Test your IQ

[ormonde]

If you’ve read George Orwell’s Animal Farm which he wrote in the mid-1940s, it was a satire on the Soviet Union, a totalitarian state. It was a big hit. Everybody loved it. Turns out he wrote an introduction to Animal Farm which was suppressed. It only appeared 30 years later. Someone had found it in his papers. The introduction to Animal Farm was about "Literary Censorship in England" and what it says is that obviously this book is ridiculing the Soviet Union and its totalitarian structure. But he said England is not all that different. We don’t have the KGB on our neck, but the end result comes out pretty much the same. People who have independent ideas or who think the wrong kind of thoughts are cut out.

[Quality's Proof]

Originally posted by ormonde

Remember after the American Revolution, it was perceived by the people that they did not want to be ruled by a King, but by "Countrymen like us" was the notion. It was never intended to be a democracy in the true sense, hence a Republic was born. Now it seems that some of the "Countrymen" have turned into the "Kings". [/B]

Besides "true Democracy" being an oxymoron (no truth in democracy)

Yes, a republic. Democracy, is very much flawed, as it is predicated upon that which is not fair. The original plan was that the country was to be governmentally ruled by the brilliant (as a minimum), and only with that as the qualifier, the "philosophic elect", it once was planned. As, it is more difficult to bribe, influence, corrupt, blackmail, etc., the brilliant, and hence the people are treated more fairly, as the brilliant tend not to put business ahead of the people, Or so, the papers say as to the actual plan for independence.

I have never heard of a democracy lasting for very long (several hundreds of years). Democracy is a Grecian thing (commerce), Cain, etc., and hence the democracy wars, as : wars make (mask) much profits for commerce.

[rsquirell]

Agreed...Plato's democracy lasts only as long as it takes for someone to figure out that the majority can vote to take away the minority's property and enslave them. That's what happened with "Shay's Rebellion"...which, of course, forced the constitutional convention. Democracies never last long (even in Greece). Although a product of Locke's enlightenment, the Republic is very much a Roman thing...which lasted several hundred years...and could only torn down from within when Julius Caesar declared himself the Emporer. The body of the constitution goes over the structure of the government to provide the necessary safeguards by setting up checks and balances to prevent too much power falling into the hands of one man...or an "elite" few. This is why they tried to deversify that power by creating 3 branches of Government...the Executive (President), Legislative, and Judicial...each with the power to oversee the actions of the other two. The "Framers" were very paranoid someone might take over and set up a dictatorship. They deliberately set it up so it was extremely difficult for anyone to get anything done...they felt that government that governs least governs best. They even broke the legislature into 2 branches...with the House of Representatives elected every two years (to get a "populist" feel for what the people were thinking...balanced by the Senate...with the Senators APPOINTED by each state's govenor...to represent the State's regional interest as well as to quash or slow down any populist uprising the emotional masses might be swayed into at the moment. Originally, the only people who were allowed to vote were white, male property owners who would be paying the taxes to keep the government functioning. Black male property owners won the vote after the civil war. Then, one of the constitution's safeguards was eliminated by Wilson's 17th amendment when Senators ceased to be appointed, and were elected by the masses. This gave the Senate a populist "feel"...and instead of Senators being replaced at the end of their terms when a new govenor was elected in the state, a new class of "career politician" was born of a few "elitists" who have only their own career in mind, and to hell with the interests of the State (or the region's people.)

[rsquirell]

Rome grew strong under the Republic...but stagnated and collapsed under the dictatorship of the Emporers (once the people felt they weren't going to war or doing things for themselves...but for some self-rightous twit in Rome.) That's what enraged me during Clinton's Impeachment. By refusing to hear the House Managers present the evidence and make their case, these "Elitist" Senators (and that "Elitist" Supreme Court (appointed for life) Justice presiding over the case...representing the Judicial Branch) turned the trial into a sham. By refusing to hear the evidence that the President committed a FELONY the "Elitist" Senate and the "Elitist" Judiciary reneged its DUTY to oversee the Presidency...and by saying it's alright for a President to commit Perjury and Obstruct Justice (because we like him) they gave the Presidency the right to Perjur and Obstruct Justice...and with those "tools" a President, ANY President, can thwart ANY investigation into his activities of ANY crime. The "Elitist" Senate and the "Elitist" Judiciary turned my Republic into a Dictatorship. Animal House very much describes what's going on in this country since the Clinton's...with "political correctness" and "Diversity uber alles" the rule...in "elitist" circles...on campus. Thank your lucky stars that GW hasn't elected to use his dictatorial powers, and allows you your "free speech" right of dissent (which really doesn't exist, anymore...since the Constitution was gutted by the Impeachment "Trial")...mainly because he wants to try to preserve our Constitution the way it was...and correct the damage (if that's possible). The Democrats warned the Republicans they would pay a heavy price at the polls for bringing the Impeachment...but the Republicans did their DUTY...and brought the action anyway... and , so far, the only people paying the price have been the Democrats.

[ormonde]

It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need. In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licineus Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of it's worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private land holder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero. In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan. Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. But Spartacus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Spartacus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom. Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Spartacus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Spartacus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Spartacus had no choice but to march on Rome. Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus' army and even though Pompey took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year. With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome. The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.

[rsquirell]

Basically true...the details about Sparticus not exactly what happened...but the result was still a dictatorship (which wasn't immediately appearant to the masses, because they continued the Hoax by having elections and maintaining the Senate ( which was now subordinated to the Caesar.) The masses didn't really figure out they didn't have a republic for quite a while...and that SPQR (Senate /People/Of/ Rome) was just an empty promise on a standard carried before them in battle.

[ormonde]

But the basic concept of "Inventing" certain enemies for the sake of political gain still holds true today.

[rsquirell]

"The greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie-deliberate, contrived and dishonest-but the myth-persistant, persuasive and unrealistic."...JFK (the REAL one) June 11, 1962

[ormonde]

And remember, "We have nothing to fear–except fear itself" (FDR) Well, the concept of "Fear" has certainly been exploited.

[rsquirell]

I must confess I got my quote from the attached file I found on the web. I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of the information contained therein...but it certainly gives a contrast to the bubbling, fawning idolotry that textbooks say about FDR. The truth? Who knows. My Dad was a technical advisor (Tech Rep) for Boeing to SAC, and he, as well as many SAC Officers, felt that the whole "Cold War" had been cooked up by FDR and Stalin at Yalta in order to continue the conditions necessary to grow government (war being the only thing that pulled the country out of the depression...and the only thing that government can do better than the private sector.) That in mind...SAC was determined to be sharp and ready to go to hold up their end of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)...just in case it for real. Knowing your interest in Haiti, ormonde, you might want to look at FDR's activities there...for something like that you should be able to find confirmation by an independent source on the web.

[ormonde]

"he, as well as many SAC Officers, felt that the whole "Cold War" had been cooked up by FDR and Stalin at Yalta in order to continue the conditions necessary to grow government (war being the only thing that pulled the country out of the depression"

Oh most definitely. Remember, there had to be a new paradigm after WWII. Mainly, so that we would not sink back into the "Great Depression" again (which could have happened very easily). Remember, in the 1930's, the state capitalist system came close to grinding to a halt. The "New Deal" measures were totally ineffective. There were still 9 million unemployed by 1939. Then the war came along, and the war taught a lesson which was known as "Keynesian economics", meaning that if the government organized production and directed massive public subsides into production-that could rescue the capitalism economy from collapse. That lesson was taught to corporate managers who flooded into Washington to run the war-time economy. They left the experience with a firm conviction that the government was going to have to maintain public subsidy to advanced industry in order for it to survive. In the late 1940's after the war, there was enough pint up demand for consumption, so there was no threat of a problem arising. But by 1949, the signs of recession were very clear, and there was a great concern that we were heading right back into the great depression again, which was a very serious matter. So by 1950, it was recognized that there had to be another major government stimulus. The major "Cold War" document, which everybody agrees now in retrospect, was "NSC 68" in 1950 a couple of months before the Korean War. That was a "Top Secret" document that was later accepted as government policy. It essentially called for "War" (we are at war with the Soviet Union). You should read it, if you haven't already. It called for a huge increase in armaments and basically quadrupling military spending. The U.S. was already at that time far and away in the lead on military spending (spending about twice the amount the Russians were). That impressed the point that military expenditures would re-vitalize the economy. NSC 68 also stated that we would have to have sacrifices, and cut back on civil liberties and such. Also, about that time the "Marshall Plan" was coming to a close and had really not achieved it's objectives. So, another system was needed to recreate the industrial systems in Japan and Europe, which we obviously needed as our trading partners. And again, the system was centered around "Militarization". It was "Arms" that drove the post-war economies.

[rsquirell]

I have a hard time following the drivel...John Maynard Keynes was an economist FDR used to justify his communistic approach to "stimulate" the economy...which didn't work. By raising taxes 900% on the rich the rich simply put their money in their mattresses, didn't invest, create jobs or do anything while they waited for FDR to disappear. WW-II scared them, when it became appearant we could actually lose that war, and then...and only then, they came off their cash, and BOOM...overnight the factories were at full-capacity. The economy was on its way to recovery when FDR was elected...but his actions by raising taxes prolonged the depression. Nothing FDR did worked...and he didn't create factory jobs...his jobs were public make-work jobs (the CCC, WPA,etc.) Never read NSC68...but 1950 would put it during the Truman administration. Aerospace was definitely the place to be in the 40's, 50's, and 60's...and Dad positioned himself to take advantage of it. Keynes was discredited during the 40's (WW-II)...and wasn't even in the economic textbooks of the sixties...except for as a curious footnote in history.

[ormonde]

Oh I agree with the depiction of FDR. But it was the corporations, (the likes of GM and Ford) that ran the war from our end. It had nothing to do with the "New Deal" measures. The point is, if public subsidy didn't exist, we'd be right back into a great depression. And by "Arms", I mean that "Collectively" to include High Tech industry. For example, take computers, which are right at the core of a modern economy. During the 1950's, computers were not at a level where they could be sold on the commercial market, so the public paid for 100% of the development cost. It was public money that was funneled through the Pentagon. by the 1960's, computers had become marketable to a small extent. So then, about 50% of public money paid for the research. By the 1980's, when it was necessary it start a new generation of machines (new semi-conductor technology) the total expenses shifted back to the public. This method sums up our economic system. It’s the corporations that have the control. All the government does is just “Fund” them-with “Our” money.

[rsquirell]

I think you need to take an economics course, or two. The government doesn't fund research and development...companies do...and when Dan Rostenkowski (D/Il) ( then Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee/now convicted felon) eliminated the R&D deduction in the 1987 TEFRA tax bill, R&D came to a screaching halt.

[ormonde]

Well, where did all the money come from to "create" the public airwaves for example. It wasn't "The Companies". It was your money and my money. The companies were "Gifted" the right to take control. This is well understood. I don't know how many paychecks that you have received, but all the ones I've ever received have "Federal Withholding" as the largest sum taken out. Where does "Most" of that money go? Well, it goes via the Pentagon and then given to the "Companies" (not "All" companies of course), but all the ones that control our resources.