are blue in the face, but it will not make you more right than I.

I dispute your conclusions not because I read Herman Hesse instead of John Locke, but because I think your starting points are flawed to begin with.  Hence your conclusions are going to be flawed as well.

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.'
Hey, and I've got an Andy Warhol coffee-table book ... I guess that makes me an expert on postmodernism!

'Yes, my Husband, who has a PhD in Political Philosphy, (His doctoral thesis was on Eric Voegelin) and also taught the subject at the University where He studied for several years while doing post-graduate work. He thinks you're an idiot and that's good enough for me.'
You crack me up, LW - that's worth an insightful from me.
on Oct 18, 2005
LoL, but it's true! I am far too lazy a thinker to have any interest in philosophy


Can you think of any famous female philosophers? I think women tend to dwell more on the immediately relevant rather than the bigger picture or the more abstract.

I am often accused of being sexist but on the wrong side of sexism
on Oct 18, 2005
some point-by-point replies:

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?

This is relevant to what portion of the discussion?
Once you've committed to a difficult course of action, it is very important that you see it through. The negative effects of cutting out early are fairly obvious and significant. The difference between the democratic candidate and the republican candidate was over whether we should have gone in there in the first place.

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.


First, your use of the phrase "born-again nut" reveals your own disdain for people with religious convictions.
Second, I disagree with your characterization of the nominees as "take away basic human freedom types". John Roberts has painted himself as a constitutionalist. Harriet Miers, I will certainly agree, appears unqualified for the post, but to assume that she will work to take away "basic human rights" seems faintly ridiculous. Unless you consider abortion to be a "basic human right", which is more than faintly ridiculous.
Third, to claim that the goal is to "create a Christian state" is to ignore history, in which it is plainly obvious that the US has always been a Christian state.

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.


I believe the poster was drawing a distinction between the "jews and catholics" that are presumably republican, and the stereotypical WASP who would be democratic. You missed the mark on this one.

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)

The CATHOLIC church advocates against birth control. Catholicism is a minority in the religious spectrum of America, and as you point out above, Bush is a Protestant anyway. The "no abortion" issue is valid. Your theory re: Armageddon, however, smacks of tinfoil transmissions.
on Oct 22, 2005
'Can you think of any famous female philosophers? I think women tend to dwell more on the immediately relevant rather than the bigger picture or the more abstract'
You remind me of an old joke ...
Within [heterosexual] couples, it is usually the man who makes the important decisions - what political system is best, who should run the country, what the tax rate ought to be etc. This leaves the woman to make all the unimportant decisions - where they live, what they eat, where the kids go to school etc.
on Oct 22, 2005

I like Ayn Rand too, John Galt.  But trying to turn the political philosophies in her books into a real-world dogma is, IMO, not realistic.

I don't believe in universal altriusm by any means.  I don't believe that the wider world has any working concept of "fairness".  I don't operate that things should be "Fair" or that people should be altruistic.

However, I personally WANT to be fair and altruistic in my dealings with other people even if I don't expect or believe that the societies are capable of adhering to such principles.  I don't think that's a flaw in my character or in my philsophy.

on Oct 22, 2005

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.

I suspect I'm at least as well "read" as you are.  In my experience, only novice debaters start out by saying "You should listen to what I say because I am more educated than you are."  Perhaps when you've "read" more then you will realize how ineffective that tactic is in a debate.

Republicans and Democrats are quite different from each other.  They only seem similar if your political philosophy branches out in a direction that is vastly different than both.  After all, from Alpha Centauri, the Earth and Pluto must seem pretty darn close to each other.

on Oct 22, 2005
LW, I'll give you Ayn Rand, and maybe Virginia Wolfe (I'm not convinced I'd call her a philosopher) but I bet few people who haven't taken a Women's Philosophy course have ever heard of Julian OF Norwich or the rest. Good for you though.

I would bet good money that far more people know the likes of the following:

Socrates
Ockham
Pascal
Nietzsche
Heidegger
Machiavelli
Plato
Aristotle
on Oct 23, 2005

Heidegger

Never read him, but the rest are familiar.

2 Pages1 2