 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
We also cannot deny that our foreign policy specifically and the state generally exhibits a strong streak of narcissism and a scary superiority complex. This is not new for the patient, but these symptoms became more marked during and after the Civil War. When a child exhibits narcissism and feels superior to his peers and others, generally we credit lenient and indulgent parenting. The parent of state, and its foreign policy, was the Constitution, but it passed away quietly decades ago, after a long illness. Apparently no one recognized this, as the state made, and continues to make, constant references to the Constitution even as it runs far afield of its words and spirit.
Those are the words of my preferred V.P., the person I thought would compliment my regime during my campaign (on-line) for president of the Limited Liability Corporate Nation State (here in North America).
I stopped reading that link, those words, at the quote above and at that point I began typing this response for a reason. The reason is to link those words with words written in a book that I am currently reading. I’ll link to the book and then I’ll quote the words next.
http://www.amazon.com/Failed-States-Assault-Democracy-American/dp/0805079122
Jacksonian Democrats worked hard to shift the laws of political gravitation, matters discussed in another important scholarly work that Gaddis cites, by Thomas Heitala. What Gaddis omits is again informative. Hietala describes the efforts of the Jacksonians to gain a monopoly over cotton, which played roughly the same role in the industrial economies as petroleum does today. “By securing the virtual monopoly of the cotton plant,” President Tyler observed after the annexation of Texas in 1845 and the conquest of almost half of Mexico, the United States had acquired “a greater influence over the affairs of the world than would be found in armies however strong, or navies however numerous.” He went on to say that the monopoly over cotton “now secured, places all other nations at our feet…. An embargo of a single year would produce in Europe a greater amount of suffering than a fifty years’ war. I doubt whether Great Britain could avoid convulsions.” President Polk’s secretary of the Treasure informed Congress that the conquests would guarantee “the command of the trade of the world.” The same monopoly power neutralized British opposition to the takeover of the Oregon Territory - title to which had been granted by the will of God, Adams informed congress, echoing sentiments that had be then become almost a cliché.
I’m very much in agreement with my preferred V.P. Karen Kwiatkowski and this illustration of narcissism attributed to The U.S.A., where the idea is to see how the State behaves badly, as “it” goes around torturing and mass murdering for profit. The State, if it were a single human being, is a very bad criminal, since “it” behaves no differently than a serial killer, a torturing mass murdering sociopath.
I get that part.
The part that appears to be missing is the part where specific people do specific things so as to accomplish specific goals at specific times in specific places. Once the reasons for these sociopathic criminal thoughts and actions are accurately identified, the observer of this phenomenon can then reasonably predict what the sociopaths will do next, and by that power, it seems to me, a reasonable defense can be dreamed up and executed.
What do you think?
Example:
If those bad guys and gals really do find it to be in their best interest to secure power in all its forms (psychological and psychical power: political and economic power), then us guys and gals, the defenders of liberty and all, must figure out why they do it.
Why do the bad guys consistently plan on and then execute the plan to secure power in all its forms?
What is the reasoning behind this madness?
If the good people, the ones who defend liberty and all that, can see why power in so interesting, then perhaps the good people may also see the necessity of gaining that power stuff – in all its forms.
Now the conflict becomes more obvious, it seems to me, and it may be a good idea to begin plans that intend to secure power for us good people sooner rather than too late, leaving one possible sore point. How do we get power, and what are we willing to do to get power, and what exactly isn’t on the list of things that we should do, as we contemplate the path ahead, the path that leads to power-independence.
In other words: do we have to join them to beat them?
Do we have to become that which we abhor?
Is it really necessary, in this quest for power, to injure innocent people in the process?
The answer is clearly no. No, people, we do not have to plan on and follow through with the plan to injure innocent people for anything, let alone our dreams of prosperity for posterity. Liberty does not demand sacrifice of the innocent.
Liberty does however require that the liberated ones gain power over the criminals, even the criminals who don the sheep suit.
I’ll go back to reading my preferred V.P.’s commentary. Had I gained the power to contend for and gain the job of President of the United States of America, I’d have been in a position to have a talk with Dear Karen Kwiatkowski. We would have had to discuss these things in detail, and I think it would have been important to document such things and even broadcast the exchange on the network.
“The President Show” playing all day long – now that would be “transparent”.
Last edited on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 12:23 pm by Joe Kelley