About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A major issue has been driving the majority of Objectivists and Republicans crazy this election season- "with the destruction of the WTC, and attack to the Pentagon on September 11th, and threat of nuclear attacks by North Korea, and Iran in the near future, how is it so hard for many Americans to understand the fact that we're at war?"

Honestly, this fact might actually be harder for many Americans to accept than one may think. Allow me to explain. And this election may be one of the most important we'll ever have.

It all began in 1776, during the beginning of the Revolutionary War- only around 36% of Americans were actually in SUPPORT of the war. As you know, from the success of the war rose the great United States of America. In the early 1830s, Andrew Jackson became president of the United States- running on a campaign of reintroducing Socialism to the citizens of the US, to which he sadly got virtually a standing ovation. To add insult to injury here, this was only 50 years after the Constitution was created. Anyway, Socialism in the USA became increasingly more and more prevalent as the years went by.

In 1929, after decades of intense Government interference, the increasing hand of Socialism hit a major epifone- the stock market crashed. Herbert Hoover was rightfully blamed for this.

By this point, you may already be asking "ok, what does this have to do with the terrorists?". I'm getting to that.

In the mid-'30s, FDR was elected into office, and being a Communist, took advantage of the built-up flaws in the American , and created a Welfare state. Several Americans DID in fact bring to the attention of the American people what was going on...but it was here, where the second big problem arose...America had become mired in Socialism for so long, they'd come to a point of basic denial to what was actually going on.

America has basically BEEN in that mode of denial ever since then, even though we have made significant improvements on the path back towards freedom.

As Morpheus said to Neo, in the Matrix: "If you take the red pill, you will return to sleep, and everything will be as it was. If you take the blue pill, you will see more". The basic symbolism of this was "one road leads right back to the denial you've tried to lead your entire life, the other road leads you to seeing the world for how it really is, and possibly doing something about it".

So now, having been in denial for around the past 60 years, America faces a very important choice this year. For the sake of the "colors" for the Kerry and Bush states they've been doing, I've decided to put it THIS way: Kerry states represent Blue, and Bush states represent Red.

On one end is Bush- while not the best of candidate, sadly flawed in many areas, in fact, he DOES however have the will and the intelligence to realize, yes, terrorists ARE trying to kill us, and we are at war, and must wipe out this threat. On the other end is Kerry, an Anti-American Liberal who you might as well offer the Communist Seal of Approval to. He believes in appeasement, and sees no real threat.

So the basics of it are this: the American people this year will have to make the hardest, and quite possibly one of the most difficult and painful decisions they will ever have to make, this Nov. 2nd- will we elect Senator Kerry, who IMHO, is an evil man( yes, I DO think so), and continue on with our path in denial, and possibly even back onto the path of Socialism we so long accepted....or will we re-elect Presient Bush, face the world for how it really is, and make it the better place we want it to be?

Truthfully, I may not have confidence in the human race to often, but I think Americans will make the right choice on Nov. 2nd. Yes, it will be one of the most painful decisions America will EVER face...facing that denial, and waking up to what really is...but America MUST do it if we want to win, live to see tomorrow, and MAKE the world the great place we expect it to be. It's just that simple.


Post 1

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 3:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For the sake of international security and stability, the world had better hope that the right man gets in.  There remains an incredible amount of work to be done in the Middle East/Asia and this will be an on-going to be an on-going issue for a few years yet.  Bush and Blair will be remembered in History, as politicians who put their reputations on the line and did what few genuinely great leaders would do.  They put international agenda above and beyond self interest and popularity.  They believed strongly enough in their convictions that they both put their careers on the line in taking their stands.  They chose the most controversial and potentially damaging political route, above and beyond self interest.  For once, these leaders behaved like leaders.  They ignored their own popularity to do what was right.
 
I have an enormous amount of respect for both of these leaders.
 
Although I am an athiest and strongly believe that any religious influenece should be banned from the both political and judicial arenas......I still back Bush.  Although I strongly agree with stem cell research......I still back Bush.  Although I vehemently support women who chose the option of abortion.......I would still back Bush.  I am not governed by self and agenda's which are not of immediate priority.  I believe in the immediate threat of and the urgent priority of international security. 
 
May the best leader win.


Post 2

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 3:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Although I am an athiest and strongly believe that any religious influenece should be banned from the both political and judicial arenas......I still back Bush.  Although I strongly agree with stem cell research......I still back Bush.  Although I vehemently support women who chose the option of abortion.......I would still back Bush.  I am not governed by self and agenda's which are not of immediate priority.  I believe in the immediate threat of and the urgent priority of international security. 
But what about those directly affected by a second Bush Administration's censorship, or abortion control, or sex-hatred, or police powers, or homophobia?

I feel far higher priority in security from this nation than security for this nation.

Will not an appeal to prudence split those of common political ideals along their position in American Society?  Most GLBTs and sex workers I know are very personally afraid of what Bush plus a republican congress might accomplish, not to mention the likelihood of a disastrous right-wing Supreme Court.

Claims of unity at war rest on the assumption of a common political allegiance.  But with politics split along the lines of a social war, with the Right allying the national loyalty to the support of a traditionalist America, a common nationality is defined in a way that forfeits any claims to the allegiance of Americans outside mainstream culture.

I simply cannot support any further 'patriotization' of American culture.  I lived in southwestern Virginia when 9/11 happened, and the cultural atmosphere suddenly became very cold to 'nonrespectable' types.  Conservatives, especially those of the Ashcroft variety, consider 'barbarians inside the gate' and barbarians outside the gate to be parallel evils, and they define both in opposition to an established national American culture which does not include those of us very, very grateful for the last 50 years of relative social tolerance.

If we make political decisions by calculation, how can I do otherwise that to take anyone as a leader over one sworn to rumble ahead the culture war juggernaught?  If Bush gets a culture mandate for the 'clash of civilizations' in the War on Terror, he gets a mandate for a culture war on American soil.  This is the precise political philosophy of those intellectuals, such as Francis Fukuyama and Richard Neuhaus, provided the foundations for Bush's polices.  I have no love for Kerry whatsoever; the man is patently scum, and I'm not voting for him.  But I am certainly praying that 'Not Bush' factually wins the elections.  I do not want to see a mandate for a broad cultural turnaround that will put the cultural world I love in terrible jeapordy.

My immediate priority is to avoid theocons, neocons, and Christian rightists in control of the imperial seat in Washington.  This is a sentiment that I know is shared by a lot of people in alternative subcultures, who are gay or lesbian, who work in the sex industry, etc.  These people may be extremely rational and individualistic.  Some identify as libertarians.  Few are enthusiastic about Kerry, but they feel they simply threatened with Bush in power.  Why, according to rational self-interest, should I or they feel otherwise?

my regards,

Jeanine Ring  ))(*)((
stand forth!



Post 3

Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 2:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Will you take the red pill or.... the other red pill?

Post 4

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine- I, myself, am no fan of the Christian Right. Being someone who is slowly becoming more of a moderate Republican- mostly in terms of fiscal conservative style. However, until this threat is wiped out, Abortion and Stem Cell Research are kinda the LAST things on my mind. After all, what good are those rights if we aren't alive to appreciate them, because a nuclear device has been activated? Besides, we have a prospective Republican candidate on the ballot for '08 that DOES back Gay marriage, Abortion, and Stem Cell Research- his name is Giuliani.

Post 5

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marty, Marty, Marty. I find your post overall offensive- it's like everything I said in my original post didn't even register with you. C'mon now. There IS a distinction between the two candidates- I put it bluntly. If you honestly can't see the difference...nah, forget it...I'm not gonna pull a low blow...

Post 6

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 4:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Russy Russy Russy"

You miss the point.

I said the red pill or the OTHER red pill.

Different red pills... yes they are DIFFERENT. They offer different illusions.

I don't say they are the same. They are not. Yes! There IS a distinction between them. But they both offer red pills of their own kind.

There you made me spell out my metephor to 4 year old level - thus destroying its snappyness... happy?

Post 7

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 10:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marty...Marty...Marty...please highlight these different illusions for me. I know John Kerry's, but I don't see how Bush is under an "illusion". Since you feel so compelled to call it "spelling it out as if you're talking to a 4-year-old", then go ahead and do just that :)

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.