The Fatal Sequence Known As The Tytler Cycle

Progression through the Fatal Sequence that leads to the death of all democracies a smooth and measured march towards entropy. It seems, if history is any judge, to happen in fits and starts with societies staying at one point then lurching forward again.

Interestingly, the Tytler Cycle was no part of Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser Tytler’s written works though it does perfectly fit them, especially his Universal History.

Where America is within the Tytler Cycle is open to some debate. This is, in no small part, because of a trend started in the latter half of the twentieth century to divide and fragment America for the dubious sake of cultural diversity. America being now more than one People is at multiple points in the cycle – but all are further along the path back to Bondage than Liberty –> Abundance.

Can we move backward along the path of the Tytler Cycle? I think it’s possible. Will we as a people do so? I doubt it; it doesn’t seem to be in human nature to do so.

Sometimes maintaining liberty carries with it a great weight of inconvenience to the sensibilities of the individual members of the populace who cannot see the benefit to upholding the guiding principles of our great nation when doing so places, or seems to place, our way of life in jeopardy.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

– Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Archibald Stuart, Dec 23, 1791

The SCOTUS’ decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruled and struck down most of the federal laws limiting corporations and labor unions from using their own wealth to fund or create and disseminate political messages and/or ads during elections as being unconstitutional and in contravention of the 1st Amendment thereof.  The effects of this decision, given human nature, are very likely to be an “inconvenience” brought on the common man by too much liberty.

I, for one, certainly do not relish the thought of the media being inundated by political ads by corporations during each and every election cycle. Nor am I in any way sanguine about how that could effect the outcomes of those elections. Even more so, I  do not relish experiencing the same thing from the labor unions and believe such electioneering ads would be far more likely to come from them than from corporations.

Yet, after reading the Courts decision and opinion, those of the previous cases they cited, and the body of law in question (US Code Title 2, Chapter 14, Subchapter I , § 441b), I am forced to agree with them. Removing the ban on both corporations and labor unions was the only constitutionally correct decision that the SCOTUS could render. The issues that may arise from maintaining Freedom of Speech are far less detrimental than those that would certainly arise from hampering or chilling it.

The protests at the Town Halls all across our nation are working. The voices of the American people, raised in anger and outrage, are loud enough to be heard over the lies of President Obama, his Liberals, and his pet media – which looks like it may be turning on him at last – and are being heard and listened to across America.

According to USA Today:

The raucous protests at congressional town-hall-style meetings have succeeded in fueling opposition to proposed health care bills among some Americans, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — particularly among the independents who tend to be at the center of political debates.

In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say demonstrations at the hometown sessions have made them more sympathetic to the protesters’ views; 21% say they are less sympathetic.

Independents by 2-to-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now.

The findings are unwelcome news for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, who have scrambled to respond to the protests and in some cases even to be heard. From Pennsylvania to Texas, those who oppose plans to overhaul the health care system have asked aggressive questions and staged noisy demonstrations.

As it is said, Truth Will Out, and the truth is that President Obama and his Liberals do not have answers to hard questions being asked by the American people. They have no answers. They have no plan at this point beyond spending trillions of dollars of the American people’s money and consolidating more and more power into their own hands in the federal government – admittedly, possibly with the best of intentions.

The groundwork of mischief is this. A man fancies that he knows what is best for other men; that he is better acquainted with their sources of happiness than they can be; that he has more appropriate knowledge, and having more power, that he can turn his knowledge to good account on their behalf. He has formed his own estimate of good he is thoroughly persuaded that such and such a thing is good, and being good, he will compel others to receive and to adopt it, because it is good, and because he knows, from experience, it is so.

Yet despotism never takes a worse shape than when it comes in the guise of benevolence; and is never more dangerous than when it acts under the impression that it represents beneficence.

– Jeremy Bentham
Deontology; or, The Science of Morality

At this juncture in time, with the future of our children and our children’s children at stake, we Americans must stand firm. We must hold the line against the Liberals and their plans for “rebuilding” America into something that is only recognizable as a misborn offspring of nations and evil ideologies that we have time and again defeated before. We must not waver and allow Liberty to perish from the Earth.

Stand firm. Hold the line. Much as the men on the beaches of Dunkirk, we must not surrender no matter the cost. We may be defeated and destroyed, but if not…

The Revolt of the Elites is, at best, a disturbing and difficult work to read. Irrespective of your political philosophies, you will likely be bothered and/or offended by some of Lasch’s assertions and conclusions that a presented in this book.

It’s an important work though and well worth the effort and pain it takes to read it.

In “the Revolt of the Elites” Christoper Lasch powerfully and persuasively contends that that the values and attitudes of professional and managerial elites and those of the working classes have dramatically diverged. Although the claim is controverted, many of us on the right (especially social conservatives) agree with the quasi-populist/communitarian notion that democracy works best when all members of society can participate in a world of upward mobility and of achievable status. In such a world, members of society will perceive themselves as belonging to the same team and care about ensuring that that team succeeds. But how can society achieve this sort of mutual interdependence if its members are not part of a community of shared values? As Christopher Lasch explains: “[T]he new elites, the professional classes in particular, regard the masses with mingled scorn and apprehension.” For too many of these elites, the values of “Middle America” – a/k/a “fly-over country” – are mindless patriotism, religious fundamentalism, racism, homophobia, and retrograde views of women. “Middle Americans, as they appear to the makers of educated opinion, are hopelessly shabby, unfashionable, and provincial, ill informed about changes in taste or intellectual trends, addicted to trashy novels of romance and adventure, and stupefied by prolonged exposure to television. They are at once absurd and vaguely menacing.” (28)

The tension between elite and non-elite attitudes is most pronounced with respect to religious belief. While our society admittedly is increasingly pluralistic, “the democratic reality, even, if you will, the raw demographic reality,” as Father Neuhaus has observed, “is that most Americans derive their values and visions from the biblical tradition.” Yet, Lasch points out, elite attitudes towards religion are increasingly hostile: “A skeptical, iconoclastic state of mind is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the knowledge classes. … The elites’ attitude to religion ranges from indifference to active hostility.” (215)

Lash claims that the divergence in elite and non-elite attitudes is troubling for the future of democracy. Its hard for me to gainsay him. Yet, while “The Revolt of the Elites” is sobering – even a tad depressing – it deserves to be read even more widely than it has been. Lasch is no partisan. Conservative proponents of unfettered capitalism get bashed about the head by Lasch just as much as liberal critics of capitalism. Populists will find themselves nodding in agreement with some sections, while communitarians will concur with other sections. About the only folks who will be offended by all of “The Revolt of the Elites” are hardened libertarians and extreme left-liberals.

– Stephen M. Bainbridge

Christopher Lasch’s final question in this work, which was the last of his to be published during his lifetime, was a very important and chilling one: can a society survive when a significant portion of its elite have forsaken its founding principles?

Still, this particular Congress definitely needs more remedial education in both representative democracy and their elected job duties.

Read Bills Before Voting On Them, Dunce!

Of course this sort of gross stupidity combined with selfishness and outright treason against the ideals of America is what one has to come to expect do to our failings. It is our – the American people’s – fault that Congress behaves as it does; we’ve let them get away with such things and to feel safe doing so.

We the People need to stand up for ourselves and make our displeasure and rage be known. We must do whatever is needful to convince the politicians to once more fear our wrath.

Use small words though. As I said, these are not the brightest people in America. Gods Above and Below! Do they have “Special Ed” programs for politicians?

Since the summer of 1777, Independence Day, aka the Fourth of July, has been a time of joyous celebration of America’s creation and of freedom from tyranny. Flags, parades, parties, picnics, family gatherings, and something resembling fireworks have graced this American holiday since its beginning.

Can this, the 232^nd American Independence Day be a joyous celebration though? Should it be, given what has been already and is being done to America by President Obama and his cabal of Liberals among the Democratic Party?

Shouldn’t this day be either a day of mourning for Americans or a day of angry defiance? Should we patriots not either reflect upon the fact that we ousted a tyrant in 1776 to birth a nation but allowed a worse despot to take the reins of power in 2009, or gather together to shout out our just rage and swear to end this villainy so that we can rebuild America once more?

While the Liberals hold their gloating fetes under Old Glory – to her shame, should not Americans either fly our flag at half-staff in mourning or, as is set forth in Title 36, U.S.C., Chapter 10, §176, upside down (union down) as a signal of our defiance and dire distress?

~*~

The great nation of the United States of America lasted for a while, probably longer than our Founding Fathers expected. For 233 years, from 1776 to 2008, she shone as a beacon of freedom, industry, and prosperity in a more and more benighted world. Now the Liberal maggots rejoice as they squirm in an orgy of destruction as they feast upon her corpse.

It behooves those of us who were raised to be Americans to accept the sad and horrid fact that our nation has run its course. A new thing, cancerous and vile, has arisen from its ravished remains and it is recognizable only in its mockery.

We Americans must now choose: we can go gently into that long night; we can strive to rebuild what has been lost, stolen, or raped from us; or we can accept our loss, but wreak such vengeance upon our enemies that the world learn the price of evil.

Obama, Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and Zelaya – Birds of a Feather

On Tuesday, June 30, 2009, under the direction of President Obama, the United States co-sponsored legislation with Marxist regimes of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia in solidarity with- and support of the recently ousted Socialist leader and would-be Leftist dictator Manuel Zelaya of Honduras.

As reported by The Hill:

The U.S. co-sponsored a successful U.N. resolution supporting Honduras’s ousted leader Tuesday as Republicans began to speak out against the Obama administration’s condemnation of the overthrow.

Manuel Zelaya, who was arrested and forced into exile Sunday, addressed the U.N. General Assembly after the unanimous vote on the resolution sponsored in part by Bolivia, Mexico, Venezuela and the United States.

“The resolution that the United Nations has just adopted unanimously … expresses the indignation of the people of Honduras and the people worldwide,” said Zelaya, who began his speech by thanking Venezuela and Ecuador.

President Obama, meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe on Monday, said the U.S. would “stand with democracy” in the face of the overthrow.

H/T to Gateway Pundit

Those were very stirring words spewing from Obama’s mouth. He’s standing with democracy in the face of a military coup. That sounds so American. It’s a shame for America that these words are, like most of what issues from Obama’s craw, lies and falsehoods.

President Zelaya of Honduras was in his last constitutionally allowed term in office as President. This bothered him since he wanted to remain in power longer.

So Zelaya decided to change the Honduran constitution. He attempted to hold a referendum in June to decide about convening a Constitutional National Assembly to approve a new Constitution that would eliminate the problematical term limits. He attempted this despite the fact that the Honduran Constitution expressly forbid such changes being made to it.

The Honduran Constitution, approved in 1982 as the nation was recovering from two decades of nearly uninterrupted military dictatorships, states that any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years.

The Honduran Supreme Court, the Congress of Honduras, the Attorney General of Honduras, and the top national electoral body all ruled that the referendum as demanded by Zelaya was unconstitutional and illegal. Zelaya, with the backing of Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, defied the Honduran court and held the referendum vote anyway.

When Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, the Congressional appointed head of the Honduran  Armed Forces, refused to violate Honduran law by passing out the ballots Zelaya fired him and moved more “cooperative” people into command of  the Honduran military.

From Yahoo! News:

Government supporters began distributing ballots at 15,000 voting stations across the country, defying a Supreme Court ruling declaring Sunday’s referendum illegal and ordering all election material confiscated. President Manuel Zelaya had led thousands of supporters to recover the material from an air force warehouse before it could be confiscated.

Under Honduran law, soldiers are normally responsible for distributing ballots ahead of elections, but the military leadership has opposed the vote. Zelaya has fired the military chief for refusing to support the referendum and vows to ignore a Supreme Court ruling ordering him reinstated.

At this point the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras, faced with a President who was acting in direct violation of the Honduran Constitution and the nation’s laws, sent loyal troops to arrest Zelaya and exile him to Costa Rica, a neutral country in this matter.

~*~

Can any real American honestly say that siding with a President who directly violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the Congress of his nation in order to illegally extend the duration of his regime as standing with democracy in the face of the overthrow?

But this is President Obama we’re talking about. His beliefs rarely seem to coincide with those of Americans and he seems to have rarely met a Leftist that he didn’t like.

One has to wonder – just a little bit – if his support for Zelaya is a harbinger of America’s future when we finally remove Obama from power, whether it be through election, term limits, impeachment, or otherwise…

He’s caught more than a little flak over his silence on the issue of Iranian democracy and freedom.

A large contingent of both those on the Left and on the Right have been voicing their outrage over President Obama’s non-position on the Iranian election results and aftermath. This seems to me to be the only recent example of real bipartisanship I’ve seen in America recently.

 
 
 
Ahmadinejad
vs.
Mousavi
 
 
 

It’s a shame that much of this outrage is flawed and based upon false beliefs and misunderstanding of the world as it stands today.

American Interests

It is better in a political sense for America, Israel, and the rest of us our titular allies if the mad dog, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains as President of Iran for the moment – much, much better though these words taste bitter upon my tongue.

No matter who is called the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hossein Mousavi, neither is the true Head of State of Iran. The Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holds that position and he, along with the Ayatollahs on the Guardian Council, decides foreign policy and all other important matters.

The current crisis doesn’t seem to change that.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a vermin out of nightmare given flesh in the vague and imperfect semblance of Man. The bulk of the Civilized World loathes him and are willing to work against him. Even the Arab Nations – admittedly for their own far less than savory or worthy reasons – are willing to side against Ahmadinejad.

Hossein Mousavi, though no pro-Western “saint” or foreign policy “reformist,” is is man possessed of charisma and reason. He would put a “kinder and gentler” face upon the Ayatollahs’ regime. This would make it far harder for the American government to convince the rest of the world to enforce the sanctions – and possibly sterner measures – needed to convince the the Ayatollahs to abandon their doomsday project of nuclear weaponry.

~*~

So I must ask my fellow Conservatives who have chosen to deride President Obama over his effective silence on the matter of the Iranian election and its aftermath if they are willing to put their love of Democracy over what is best for America and her allies.

If you say Democracy and the ideals of our constitution comes 1st, I must then ask you what your stance on renditions, Miranda rights for enemy combatants in Afghanistan, and Torture are.

I must also ask the Liberals who have chosen to deride President Obama over his effective silence on the matter of the Iranian election and its aftermath if they are willing to put their love of Democracy over what is best for America and her allies.

If you say Democracy and the ideals of our constitution comes 1st, I must then ask you what price you are willing to impose upon America and Civilized World for the sake of your ideals.

As is so often the case the ideals of people are cast into the crucible of reality. It would be best if we all used this an example of the conflict between protecting one’s own from destruction and adhering to our personal ideals. We just might have more understanding and less hate for each other.

If someone gathered together the names, addresses and signatures of tens of thousands of queers and those who support the legislated acceptance of their chosen lifestyle and made such information public the storm of litigation and outrage such an act would raise would be overwhelming. But apparently it’s perfectly OK for faggots to do that very thing to Americans who do not vote in favor of pro-queer legislation or who initiate legislation that queers don’t like.

A group of queers calling themselves KnowThyNeighbor.org didn’t like the fact that Americans in Arkansas initiated and got approved a 2008 ballot resolution – the Unmarried Couple Adoption Ban (Act 1) – that made it illegal for any individuals – irrespective of sexual preferences – cohabiting outside of a valid marriage to adopt or provide foster care to minors.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:

Section 1: Adoption and foster care of minors.

(a) A minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state.

(b) The prohibition of this section applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals.

Section 2: Guardianship of minors.
This act will not affect the guardianship of minors.

Section 3: Definition.
As used in this act, “minor” means an individual under the age of eighteen (18) years.

Section 4: Public policy.
The public policy of the state is to favor marriage, as defined by the constitution and laws of this state, over unmarried cohabitation with regard to adoption and foster care.

Section 5: Finding and declaration.
The people of Arkansas find and declare that it is in the best interest of children in need of adoption or foster care to be reared in homes in which adoptive or foster parents are not cohabiting outside of marriage.

Section 6: Regulations:
The Director of the Department of Human Services, or the successor agency or agencies responsible for adoption and foster care, shall promulgate regulations consistent with this act.

Section 7: Prospective application and effective date.
This act applies prospectively beginning on January 1, 2009.

So the very angry faggots at KnowThyNeighbor got copies of the original petition that initiated the Arkansas ballot initiative and entered all the information – including reasonable quality scanned images of the Americans’ signatures – of the approximately 83,000 Americans who signed it into a searchable database and posted it on their site.

The only two purposes for such an act are to intimidate Americans into never speaking out against anything that the queers want to do, and to facilitate reprisals against the persons and property of the Americans who exercised their constitutional right to initiate legislation. As we have seen in post Prop 8 California, such reprisals are likely to happen and are likely to include instances of violence against both people and their property.

Suddenly the hype about the “gay agenda” and what queers will do to further it doesn’t seem quite so far-fetched anymore, does it? Maybe the AFA wasn’t as wrong as many of us wanted to believe.

Would anyone care to hazard a guess about what would happen to anyone who made a similar database of the names, addresses, and signatures of the queers and their supporters who signed any of the petitions that started the various Gay Marriage laws? But then hunting down queers is wrong, whereas doing the same to heterosexuals is “activism.”

Given the pork-laden nature of this Stimulus Package, and the fact that it’s nothing more than a Liberal wish-list being foisted upon Americans under the guise of economic repair, I’m not sure that Obama is going to go about selling this in the right way. President Obama may be too urban – and too urbane – to use the tried and true method of calling the herd to the trough.

Doris Probst: 2008 IL State Fair Hog Calling Champion

Maybe one of his fellow Illinoisans, Doris Probst, could lend our President a hand with this effort. She has a proven track record, as can been seen above, and I think she’d be a great asset to Obama when it comes to calling his faithful following.